AGRD05-23 Guide To Road Design Part-5 Drainage General and Hydrology Considerations

© Austroads Ltd 2023 | This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.
Sydney 2023
Guide to Road Design Part 5:
Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations
Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations
Edition 4.0 prepared by: William Weeks, Mark Babister, Monique Retallick Publisher
with assistance from Mikayla Ward, Bronte Board and Thomas Allingham
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 570 George Street
Edition 4.0 project manager: Chris Russell Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
Abstract
austroads@austroads.com.au
The Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology www.austroads.com.au
Considerations provides road designers and other practitioners with guidance
on the design of drainage systems. About Austroads
Edition 4.0 of the Guide incorporates the latest flow estimation techniques Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
from Australian Rainfall and Runoff released in 2019. road transport and traffic agencies.
This Guide needs to be used in conjunction with the other two Parts of the Austroads’ purpose is to support our member
Guide to Road Design that relate to drainage design: organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
• Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Network, Basins and Subsurface.
undertake leading-edge road and transport
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodway Crossings. research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the
design, construction and management of the road
network and its associated infrastructure.
Keywords
Austroads provides a collective approach that
Safety, environment, climate change, fauna crossings, pollution control, water delivers value for money, encourages shared
sensitive design, erosion, sediment, backwater, tidal water, drainage knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
immunity, freeboard, operations, maintenance, hydrology, Rational Method,
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
time of concentration, run-off coefficient, rainfall, hazard
senior executive representatives from each of its
eleven member organisations:
Edition 4.0 published January 2023

• Transport for NSW
Edition 4.0 incorporates the latest flow estimation techniques from Australian • Department of Transport and Planning Victoria
Rainfall and Runoff released in 2019.
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Edition 3.2 published February 2021 Roads
Edition 3.2 replaces Figure 1.1 and provides additional guidance added to • Main Roads Western Australia
Section 4.2 regarding motorcycles. • Department for Infrastructure and Transport
South Australia
Edition 3.1 published August 2018
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
Edition 3.0 published May 2013
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Logistics Northern Territory
ISBN 978-1-922700-76-6
• Transport Canberra and City Services
Austroads Project No. SRD6219 Pages 350 Directorate, Australian Capital Territory
Austroads Publication No. AGRD05-23 • Department of Infrastructure, Transport,

Regional Development, Communications and
the Arts
© Austroads Ltd 2023 • Australian Local Government Association
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the • Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without
the prior written permission of Austroads.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide only. Austroads has taken care to ensure that this publication is correct at
the time of publication. Austroads does not make any representations or warrant that the Guide is free from error, is current, or,
where used, will ensure compliance with any legislative, regulatory or general law requirements. Austroads expressly disclaims all
and any guarantees, undertakings and warranties, expressed or implied, and is not liable, including for negligence, for any loss
(incidental or consequential), injury, damage or any other consequences arising directly or indirectly from the use of this Guide.
Where third party information is contained in this Guide, it is included with the consent of the third party and in good faith. It does not
necessarily reflect the considered views of Austroads Readers should rely on their own skill, care and judgement to apply the
information contained in this Guide and seek professional advice regarding their particular issues.
Catchments and Creeks have ownership of Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 and have been reproduced with permission. These images
cannot be reproduced within another publication without the written permission from the Director of Catchments and Creeks Pty Ltd.
Summary
The Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations provides road
designers and other practitioners with guidance on the design of drainage systems. This Guide needs to be
used in conjunction with the other two Parts of the Guide to Road Design that relate to drainage design:
• Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Network, Basins and Subsurface (Austroads 2023a).
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodway Crossings (Austroads 2023b).
The estimation of rainfall and run-off is discussed together with other drainage design considerations.
However, as this subject is extensive and covered in detail in other references, in particular the latest edition
of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR 2019) (Ball et al, 2019), it is discussed in this Guide only to the extent
necessary to support the design guidance provided.
This Guide provides information on the elements that need to be considered in the design of a drainage
system including the hydrology, safety and environmental aspects, and the maintenance and operations of
these systems.
The design processes and formulae necessary to design effective drainage systems and infrastructure are
included. It is supported by appendices containing design charts and worked examples that provide further
information.
This Guide outlines good practice in relation to drainage design that will apply in most situations, rather than
specifying mandatory practice. The reason for this is that there are many factors that influence the design of
a road and drainage for a particular situation or site, and practitioners therefore need to exercise sound
judgement in applying the information contained in the Guide.
This latest update (Edition 4.0) to the Guide has focussed on incorporating the latest flow estimation
techniques from ARR 2019. A part of the transition to ARR 2019 has been the change in terminology of
rainfall design event likelihood from an Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) to an Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP). It was the intention of this latest Edition to completely update all references to ARI across
to the equivalent AEP, however it was found there were so many references to ARI (including being
embedded in figures) this could not be accommodated. A future update will tidy up all legacy references to
ARI.
Austroads 2023 | page i

Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope and Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Definitions of Key Terms ............................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Jurisdictional Considerations .................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Link to Jurisdictional Supplements ............................................................................................. 4
1.3.2 Road Agency Policies and Guidelines ....................................................................................... 4
1.3.3 Federal and State Legislation, Strategies and Guidelines ......................................................... 4
1.3.4 Jurisdictional Responsibility ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Inter-agency Relations ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Management and Planning Framework ................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Principles and Objectives of Drainage ..................................................................................................... 5
1.6.1 Principles .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Geometry and Drainage Relationship ...................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Use of Software ........................................................................................................................................ 7
1.8.1 Validation of Software and Predetermined Criteria .................................................................... 7
2. Safety in Design...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Safe System ............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Providing for a Safe System ....................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Workplace Health and Safety Act and Standards .................................................................................... 8
2.3 Life and Property ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Road Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.5 On-road Safety .......................................................................................................................................10
2.5.1 Protection for On-road Users.................................................................................................... 10
2.5.2 Floodways................................................................................................................................. 10
2.5.3 Aquaplaning .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.5.4 Cyclists ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5.5 Pit Lids ...................................................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Off-road Safety .......................................................................................................................................11
2.6.1 Pedestrians and Cyclists .......................................................................................................... 11
2.6.2 Maintenance Access ................................................................................................................ 12
2.7 Protection of General Public ...................................................................................................................12
2.7.1 Culverts and Stormwater Drains............................................................................................... 12
2.7.2 Energy Dissipators ................................................................................................................... 12
2.7.3 Drainage Basins ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.7.4 Fencing ..................................................................................................................................... 13
3. Environment ..........................................................................................................................................15
3.1 General ...................................................................................................................................................15
3.1.1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Environmental Considerations .................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................16
3.2.1 Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2.2 Risk Based Design Procedure.................................................................................................. 18
3.2.3 Changes in Rainfall .................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.4 ARR Data Hub Output for Climate Change Factor................................................................... 25
3.2.5 Changes in Sea Level .............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.6 Climate Change Design Guide ................................................................................................. 26
3.2.7 Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) IS Rating Scheme ............................ 27
3.3 Fauna Passage/Crossings .....................................................................................................................28
3.3.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Austroads 2023 | page i

3.3.2 Identifying Fauna Passage Criteria .......................................................................................... 28

3.3.3 Identify Terrestrial and Aquatic Fauna Pathways ..................................................................... 28
3.3.4 Identify the Species Group ....................................................................................................... 29
3.3.5 Consult with the Relevant Authority ......................................................................................... 29
3.3.6 Identify Criteria Affecting Drainage Design .............................................................................. 30
3.3.7 Fish Passage ............................................................................................................................ 31
3.3.8 Fauna Crossings – Design Criteria .......................................................................................... 32
3.3.9 Riparian and Wildlife Corridors ................................................................................................. 34
3.4 Pollution Control and Water Quality .......................................................................................................34
3.4.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 34
3.4.2 Sources of Pollution from Roads .............................................................................................. 35
3.4.3 Spill Management ..................................................................................................................... 36
3.4.4 Typical Steps for Pollution Control and Treatment ................................................................... 37
3.4.5 At-source vs Catchment-based Treatment for Roads .............................................................. 39
3.4.6 Debris Control ........................................................................................................................... 40
3.5 Water Sensitive Design ..........................................................................................................................40
3.5.1 Urban Stormwater Management Principles .............................................................................. 41
3.5.2 Water Sensitive Urban/Road Design ........................................................................................ 41
3.5.3 What is Best Practice? ............................................................................................................. 42
3.5.4 Performance Objectives ........................................................................................................... 42
3.5.5 MUSIC Model ........................................................................................................................... 43
3.5.6 Key Design References ............................................................................................................ 43
3.5.7 Selecting Treatment Elements ................................................................................................. 43
3.5.8 Bio-retention Systems .............................................................................................................. 48
3.5.9 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 49

3.5.10 Treatment Train ........................................................................................................................ 51
3.5.11 Maintenance and Disposal ....................................................................................................... 55
3.6 Erosion and Sediment ............................................................................................................................55
3.6.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 55
3.6.2 Scour ........................................................................................................................................ 56
3.6.3 Erosion Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 57
3.6.4 Erosion and Scour Protection Measures .................................................................................. 59
3.6.5 Rock Protection ........................................................................................................................ 59
3.6.6 Gabions .................................................................................................................................... 62
3.6.7 Rock Mattresses ....................................................................................................................... 62
3.6.8 Geotextiles ................................................................................................................................ 62
3.6.9 Ground Cover ........................................................................................................................... 63
3.6.10 Energy Dissipators ................................................................................................................... 63
3.6.11 Minimum Energy Loss Structures............................................................................................. 67
3.6.12 Sediment Transport .................................................................................................................. 67
3.6.13 Managing Sediment within Culverts ......................................................................................... 70
3.6.14 Installation of Control Measures ............................................................................................... 70
3.6.15 Maintenance of Control Measures ........................................................................................... 70
3.6.16 Removal of Temporary Control Measures ............................................................................... 71
3.7 Blockage .................................................................................................................................................71
3.7.1 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 73
3.8 Miscellaneous .........................................................................................................................................78
3.8.1 Backwater ................................................................................................................................. 78
3.8.2 Tidal Waters.............................................................................................................................. 79
3.8.3 Storm Surge.............................................................................................................................. 81
3.8.4 Downstream Tributary .............................................................................................................. 81
3.8.5 Tail Water Levels ...................................................................................................................... 81
3.8.6 Acid Sulphate Soils ................................................................................................................... 81
3.8.7 Roadside Stops ........................................................................................................................ 84
3.8.8 Water Harvesting ...................................................................................................................... 84
3.8.9 Drainage Shadow ..................................................................................................................... 86
Austroads 2023 | page ii

4. Drainage Considerations .....................................................................................................................89

4.1 General Considerations ..........................................................................................................................89
4.1.1 Australian Rainfall and Run-off (ARR) ...................................................................................... 89
4.2 Road User Considerations .....................................................................................................................90
4.3 Design Considerations ...........................................................................................................................91
4.3.1 Identifying Design Considerations ............................................................................................ 91
4.4 Selection of Recurrence Interval and Flood Immunity ...........................................................................94
4.5 Defining Immunity ...................................................................................................................................94
4.5.1 Flood Immunity ......................................................................................................................... 95
4.5.2 Trafficability............................................................................................................................... 95
4.5.3 Time of Submergence/Closure ................................................................................................. 95
4.6 Freeboard ...............................................................................................................................................96
4.6.1 Kerbed Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 96
4.6.2 Underground Piped Networks .................................................................................................. 97
4.6.3 Drainage Basins ....................................................................................................................... 97
4.6.4 Vertical Controls – Flood and Groundwater Levels .................................................................. 97
4.6.5 Open Channel Design .............................................................................................................. 98
4.6.6 Culvert Design ........................................................................................................................ 100
4.7 Other Considerations............................................................................................................................100
4.7.1 Drainage Construction Materials ............................................................................................ 100
4.7.2 Recycled Materials ................................................................................................................. 100
4.7.3 Road Assets ........................................................................................................................... 100
4.7.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 101
4.7.5 Self-cleaning Sections ............................................................................................................ 101
4.8 Extreme Events ....................................................................................................................................102

4.8.1 Extreme Event Data Collection and Site Assessment............................................................ 102
4.8.2 Planning and Design .............................................................................................................. 103
4.8.3 Impacts of Extreme Events on Erodible Soil Environments ................................................... 103
4.8.4 Very Rare and Extreme Events .............................................................................................. 104
4.8.5 Earthquake-prone Areas ........................................................................................................ 109
4.9 Waterway Structures ............................................................................................................................109
4.9.1 Factors Affecting Selection of Waterway Structure ................................................................ 109
4.9.2 Bridges – General ................................................................................................................... 110
4.9.3 Drainage of Bridge Decks ....................................................................................................... 111
4.9.4 Bridge Location and Waterway Alignment ............................................................................. 112
4.9.5 Bridge Geometry .................................................................................................................... 113
5. Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................116

5.1 Maintenance Access and Location.......................................................................................................116
5.2 Operation ..............................................................................................................................................117
5.2.1 Period of Inspection ................................................................................................................ 117
5.2.2 Performance ........................................................................................................................... 118
5.3 Maintenance .........................................................................................................................................118
5.3.1 Maintenance Process ............................................................................................................. 118
5.3.2 Types of Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 118
5.4 Drainage Failures .................................................................................................................................119
5.4.1 Causes of Failure ................................................................................................................... 119
5.4.2 Types of Failure ...................................................................................................................... 120
5.4.3 Environmental Impacts of Failures ......................................................................................... 123
5.4.4 Identifying Failures ................................................................................................................. 123
5.4.5 Reporting of Failures .............................................................................................................. 124
5.5 Remediation .........................................................................................................................................127
5.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 127
5.5.2 Remediation Options .............................................................................................................. 127
5.5.3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 128
6. Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................131
Austroads 2023 | page iii

6.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................131

6.2 Terminology ..........................................................................................................................................131
6.3 Catchment Hydrology ...........................................................................................................................134
6.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 134
6.3.2 Catchment Properties ............................................................................................................. 134
6.4 Probability and Risk ..............................................................................................................................141
6.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 141
6.4.2 Probability and Risk Concepts for Road Design .................................................................... 141
6.4.3 Probability Versus Risk Based Design ................................................................................... 144
6.4.4 Flood Immunity for Roads ...................................................................................................... 144
6.4.5 Flood Immunity for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Shared Paths .................................................... 149
6.4.6 Example Application of Flood Immunity Considerations ........................................................ 149
6.5 Data for Drainage Design .....................................................................................................................150
6.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 150
6.5.2 Categories of Data .................................................................................................................. 150
6.5.3 Data Management .................................................................................................................. 151
6.5.4 Rainfall Data ........................................................................................................................... 151
6.5.5 Water Levels ........................................................................................................................... 152
6.5.6 Streamflow Data ..................................................................................................................... 155
6.5.7 Catchment Data ...................................................................................................................... 157
6.5.8 Project Data ............................................................................................................................ 161
6.5.9 Environmental Data ................................................................................................................ 161
6.5.10 Field Investigations and Site Inspections ............................................................................... 162
6.5.11 Sources of Data in Australia ................................................................................................... 163
6.6 Hydrology Methods for Road Drainage and Flood Design...................................................................163

6.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 163
6.6.2 Overview of Methods .............................................................................................................. 164
6.6.3 Description and Application of Recommended Methods ....................................................... 170
6.6.4 Recommended Methods Comparisons .................................................................................. 194
6.7 Design Inputs ........................................................................................................................................197
6.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 197
6.7.2 ARR Data Hub ........................................................................................................................ 198
6.7.3 Design Rainfall ....................................................................................................................... 199
6.7.4 Areal Reduction Factors ......................................................................................................... 203
6.7.5 Temporal Patterns .................................................................................................................. 211
6.7.6 Specialist Analysis .................................................................................................................. 221
6.7.7 Design Loss ............................................................................................................................ 221
6.7.8 Baseflow ................................................................................................................................. 225
6.7.9 Recommended Methods for Specific Road Design Applications ........................................... 229
6.8 Design Software ...................................................................................................................................231
6.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 231
6.8.2 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 232
6.8.3 Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................... 234
6.8.4 Design ..................................................................................................................................... 236
6.9 Very Rare and Extreme Events ............................................................................................................237
6.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 237
6.9.2 Issues for Road Design .......................................................................................................... 238
6.9.3 Definition of Very Rare and Extreme Events .......................................................................... 239
6.9.4 Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................... 239
6.10 Specific Design Issues .........................................................................................................................242
6.10.1 Flood Impact Criteria .............................................................................................................. 242
6.10.2 Flooding for Tunnel Portals .................................................................................................... 248
6.11 Safety in Design ...................................................................................................................................250
6.11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 250
6.11.2 Safety on Flooded Roads ....................................................................................................... 250
6.11.3 Risk with Drainage Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 257
6.12 Joint Probability ....................................................................................................................................258
Austroads 2023 | page iv

6.12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 258

6.12.2 Joint probability Considerations in Hydrology ........................................................................ 259
6.12.3 Joint probability Considerations in Road Flood Design .......................................................... 260
6.12.4 Flooding on a Road Link ......................................................................................................... 264
6.13 Uncertainty ...........................................................................................................................................267
6.13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 267
6.13.2 Sources of Uncertainty ........................................................................................................... 267
6.13.3 Examples of Uncertainty in Flood Design .............................................................................. 269
6.13.4 Application of Uncertainty in Road Design ............................................................................. 271
References ....................................................................................................................................................272
Design of an Infiltration Basin..............................................................................................280
Drainage Construction Material Considerations ................................................................282
Summary of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Techniques .........................................287
Rational Method Background and Application ..................................................................291
Estimation of Coefficient of Run-off – Queensland Application ........................................339
Estimation of Discharge from Rural Catchments in Victoria – Use of Area Size

Factor ......................................................................................................................................342
Blockage Form .......................................................................................................................349
Tables
Table 3.1: Use of culverts or underpass types by fauna ..........................................................................30
Table 3.2: Minimum desirable culvert cell height for terrestrial passage .................................................33
Table 3.3: Common sources of pollutants in road run-off ........................................................................35
Table 3.4: Design elements associated with treatment devices ..............................................................44
Table 3.5: Maximum velocity over surface...............................................................................................45
Table 3.6: Locations and types of treatments ..........................................................................................53
Table 3.7: Protection provided by vegetative cover .................................................................................57
Table 3.8: Cover and management factor ...............................................................................................57
Table 3.9: Typical erosion estimates for erodible soils (As) .....................................................................58
Table 3.10: Desirable maximum flow velocities in culverts or unprotected stream beds ..........................59
Table 3.11: Design of rock slope protection ...............................................................................................61
Table 3.12: Standard classes of rock slope protection ..............................................................................61
Table 3.13: Dissipator limitations ...............................................................................................................66
Table 3.14: Measures for drainage control ................................................................................................67
Table 3.15: Measures for velocity reduction ..............................................................................................68
Table 3.16: Measures for erosion control ..................................................................................................68
Table 3.17: Measures for sedimentation control ........................................................................................69
Table 3.18: Dewatering sediment control techniques ................................................................................69
Table 3.19: In-stream sediment control techniques ...................................................................................70
Table 3.20: Culvert dimensions .................................................................................................................77
Table 3.21: Summary of design blockage at crossings assessed .............................................................78
Table 4.1: Summary of design considerations .........................................................................................91
Table 4.2: Summary of rainfall inputs for rare and very rare flood events .............................................108
Table 4.3: Summary of methods to calculate design flood for rare and
very rare flood events ...........................................................................................................108
Table 4.4: Advantages and disadvantages of bridges and culverts ......................................................110
Table 5.1: Common drainage failures, causes and impacts ..................................................................124
Austroads 2023 | page v

Table 5.2: Summary of maintenance practice .......................................................................................129

Table 6.1: Australian rainfall and runoff preferred event probability terminology ..................................133
Table 6.2: Probability of experiencing a given-sized flood.....................................................................143
Table 6.3: Suggested minimum flood immunity standards for adjacent land use .................................145
Table 6.4: Guide to selection of road flood immunity .............................................................................147
Table 6.5: Data sources .........................................................................................................................163
Table 6.6: Summary of common procedures used to directly analyse flood data .................................165
Table 6.7: Flood data-based design methods........................................................................................165
Table 6.8: Summary of recommended rainfall-based procedures .........................................................166
Table 6.9: Rating of data sources ..........................................................................................................171
Table 6.10: Runoff routing models and the basis of the model ...............................................................174
Table 6.11: Example 1 – Model configuration..........................................................................................191
Table 6.12: Surface roughness values n* for use in kinematic wave equation .......................................194
Table 6.13: Classes of design rainfall ......................................................................................................200
Table 6.14: Catchment details .................................................................................................................206
Table 6.15: 1% AEP critical duration and temporal patterns at the points of interest..............................220
Table 6.16: Urban catchment recommended losses ...............................................................................225
Table 6.17: Summary of rainfall inputs for rare and very rare flood events .............................................241
Table 6.18: Summary of methods to calculate design flood for rare and
very rare flood events ...........................................................................................................241
Table 6.19: Acceptable impacts for major transport infrastructure ..........................................................247
Table 6.20: Recommended minimum immunity.......................................................................................250
Table 6.21: Flow hazard regimes for vehicles .........................................................................................252
Table 6.22: Flow hazard regimes for people............................................................................................254
Table 6.23: Summary of application of Rational Method for rural areas .................................................292
Table 6.24: Frequency factors (FY) for the coefficient of run-off for use in
the Rational Method ..............................................................................................................296
Table 6.25: Suggested standard inlet times .............................................................................................303
Table 6.26: Suggested roof drainage system travel times .......................................................................304
Table 6.27: Recommended maximum length of overland sheet flow ......................................................307
Table 6.28: Horton’s roughness values ...................................................................................................308
Table 6.29: Spread at average velocity in a reach of triangular gutter ....................................................310
Table 6.30: Fraction impervious vs development category .....................................................................317
Table 6.31: Calculation of C50 ..................................................................................................................323
Table 6.32: Extract from Table E 2 ..........................................................................................................323
Table 6.33: Summary of CY calculation ...................................................................................................323
Table 6.34: IFD table for Melton ..............................................................................................................324
Table 6.35: Tabulation of ToI 0.4................................................................................................................325
Figures
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1: Fencing around pipe inlet ........................................................................................................13
Figure 3.1: Projected climate change scenarios .......................................................................................17
Figure 3.2: Locations of natural resource management clusters ..............................................................18
Figure 3.3: Decision tree for incorporating climate change in flood design ..............................................19
Figure 3.4: Decision tree for incorporating climate change in flood design – Part 1 of 3 .........................20
Figure 3.7: ARR Data Hub output for climate change factors ...................................................................24
Figure 3.8: Road design approaches to address climate change .............................................................27
Figure 3.9: Fauna corridor under bridge ...................................................................................................29
Figure 3.10: Example of a low flow channel and lizard runs in multi-cell culvert ........................................33
Figure 3.11: Example of a lizard run detail ..................................................................................................33
Figure 3.12: Flow chart for design of pollution treatment train ....................................................................38
Figure 3.13: Typical sedimentation basin ....................................................................................................46
Figure 3.14: Typical bio-retention system incorporating grassed buffer strips source................................49
Austroads 2023 | page vi

Figure 3.15: Schematic plan and profile view of a typical constructed wetland ..........................................50
Figure 3.16: Estimated total area of wetland ...............................................................................................51
Figure 3.17: Detail of rip rap protection (major channels and culverts) and beaching
(channels and culverts less than 6 m2 in cross-sectional area) ..............................................60
Figure 3.18: Gabions ...................................................................................................................................62
Figure 3.19: Energy dissipator types ...........................................................................................................65
Figure 3.20: Example culvert.......................................................................................................................76
Figure 3.21: Subcatchments and cross-drainage locations ........................................................................76
Figure 3.22: Tidal planes .............................................................................................................................80
Figure 3.23: Conceptual illustration of the stages of a stormwater harvesting scheme..............................85
Figure 3.24: Typical drainage ......................................................................................................................87
Figure 3.25: Modified drainage ...................................................................................................................87
Figure 3.26: Section A of a sill drain ...........................................................................................................88
Figure 4.1: Examples of application of freeboard for a variety of situations .............................................99
Figure 4.2: Design characteristics of notional event classes ..................................................................105
Figure 4.3: Example of design rainfall results for rare rainfall events .....................................................107
Figure 4.4: Scouring around bridge piers ................................................................................................115
Figure 5.1: Drainage failure .....................................................................................................................119
Figure 5.2: Erosion of a highly dispersive soil .........................................................................................121
Figure 5.3: Undermining-dispersive soil ..................................................................................................122
Figure 5.4: Sedimentation .......................................................................................................................122
Figure 5.5: Blockage by vegetation .........................................................................................................123
Figure 5.6: Culvert headwall scouring .....................................................................................................124
Figure 5.7: Grassed table drain damage .................................................................................................128
Figure 6.1: Catchment delineation ..........................................................................................................135

Figure 6.2: Design flood estimation .........................................................................................................137
Figure 6.3: Typical historical record flood hydrograph ............................................................................138
Figure 6.4: Typical design flood hydrographs .........................................................................................138
Figure 6.5: Runoff hydrograph for Babinda Creek at the Boulders – January 1998 ...............................139
Figure 6.6: Runoff hydrograph for Russell River at Bucklands – January 1998 .....................................140
Figure 6.7: Warrego River at Charleville Highest Annual Flood Peaks ..................................................142
Figure 6.8: Data type examples ..............................................................................................................161
Figure 6.9: Illustration of relative efficacy of different approaches for the estimation of
design floods .........................................................................................................................167
Figure 6.10: Annual maxima series example ............................................................................................172
Figure 6.11: Peak-over-threshold series example ....................................................................................172
Figure 6.12: Flood probability plot example ..............................................................................................173
Figure 6.13: Conceptual representation of the runoff routing process in
a node-link type model ..........................................................................................................175
Figure 6.14: Approaches to runoff routing model application ...................................................................178
Figure 6.15: Adopted regions for RFFE ....................................................................................................180
Figure 6.16: Data input for the RFFE software .........................................................................................181
Figure 6.17: RFFE output example ...........................................................................................................182
Figure 6.18: Illustrative example of direct rainfall model output ................................................................185
Figure 6.19: Conceptualisation of generating a runoff hydrograph from a grid cell ..................................186
Figure 6.20: Direct rainfall example 1 – catchment ...................................................................................190
Figure 6.21: TUFLOW routed direct rainfall hydrograph comparison .......................................................192
Figure 6.22: Method Comparison ..............................................................................................................195
Figure 6.23: Lumped Inflow vs. Direct Rainfall..........................................................................................196
Figure 6.24: Direct rainfall volume analysis ..............................................................................................197
Figure 6.25: ARR Data Hub – data extraction window .............................................................................199
Figure 6.26: Bureau of Meteorology design rainfall output (table) ............................................................201
Figure 6.27: Bureau of Meteorology design rainfall output (chart) ............................................................202
Figure 6.28: Areal Reduction Factor regions ............................................................................................204
Figure 6.29: Areal Reduction Factor results from the ARR Data Hub ......................................................205
Figure 6.30: Example catchments selected for the worked example overlain
on the ARF regions ...............................................................................................................206
Austroads 2023 | page vii

Figure 6.31: Catchment F covers two ARF regions ..................................................................................210

Figure 6.32: Typical storm components ....................................................................................................212
Figure 6.33: Temporal pattern regions ......................................................................................................213
Figure 6.34: 1% AEP and 10% AEP boxplots for Newry Island ................................................................214
Figure 6.35: Temporal pattern hydrographs for the 1% AEP 24 hour critical duration
at Newry Island .....................................................................................................................215
Figure 6.36: Critical duration grid ..............................................................................................................217
Figure 6.37: Peak flood level difference between the chosen temporal pattern (TP 7)
and the mean grid .................................................................................................................218
Figure 6.38: 1% AEP 60 minute duration Trunk Drainage Hydrographs – Fourth Avenue
Trunk Drainage .....................................................................................................................219
Figure 6.39: Schematic of four cross-drainage structures assessed to mitigate
flooding impacts ....................................................................................................................220
Figure 6.40: Hydrologic model output – ranked peak flows and corresponding
temporal patterns ..................................................................................................................221
Figure 6.41: Initial loss – continuing loss model........................................................................................222
Figure 6.42: Recommended median initial loss (mm) ...............................................................................223
Figure 6.43: Recommended median continuing loss (mm/h) ...................................................................223
Figure 6.44: Baseflow characteristics in a flood hydrograph ....................................................................226
Figure 6.45: Decision tree for decision on baseflow .................................................................................227
Figure 6.46: Preliminary assessment of baseflow peak factor for a 10% AEP event ...............................228
Figure 6.47: 1D vs 2D Model Comparison ................................................................................................236
Figure 6.48: Design characteristics of Notional Event Classes ................................................................239
Figure 6.49: Example of design rainfall results for rare rainfall events .....................................................240
Figure 6.50: Increase in flood hazard for project options 1 and 2 .............................................................248
Figure 6.51: Typical modes of vehicle instability .......................................................................................251
Figure 6.52: Safety criteria for vehicles in variable flow conditions...........................................................252
Figure 6.53: Typical modes of human instability in floods ........................................................................253
Figure 6.54: Safety criteria for people in variable flow conditions .............................................................255
Figure 6.55: Combined flood hazard curves .............................................................................................256
Figure 6.56: Components that need to be considered in solution of joint probability problems ...............259
Figure 6.57: Simple Monte Carlo simulation framework for joint probabilities ..........................................260
Figure 6.58: Interaction of catchment and coastal flooding ......................................................................261
Figure 6.59: Effects of dependency for Flinders Highway ........................................................................266
Figure 6.60: Derivation of the equal area slope of main stream ...............................................................295
Figure 6.61: Examples of catchments that may be subject to partial area effects ....................................297
Figure 6.62: Progressive catchments ........................................................................................................298
Figure 6.63: Catchment development .......................................................................................................300
Figure 6.64: Application of standard inlet time ..........................................................................................302
Figure 6.65: Examples of roof drainage systems for residential and industrial allotments .......................304
Figure 6.66: Example of kerb and channel flow time using Manning’s Equation......................................306
Figure 6.67: Overland sheet flow times – shallow sheet flow only............................................................307
Figure 6.68: Velocity in triangular gutter sections .....................................................................................311
Figure 6.69: Flow travel time in pipes and channels .................................................................................313
Figure 6.70: Run-off coefficient .................................................................................................................315
Figure 6.71: Examples of urban catchments that may be subject to partial area effects .........................318
Figure 6.72: Catchment .............................................................................................................................319
Figure 6.73: Stream profile ........................................................................................................................320
Figure 6.74: Plot of equal area ordinate ....................................................................................................321
Figure 6.75: Output from RAIN..................................................................................................................322
Figure 6.76: Overland flow travel time for two segments ..........................................................................326
Figure 6.77: Overland flow travel time for additional segments ................................................................328
Figure 6.78: Impervious catchment of area A ha draining to O ................................................................329
Figure 6.79: An idealised run-off hydrograph for a constant intensity storm for
the impervious catchment .....................................................................................................330
Figure 6.80: Catchment B .........................................................................................................................330
Figure 6.81: Rainfall intensity-duration relationship for ARI = 10 years ....................................................331
Austroads 2023 | page viii

Figure 6.82: Hydrograph for rainfall bursts on Catchment B .....................................................................332

Figure 6.83: Plot of peak discharge against rainfall duration for Catchment B .........................................333
Figure 6.84: Catchment E – composite impervious/pervious catchment ..................................................334
Figure 6.85: Time-area graph for simple catchment of area, A and time of concentration, tc...................335
Figure 6.86: Time-area graph for Catchment E ........................................................................................336
Austroads 2023 | page ix

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Austroads Guide to Road Design seeks to capture the contemporary road design practice of member
organisations (Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 1: Introduction to Road Design (Austroads 2021)). In
doing so, it provides valuable guidance to designers in the production of safe, economical and efficient road
designs.
The purpose of the Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage is to provide guidance to drainage designers for
the design of an efficient and effective road drainage system. The Guide comprises three parts:
• Part 5: Drainage – General and Hydrology Considerations (AGRD Part 5)
• Part 5A: Drainage – Road Surface, Network, Basins and Subsurface (AGRD Part 5A) (Austroads 2023a)
• Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodway Crossings (AGRD Part 5B) (Austroads
2023b).
Designers should be aware of the other Guide to Road Design subject areas in the full range of Austroads
publications that may also be relevant to drainage design and can be accessed through the Austroads
website (www.austroads.com.au).
The Guide provides the guidance necessary for designers to:

• analyse and design key components such as open drains and channels, pit and pipe systems, culverts,
floodways, small basins and subsurface drains
• recognise the interaction between these components within the overall wider drainage system
• appreciate and take into consideration important structural, construction, maintenance and operational
design issues relating to drainage
• appreciate environmental issues and the broad consideration of these issues.
The Guide is one of eight parts of the Guide to Road Design and the design of road drainage systems will
require designers to refer to other Parts of the Guide as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The figure indicates that
outputs from the drainage design process must be considered in the broader context of the overall road
design task as they may impact on other elements of the design. As one example, the hydraulic and
structural requirements of road culverts (i.e. size and cover) have a direct impact on the vertical alignment of
the roadway. Another major consideration in the structural design of the road formation and pavement is the
ability to achieve and maintain a low and stable moisture content which is dependent on an effective
drainage system.
Prior to commencing a road design, stakeholders who may have property or other infrastructure that is, or
could be, affected by the impacts of stormwater run-off, including those beyond the limits of the road reserve,
should be identified and consulted. This is particularly important when considering drainage as the impacts
may occur well outside the construction boundary. See Section 3 – Environment.
Austroads 2023 | page 1

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design
Part 2: Network Wide Design

(in development)
Part 5: Part 6: Part 7:

Part 3: Part 4: Drainage:
Intersections Roadside New and
Geometric General and Design, Safety Emerging
Design and Hydrology
Crossings: and Barriers Treatments
Considerations
General
Part 4A: Part 5A:

Drainage: Road Part 6A: Paths Part 1:
Unsignalised for Walking
and Surface, Objectives of
Networks, and Cycling Road Design
Signalised
Intersections Basins and
Subsurface
Part 5B:
Drainage: Open Part 6B:
Part 4B: Roadside
Roundabouts Channels,
Culverts and Environment
Floodway
Crossings
Part 4C:
Interchanges
All Parts Inter-relate
Design Output
1.2 Scope and Definitions
1.2.1 Scope
The Guide to Road Design series provides the designer with a framework that is intended to promote
efficiency in design, construction and maintenance of a length of roadway. The Guide is concerned primarily
with the hydraulic design of surface drainage systems within the road reserve.
Whilst Part 5 provides general guidance on environmental management matters, these facilities require
specialist design capability and often the approvals of relevant drainage and environment authorities is
required and so have not been discussed in detail.

Drainage design occurs within the broader context of road design and this Guide should be applied in
conjunction with all other parts of the Guide to Road Design. For example, road safety is an important
consideration that affects drainage design and designers should refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 6:
Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (AGRD Part 6) (Austroads 2022), regarding the safe design of
drainage structures (e.g. open drain cross-sections, culvert end walls and identification and treatment of
roadside hazards).
The design of subsurface drainage systems is another specialised field that receives only generalised
guidance within this Guide. Detailed information on the requirements for subsurface drainage materials, the
design of pavement drains and their construction and maintenance may be found in the Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 10: Subsurface Drainage (AGPT Part 10) (Austroads 2009a). AGPT Part 10 provides
advice on the general requirements for subsurface drainage materials, design of pavement drains and
construction and maintenance considerations.
Additional guidance on construction of drainage systems is provided in the Guide to Pavement Technology
Part 8: Pavement Construction (Austroads 2019b) and maintenance of drainage systems is discussed in the
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 7: Pavement Maintenance (Austroads 2009b).
1.2.2 Definitions of Key Terms
The following definitions and terms relate directly to their use within the context of the three Parts of the
Guide. For other definitions refer to the Austroads Glossary of Terms (Austroads 2015).
Afflux – The difference between the normal water level and the water level due to a natural or artificial
restriction/obstruction within the channel. Afflux is a measurement taken at a point and typically measured in
millimetres. Afflux can be either positive or negative, with the highest positive afflux immediately upstream of
the restriction or obstruction.
Annual exceedance probability (AEP) – The probability that a given rainfall total accumulated over a given
duration will be exceeded in any one year (www.bom.vic.gov.au).
Average recurrence interval (ARI) – The average or expected duration of time between the occurrence of
two storm or flood events having or exceeding a given magnitude. The period between exceedances is a
random variate.
Drainage authority – The local authority responsible for the drainage, waterways, floodway and/or other
water environments within a jurisdiction. This may consist of more than one agency/authority for a specific
project area and may include: drainage authorities, catchment management authorities, local government,
water authorities, etc.
Environment protection agency/authority – The agency responsible for protection of the jurisdiction
environment and application of its statutory powers and described in the environment act/s.
Gutter – The gutter is drainage infrastructure along a road pavement and referred in some jurisdictions as
channels. It can be used with kerb and described as kerb and gutter, with some jurisdictions describing this
as kerb and channel. The various terms have been used through this Guide.
Hydrograph – A graph showing the rate of flow (usually m3/s) over time, measured at a specific point within
a catchment. It demonstrates the relationship between catchment flow rate and rainfall. A hydrograph can be
either synthetic (i.e. developed for a specified design storm series), or actual (as taken from a stream
gauging station).
Nomograph – A two-dimensional diagram designed to allow the approximate graphical computation of a

function.

1.3 Jurisdictional Considerations
1.3.1 Link to Jurisdictional Supplements
In using this Guide or other Austroads Guides, practitioners should refer to jurisdictional websites to
determine whether a supplement exists. Supplements provide details of jurisdictional practices where they
vary from that contained in Austroads Guides. The variation may provide:
• a statement that particular guidance does not apply to the jurisdiction
• details of technical differences that apply
• information on how some guidance is to be applied
• additional guidance on a relevant subject that may or may not be covered in an Austroads Guide.
1.3.2 Road Agency Policies and Guidelines
Jurisdictions may have specific policies that may vary from information contained in Austroads Guides. It is
important that these are reviewed to establish the relevant criteria for the site-specific design within those
jurisdictions. These documents may also be referred to in agency supplements.
1.3.3 Federal and State Legislation, Strategies and Guidelines

There are a number of Federal and State regulations, policies and guidelines that may apply to a road
project, particularly if it receives additional funding from those sources. These documents may include
community, environmental and social considerations that need to be considered or addressed in the design
and delivery of a project.
1.3.4 Jurisdictional Responsibility
A number of road agencies also have responsibility for a number of other regulatory areas. These may
include drainage, environment, catchment management, land use planning, etc. Where necessary, a road
agency should ensure that it is involved in land use planning at a state and regional level to ensure that
road/network requirements are included in land use and management decisions.
1.4 Inter-agency Relations
It is important that external government agencies or other authorities be identified early in the planning and
design process to ensure that their statutory responsibilities and other requirements are understood and
appropriate action is taken to address them. In some cases, road agencies or authorities may also have an
overall drainage plan or strategy for a catchment, of which the roadwork is a part.
1.5 Management and Planning Framework
Overall planning for drainage is usually under the control of a drainage authority. Road agencies may have
some powers with respect to drainage (varies significantly across Australia and New Zealand), and schemes
for road drainage need to comply with the overall strategy and may be subject to the approval of the
drainage authority.
The drainage authority or the environmental protection agency/authority (EPA) may set standards for water
quality, and the EPA is responsible for inspection and policing of standards, including drainage during road
construction or operation of the road network.

Once the need to locate the road within the drainage catchment has been established, the road drainage
systems need to be developed as part of the overall drainage plan for each clearly defined drainage
catchment. This Guide supports the concept of major and minor drainage networks, which together provide
an integrated drainage system within a drainage catchment. For further detailed understanding of the
concept of major/minor drainage, refer to AGRD Part 5A – Section 2.
There are a number of segments to a typical drainage plan:

• Major/minor drainage networks: Storm drainage systems for existing development should be shown
together with systems for proposed or planned development, at least in outline. These networks should
be based on the major/minor concept which recognises the dual requirements of the drainage system to
provide convenience on a day-to-day basis, and protection for life and property in major storm events.
• Land use development plan: Plans of all existing and proposed developments should be shown and
their relationships to the existing and proposed major/minor networks and present or planned run-off
characteristics, both in quantity and quality.
• Stormwater retention, infiltration and/or detention measures: Should be identified for each sub-
catchment and such measures should consider land use, drainage networks, terrain, and soil
characteristics. Where appropriate, the retention, infiltration, and detention measures adopted in each
sub-catchment should aim to retain as much incident storm rainfall as possible, e.g. capture and
reuse/water harvesting.
• Environmental management plan: This plan should be matched to the particular land use, drainage and
run-off quality planned to occur in the catchment in the course of future development. The purpose of the
plan is to ensure that run-off entering receiving waters from the development meets acceptable water
quality criteria.
• Sediment and erosion control measures: Should be incorporated into the planning, design,
construction, and operational phases of a drainage scheme, to minimise soil loss and ensure minimum
downstream environmental damage from water-borne sediment.
1.6 Principles and Objectives of Drainage
1.6.1 Principles
The following principles should be used to guide designers in the planning and design of effective road
drainage systems:
• minimising the effects of flooding on the road, its environs and the community
• enhancement of road safety for all road users
• protection of road assets
• mitigation of adverse environmental impacts.
1.6.2 Objectives
In line with the above principles, the overarching objectives for the management of stormwater are:
• Water conveyed across the road reserve should be discharged in a manner that does not cause nuisance
or damage to the adjacent landowners or occupiers.
• Water within the road reserve should be controlled so as to allow safe and efficient passage of all road
users and prevent damage to the roadway and associated infrastructure.
• Land should not be seriously disturbed by making it more susceptible to erosion or significantly reducing
the water quality downstream of the land.

It is recognised that a road requires a drainage system to deal with stormwater run-off. Therefore, the
drainage system becomes an important and integral consideration in the planning and design of road
infrastructure. In order to provide an appropriate and economical drainage system (i.e. whole-of-life costs),
all road projects, irrespective of location, size, cost or complexity, must consider and address the following
aspects:
• safety of all road users
• impact of flooding on adjacent properties (e.g. public and private property)
• potential damage to the road asset
• traffic delays or extra travel distance caused by road closures
• the design life of the road
• ultimate road configuration
• road maintenance and operator safety
• provision of an acceptable level of flood immunity and accessibility
• conveyance of stormwater through the road reserve at a development and environmental cost that is
acceptable to the community as a whole
• pollutant discharge from the road reserve to receiving waters
• land degradation caused by erosion and sedimentation during road construction, operation and
maintenance
• any impact on habitats and movement of terrestrial and aquatic fauna.
The original design intent must be reviewed and understood and the existing system needs to be assessed
against the above aspects for performance, adequacy and continued durability. This requirement particularly
applies to projects where it is proposed to integrate the proposed drainage system with the existing drainage
infrastructure. The design must ensure that the original intent is restored, deficiencies are corrected and
modifications/changes appropriately considered and detailed.
1.7 Geometry and Drainage Relationship
There is a strong relationship or link between road geometrics and road drainage. It is considered that road
geometric design includes road drainage design as well as design speed assessment, horizontal alignment
design, vertical alignment design, intersection design, etc.
Roads cut across the landscape between geographical locations, impeding the natural flow paths of
stormwater run-off and resulting in a concentration of flows and/or redirection of flows. The road is
geometrically designed and typically tied to a control line (single or multiple). Carriageways consist of a
series of interconnecting surfaces which collect rainfall run-off and control the direction it flows. These
surfaces include the traffic lanes, shoulders, verge, batter slopes, etc. The design of drainage infrastructure
is often governed by these surfaces, such as:
• the location and grading of kerb and/or channel are based on the road surface levels and layout
• the location and grading of table drains are generally linked to the control line geometry
• the location, orientation and grading of culverts are influenced by both the horizontal and vertical
alignments of the control line and batter interface points.
Another aspect highlighting the relationship between geometrics and drainage is the careful consideration of
grade, crossfall and superelevation development in order to minimise the water film depth on the road and
hence the potential for aquaplaning.

Therefore the geometric aspects and design of roads have a direct effect on stormwater run-off, and these
effects must be considered in the geometric design of a road, such as:
• provision of adequate clearances for structures
• provision of adequate height to develop headwater to assist culvert flow
• adjusting the road grade to enable or control flows across the road surface and within table drains.
It is therefore critical that the geometric design and drainage design of a road must be undertaken in
conjunction with each other. Generally, a preliminary alignment and cross-section is developed to enable
drainage design, however, design iteration and adjustment of both aspects then commences. Changes to
either element can impact the other; therefore it is essential that there is good communication between those
undertaking the drainage design and those undertaking the geometric design. The drainage design should
be verified prior to the finalisation of the geometric design.
1.8 Use of Software
Computer programs can be used at many stages in the management of stormwater and are in common use.
The larger the project the more necessary it becomes to use computer modelling. It is not within the scope of
this Guide to discuss specific proprietary software. However, in applying such software the designer should
ensure that:
• the computer model is appropriate for the situation and that the user is suitably skilled in its use
• input parameters have been selected to represent the actual conditions

• predicted results are within a reasonable and expected range.
Some road agencies may list approved software programs for particular applications.
1.8.1 Validation of Software and Predetermined Criteria
Any spreadsheet or computer-based tool developed and then used to assist with drainage design should be
checked and tested for applicability, accuracy of results, and compliance with current standards and
methodologies as may be prescribed in road agency policies, contract requirements, guidelines, Standard
Specifications and Standard Drawings. Certification of design is deemed to cover use of these
spreadsheets/tools.

2. Safety in Design
2.1 Safe System
Roads and roadsides are to be designed to reduce the risk of crashes and this requires the designer to
consider the operation of the road and in this case the drainage system and the impacts it may have on the
road users. These considerations include the surface flow characteristics, location and orientation of structures
such as end treatments and driver awareness of the conditions they face as they travel along the road.
2.1.1 Providing for a Safe System
Adopting a Safe System approach to road safety recognises that humans as road users are fallible and will
continue to make mistakes, and that the community should not penalise people with death or serious injury
when they do make mistakes. In a Safe System, therefore, roads (and vehicles) should be designed to
reduce the incidence and severity of crashes when they occur.
The Safe System approach requires, in part (Australian Transport Council 2011):
• Roads and roadsides designed and maintained to reduce the risk of crashes occurring and to lessen the
severity of injury if a crash does occur. Safe roads prevent unintended use through design and encourage
safe behaviour by users.
• Provide forgiving environments that prevent serious injury or death when crashes occur.
• Speed limits complementing the road environment to manage crash impact forces to within human
tolerance, and all road users complying with the speed limits.
2.2 Workplace Health and Safety Act and Standards
In the design and location of drainage infrastructure, designers must consider the hazards/risks which may
exist at particular sites. Workplace health and safety requirements should be considered in drainage design,
installation and subsequent maintenance. Some of the issues which should be addressed may include, but
are not restricted to:
• construction work being undertaken in a flowing waterway under temporary stream control and
dewatering works
• excavation/trenching stage
• geotechnical analysis and the need for shoring
• placement of materials including excavated material close to trench walls
• location of underground utilities
• placement of materials
• proximity of machinery to excavations
• crane capacity and reach
• proximity of machinery to overhead power lines and obstructions
• backfilling
• probability of wall collapse arising from vibration or traffic movement
• amount of time excavation will be open
• working within confined space
• anticipated weather conditions.

The cost of control measures to be used to ensure that the risks associated with the above issues are
minimised should be included in the installation costs of the drainage structure.
Designers of drainage infrastructure need to consider each installation as a workplace during maintenance
operations and incorporate provisions that permit maintenance work to be completed in an appropriate way
that manages exposure to risk in accordance with the relevant workplace health and safety act. See
Section 5 – Operations and Maintenance and road agency guidelines, such as Department of Natural
Resources and Water (DNRW 2007) for further details.
It is recommended that project teams include or have access to personnel who are current in their
knowledge, understanding and application of the relevant legislation and the functions and responsibilities of
local authorities.
2.3 Life and Property
Heavy and/or prolonged rainfall may lead to a significant rise in water levels, which in turn may inundate
property and pose a risk to people. The drainage system must provide for the removal and safe disposal of
this water before it reaches a level that results in an unacceptable risk.
Drainage of water means that flows will be concentrated into defined channels and systems, with potentially
high volumes and velocity. Assessment of the risks to life and property should be undertaken and suitable
measures taken to control these risks. This includes minimising access to open channels and structures,
provision for system overflow in extreme run-off events, and consideration of the effects of structural element
failure.
Safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the road will require consideration of depth and width of ponded
water, and the potential for drainage elements such as surface depressions or pit inlets, to ‘catch’ cycle
wheels or impede pedestrians.
2.4 Road Safety
The Guide should be considered in the broad context of road safety and the contribution that the Guide can
make to the design of safer roads.
Safer road user behaviour, safer speeds, safer roads and safer vehicles are the four key elements that make
a Safe System. In relation to speed, the Australian Transport Council (2011) reported that the chances of
surviving a particular crash decrease markedly above certain speeds, depending on the type of crash, as
follows:
• pedestrian struck by vehicle 20 to 30 km/h
• motorcyclist struck by vehicle (or falling off) 20 to 30 km/h
• side impact vehicle striking a pole or tree 30 to 40 km/h
• side impact vehicle to vehicle crash 50 km/h
• head-on vehicle-to-vehicle (equal mass) crash 70 km/h.
In New Zealand, practical steps have been taken to give effect to similar guiding principles through a Safety
Management Systems (SMS) approach.
Road designers should be aware of, and through the design process actively support, the philosophy and
road safety objectives covered in the Guide to Road Safety.

2.5 On-road Safety
2.5.1 Protection for On-road Users
Drainage facilities should be designed to minimise their impacts on motor vehicles. Culvert end treatments
have the potential to act as hazardous obstructions to errant vehicles. They should be designed to not
present an obstruction; either through relocation of the feature outside of the clear zone or where this is not
possible an assessment should be undertaken to establish whether the end treatments can be made
traversable (see AGRD Part 5B – Section 3.14). If neither remedial treatment is possible then safety barriers
should be considered.
Similar to culvert end treatments, basins also pose a risk to errant vehicles. This is due to the volume of run-
off they may contain, or batter slopes that may not comply with the requirements for traversable slopes.
Basins that contain as little as 300 mm depth of water for a one-year ARI, one hour duration storm are
deemed to present a drowning hazard for unconscious occupants of overturned vehicles.
Designers should refer to AGRD Part 6 or jurisdictional/drainage authority requirements for guidance on the
identification and treatment of roadside hazards including those associated with bodies of water, drains and
drainage facilities.
2.5.2 Floodways
In rural environments there is an on-road safety concern relating to the crossing of floodways. The main
issue associated with safety at floodways is provision of adequate sight distance for drivers to ensure
vehicles can stop before entering the floodwaters. Preferably, the floodway longitudinal profile should be
horizontal so that the same depth of water exists over the entire floodway length. The floodway length should
be limited and on a straight stretch of road where possible. Adequate permanent and temporary signing and
delineation must be erected.
As floodwaters recede, silt and debris can be left on the road surface of a floodway and this can be a hazard
to road users. The road agency should inspect each affected floodway as soon as possible after a flood
event and clear the surface if required. Floodways are discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5B – Section 4.
2.5.3 Aquaplaning
Aquaplaning is discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5A – Section 4, and is the phenomena whereby vehicle
tyres can become separated from the road surface by a film of water resulting in loss of control of the
vehicle. The effect on vehicle handling is directional instability and can be as significant as causing complete
loss of directional control. As contact with the road surface diminishes so too does the vehicle’s braking
ability.
Whilst in theory aquaplaning can occur on all roads, it is generally considered an urban road drainage
matter. The coarse surfacing types used in rural road construction usually permit surface run-off to permeate
into the voids and minimise water film depths. In the urban environment the use of surfacing materials such
as asphalt, together with wider sections of pavement contribute to a heightened risk of water film depths
interrupting the contact between the road surface and the vehicle’s tyres.
See AGRD Part 5A – Section 4 for further details on preventing and managing aquaplaning.
2.5.4 Cyclists
As detailed in Section 4 – Drainage Considerations, it is common for road surface drainage to be designed
for a 10-year ARI. To the general public such events are intense and it is not unreasonable to assume an
absence of cycling or pedestrian traffic during such times.

On kerbed roads, run-off during the design storm event will accumulate in the channel1, generally
accommodating the full width of sealed shoulder (or cycle lane where present) and depending on the
requirements of the road agency even encroach into the adjacent lane. Given the anticipated absence of
cycling traffic during high rainfall events, it is not necessary to maintain facilities for such road users during
these events. However, the designer should undertake checks for more frequent events (AGRD Part 5A
suggests a two-year ARI) and ensure that cyclists are not forced into adjacent traffic lanes by encroaching
run-off. Further information on the provision of drainage for on-road cycling and pedestrian facilities may be
found in AGRD Part 5A – Section 5.2.6.
2.5.5 Pit Lids
Pit lids should be designed to ensure the safety of motor traffic, maintenance vehicles and plant, and
pedestrians and cyclists. It is therefore important that pit lids are designed:
• to carry the appropriate motor traffic loading where the pit lid (and lintel where appropriate) is located
either in the road pavement, or off the road surface but within a likely vehicle wheel path (see AS
3996/2006)
• so that above ground features are minimised and the pit does not constitute a safety hazard for road
users
• so that they do not constitute a trip hazard for pedestrians
• so that they do not constitute a hazard by trapping bicycle wheels (due to design of grates or their
surrounds).
For high speed highways, motorways and arterial roads it is essential that pit lids are not located within the
traffic lanes. If they need to be located within the road corridor, preferably they should be located outside the
clear zone.
On low speed roadways, it is desirable that pit lids are also located outside of traffic lanes as the lids can
cause impacts, noise, come loose and cause safety problems and, of course, traffic will be disrupted with
future access required for inspection and maintenance.
2.6 Off-road Safety
2.6.1 Pedestrians and Cyclists
Provision for pedestrians and cyclists can be made when sizing a waterway culvert where they may serve a
dual function for shared paths. However, in order to be effective, the approach ramps must allow clear vision
through the culvert cell. It should also be kept in mind that pedestrians will often prefer to cross over a road
than under it for reasons of security.
Culverts for multi-use will require a clear distinction between wet and dry passageways. For pedestrian and
cyclist movement the culverts will need to be designed for dry passage under a particular average
recurrence interval (ARI) event. Typically, the pedestrian and cyclist path should be elevated above the water
level for a chosen design storm, and in some cases may be protected by a flood wall to reduce the annual
time of closure of the path. The size requirements for passage, as well as hydraulic requirements need to be
considered and the culvert sized appropriately to meet both of these requirements. In this regard, designers
are referred to the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling (AGRD Part 6A)
(Austroads 2017).
1
The channel component of the kerb and channel is also referred to as a gutter in this Guide.

Bicycle and pedestrian paths along the banks of watercourses may be subject to inundation during storms of
a particular ARI. It is important that adequate sight distance is provided for cyclists to safely stop without
entering the water and that temporary signage and barriers are erected to protect cyclists during and after
the event. Following such an event, silt and debris can be left on the path surface and this can be a hazard
to path users.
Debris may also encroach onto shared paths as a result of run-off from adjacent fill embankments. It is
important that debris from all sources be cleaned from the path surface as soon as possible after the event.
See AGRD Part 6A or the local road agency guidelines for further information about design and safety
requirements.
2.6.2 Maintenance Access
The safety of maintenance personnel within drainage pits, including the requirements for step irons, ladders
and landings, is discussed in AGRD Part 5A – Section 6.
Maintenance access should aim to bring trucks as close to a basin as possible to allow direct removal of
detritus from the basin. Thus the access ramp should ideally have a maximum grade of 1:10, with an
absolute maximum grade of 1:6.
If maintenance trucks are located too far from the basin during de-silting operations, the access track
between the basin and the trucks can become contaminated with mud. This mud can make the track very
slippery and dangerous if it is too steep.
2.7 Protection of General Public
2.7.1 Culverts and Stormwater Drains
Where long culverts and drainage inlets/outlets potentially provide a hazard to human safety (particularly in
urban areas) preventative measures should be considered, such as fencing, swing gates and grates. Any
safety device needs to ensure that it prevents both access to the culvert and trapping of a human against the
grate. The effect of any proposed human safety measure on culvert capacity and efficiency needs to be
checked.
2.7.2 Energy Dissipators
Energy dissipation may be necessary due to high flow velocities. Dissipation devices usually consist of large
obstructions to the flow and result in a high degree of turbulence. For these reasons, energy dissipation
structures should be avoided in urban areas where possible. Access should be limited by appropriate
fencing. See AGRD Part 5B – Section 3.13 for further information on energy dissipators.
2.7.3 Drainage Basins
Drainage basins are used to either temporarily or permanently store stormwater run-off, typically to meet
land development requirements and minimise impacts on downstream infrastructure. They may either detain
run-off for later release, or retain run-off for infiltration, evaporation or other uses. Basins may be purpose
built or have multi-use functions such as recreational areas.

Provisions should always be made to allow safe escape from drainage basins during wet weather, i.e. when
the banks are wet and slippery. Clear warning signs should be displayed prominently and consideration
should also be given to the placement of depth indicators. For example, the inclusion of a fence, when side
batters down to the water’s edge are steeper than 1:5 and/or water depths are more than 350 mm. See local
jurisdictional guidelines such as Melbourne Water’s Constructed Waterways in Urban Developments
Guidelines (MW 2009) and The Royal Life Saving Society Australia’s (RLSSA) Guidelines for Water Safety:
Urban Water Developments (RLSSA 2004) for further informational about safety requirements associated
with wetlands and permanently wet basins.
A maximum depth of 1.2 m during an ARI 20 year flood is recommended for publicly accessible basins and
all batters that are accessible to the public should have a maximum slope of 1:8. Fencing may be required
for basins within, or designed as multi-use zones to prevent public accesses, especially during and after
storm events. See jurisdictional guidelines such as Melbourne Water’s Constructed Wetlands Guidelines
(MW 2010) and Constructed Shallow Lake Systems Design Guidelines for Developers (MW 2005a) for
detailed information on safety issues related to water lakes and basins.
2.7.4 Fencing
Fencing may be required to protect the public (pedestrians and cyclists) from water in drainage infrastructure
such as culvert and underground drainage inlets, and in some cases retarding basins.
As an example, where culvert inlets are located in areas likely to be accessed by people, particularly
children, consideration must be given to appropriately fence the inlet to ensure someone is not swept into the
culvert during a flood event. An example of this type of fencing is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Fencing around pipe inlet
Source: DTMR (2010b).
A serious problem with fencing a culvert inlet is that the potential for blockage is greatly increased and
designers need to check for and mitigate any possible adverse effects due to the blockage.
Guidance on the use and design considerations and general use of fences for drainage basins and
pedestrian and cyclist safety, is provided in the Guide to Road Design Part 6B: Roadside Environment
(AGRD Part 6B) (Austroads 2015b).
The use and design of fencing adjacent to bicycle paths is covered in the AGRD Part 6A (Austroads 2017).

Generally a security fence should be installed where one of the following criteria is met (the distance is a
straight line measurement). The location of a basin is within:
• 1.0 km of public facility, e.g. hotel
• 1.0 km of a school
• 0.5 km of a township
• 0.3 km of a local road
• 0.3 km of a stopping bay
• 0.1 km of property access.
Fencing of a temporary basin should be removed upon decommissioning of the basin.


3. Environment
3.1 General
A sustainable and environmentally aware transport system acknowledges not only the impact of the road
network on the surrounding environment but takes into account the long-term impacts during land use
planning stages as well as the planning, design, construction and maintenance of that road network.
Environmental issues associated with road infrastructure should be identified and assessed throughout the
road planning and design process. Project-specific environmental assessment provides information about
the condition of the existing environment, the proposed project area, associated environmental impacts of
the proposal and the identification of any opportunities for environmental management.
Road agencies plan, manage and develop their road network and its use so that it is sustainable and meets
the challenges of an ever growing transport system. It is imperative, in partnership with other agencies, that
road agencies endeavour to ensure that the prosperity and liveability of their communities are maintained
and improved. It is also necessary to continue to meet the needs of business and industry and help deliver
sustainable transport strategies.
In the VicRoads Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy 2010–2015 (VicRoads 2010) a sustainable
transport system is described as one that:
• contributes to meeting the social and economic needs of the present generation without compromising
the capacity for future generations to meet their own social and economic needs
• ensures the short-term and long-term protection of the environment, locally and globally
• promotes and provides for transport options with a smaller carbon footprint
• is safe and supplies ongoing health and wellbeing
• provides for the future prosperity of the nation.
3.1.1 Scope
This section specifically addresses environmental aspects of the design of drainage requirements for the
road network and those issues associated with the design and operation of the road network. While there is
general information contained in this Guide regarding site management and pollution control, details during
the construction phase are dealt with in a number of environmental protection authority, road agency and
drainage authority regulations, policies and guidance manuals as well as road agency procedures and
contractual requirements.
3.1.2 Environmental Considerations
A key environmental consideration related to drainage and road run-off (via stormwater, site water run-off,
rainfall, litter and spills) is pollutant export and its resulting impact on water quality. Pollutants contained in
run-off and drainage from road corridors have the potential to adversely affect the water quality and aquatic
biota of receiving waters with short or long-term impacts.

For any given project, the significance and impact of pollutant export will depend upon:
• the relative sensitivity of the receiving environment
• traffic type and volume
• road project infrastructure type and form (e.g. off-ramp, traffic lights, bend in road, steep hill, etc.)
• climatic factors experienced in the locality.
Therefore, pollution control techniques must be established and implemented according to many factors,
including the type, source, concentration of pollutant export and the risk of harm it may have on the receiving
environment.
3.2 Climate Change
3.2.1 Introduction and Overview
Changing climate has an effect on flooding and will therefore impact on the design of road drainage.
ARR2019 has specifically incorporated the means of including future climate change effects on design
floods. Consideration of climate change is recommended in this guide for road planning and design, with
specific advice provided. This section provides a recommended approach by extracting relevant material
from ARR and relating to its application to road flooding and drainage.
ARR funded research projects which investigated the following aspects:

• How climate change will affect flooding and the factors influencing flooding.
• How to incorporate climate change into the methodologies used by the engineering profession to
estimate design floods.
• Updating of the methodology in ARR2019 so that the outcomes from climate change research (e.g.
regional dynamic downscaling) can be incorporated easily into the investigation methodology as the
science and results become available.
The major areas where climate change will impact flooding of relevance to road design are:
• Design rainfall intensity-frequency-duration
• Storm type, frequency, and depth
• Rainfall spatial and temporal patterns
• Antecedent conditions
• Changes in sea level
• The joint probability of storm surge and flood producing rainfall.
The most important of these and those where there is some guidance for incorporation into design are the
rainfall intensity-frequency-duration, antecedent conditions and changes in sea level. The storm type and
rainfall temporal and spatial patterns are not sufficiently understood to be incorporated into the design
scenarios and the joint probability of storm surge and flood producing rainfall can be incorporated by
standard techniques.
The latest research suggests that rare floods are increasing but frequent floods are not (Sharma A., Wasko
C., Lettenmaier P, 2018). For frequent floods the increase in rainfall is counter balanced by drier antecedent
conditions from warmer conditions causing increases in evapotranspiration.

The future climate change scenarios are represented by Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
with four different future conditions represented, namely RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5. These RCPs represented
in the ARR climate change guidelines but only the higher three are provided in the Australian Rainfall and
Runoff data hub (ARR data hub) (https://data.arr-software.org/) as RCP 2.6 is extremely unlikely. For road
infrastructure projects, the design criteria should be met for RCP 4.5, with RCP 8.5 used for climate change
sensitivity since this currently appears to represent the most likely future trajectory. The projections for
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are plotted in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Projected climate change scenarios

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017).
ARR uses output from the Climate Futures web tool developed by the CSIRO (which incorporates material
from the IPCC reports), where climate change projections are focussed on Natural Resource Management
(NRM) ‘clusters’, as plotted in Figure 3.2. Application of these clusters means that the climate projections
vary for different regions of Australia. Projected changes from Global Climate Models (GCMs) can be
explored for 14 20-year periods and the four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) for greenhouse
gas and aerosol concentrations that were used to drive the GCMs. ARR recommends the use of RCPs 4.5
and 8.5 (low and high concentrations, respectively), but trends since the publication of ARR indicates that the
world is tracking between RCP 6 and 8.5. Due to a lesser number of models being used RCP 6 has shown
some inconsistencies. Current advice is that the design criteria for the project should be tested and met with
RCP 4.5 scenario on the most critical design flood. RCP 8.5 is recommended for climate change sensitivity.

Figure 3.2: Locations of natural resource management clusters

Source: ARR2019 Figure 1.6.1.
There is more confidence in GCM simulations of temperature than for rainfall, so ARR provides an
adjustment factor for IFD curves informed by temperature projections alone. These temperature projections
are then combined with current understanding of changes to extreme rainfall event intensities based on
research in Australia and overseas. Given the uncertainty in rainfall projections and their considerable
regional variability, an increase in rainfall (intensity or depth) of 5% per °C of local warming is recommended.
3.2.2 Risk Based Design Procedure
The recommended approach for incorporating climate change in road design follows that in Book 1 Chapter
6 of ARR2019. The complete procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.3, with detailed descriptions of each step
following.

Figure 3.3: Decision tree for incorporating climate change in flood design

Description of each of the steps in this process, as developed for ARR2019 are as follows.
Step 1 – Set the effective service life of planning horizon
The first consideration is the effective service life of an asset or planning horizon of an activity, see
Figure 3.4. If the effective service life or planning horizon is relatively short (less than 20 years) climate
change will have negligible impact on design rainfall characteristics over that period of time. Thus, the
projected hazard will be similar to the present, and the design process should be based on the standard
design rainfall data. If the planning horizon is longer, the procedure moves to Step 2.
Figure 3.4: Decision tree for incorporating climate change in flood design – Part 1 of 3
Step 2 – Set the flood design standard
If the design standard is the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), this calculation should be used. However
practically all applications involving road design use more frequent design flood estimates, so the procedure
proceeds to Step 3.
Step 3 – Consider the purpose and nature of the asset or activity and consequences of its failure
In Figure 3.5, the ‘purpose of the asset’ to be considered can refer to flow conveyance, improved safety, and
reduced frequency of exposure and damage. The ARR procedure covers a wide range of applications, but
for the case of road planning and design, the purpose of the infrastructure and consequences will need to
consider the risk and consequences of damage as well as the risk of closure and related disruption. In most
cases, road design and construction has a long design life, except for short term infrastructure such as side
tracks or other temporary roads.
The consequences of failure can be rated as either low, medium or high:

• Low consequence – A less significant road may be closed causing limited disruption and minimal risk of
flood damage if the design flood is exceeded.
• Medium consequence – There is a moderate to large probability that performance of more major roads
may be impacted. For this category, more important roads may be closed but the risk of damage is
small, so this category covers roads of a medium importance and those that are not critical links or those
that do not carry significant traffic.

• High consequence - moderate to large probability that performance will be impacted or fail. For road
planning and design, this will imply that major disruption can occur on a critical road link or there is
substantial damage. This category will include major roads and critical links and locations where failure
could cause significant damage.
Where the consequences of failure and the costs of retrofitting are considered to be low, the project or
decision should proceed in accordance with the original design specifications, otherwise, proceed to Step 4.
Step 4 – Carry out a climate change risk screening analysis
Considering Figure 3.5, Step 4 responds to the question of whether climate change is a significant issue for
the facility of interest. Here the risks of climate change are assessed with regard to their capacity to impair
the facility’s ability to perform its intended function. The description of impact or failure involves the use of
heavy rainfall events with different AEPs, increasing one or two increments above the design AEP. The
outputs from this step include a good understanding of the extent to which the risks of climate change may
exceed the coping capacity of the facility to perform its intended function. If the incremental impact and
consequences are low (e.g. increases in flood levels are slight) then the exposure risk to climate change is
low, and design rainfall should be determined using standard methods or proceed to Step 5.
Step 5 – Consider climate change projections and their consequences
Considering Figure 3.6, where the consequences of impact on performance and exposure risk to climate
change have been judged to be medium or high, consideration needs to be given to whether the original
design specifications of the project or the decision need to be reviewed and adjusted. This needs to consider
the climate change projections. The climate change projections can be calculated using the procedures
outlined in ARR by applying the CSIRO Climate Web Tool, but the ARR Data Hub allows the parameters to
be calculated directly for any location in Australia. While the ARR Data Hub provides results for a number of
RCPs, this guide recommends the application of results for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5.
The actual rainfall scenarios are discussed in Section 3.2.3 below.


Breakout 1: Risk Based Design Procedure
A hypothetical road project requires the designers to factor in climate change. The PMF flood is not required as part of
the design criteria, as is typical for road projects. In this scenario, the road lies between 2 major towns. Critical
Infrastructure such as hospitals and major services are located in one of the towns.
For the temporary works design:
Step 1 – Set the Effective Service Life of Planning Horizon: climate change does not need to be considered, and
design can be undertaken using the methodology from ARR Book 2.
For the permanent works design:
Step 1 – Set the Effective Service Life of Planning Horizon: the design life of the infrastructure is 50 years. This puts
the design in the long category and design proceeds to step 2.
Step 2 – Set the Flood Design Standard: as the PMF is not part of the design criteria, the Design AEP aspect only
needs to be considered and the design proceeds to step 3.
Step 3 – Consider the Purpose and Nature of the Asset or Activity and Consequences of its Failure: As the road
connects two major towns and is relied upon for access to critical infrastructure, the consequence of failure or closure
is of High consequence.
Step 4 – Carry out a Climate Change Risk Screening Analysis: In this step percentage increase of rainfall is
downloaded from the ARR data hub and applied to the rainfall before it is put through the hydrologic model or similar
tool. Sea level rise may also be considered, but was not relevant for this scenario. The outputs of this simulation
resulted in increases in flood levels of approximately 100mm.
Step 5 – Consider Climate Change Projections and their Consequences: It is noted that where the impacts are small
(in the order of 20mm, or where they would not impact the immunity of the infrastructure), climate change does not
need to be included in the design. However, as in this case, climate change would result in significant impacts on the
capacity of the road, climate change scenarios of RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 should be adopted for the events included in
the design criteria.

3.2.3 Changes in Rainfall
While ARR2019 describes the approach to estimating the changes in rainfall, the simplest means of
estimating changes in rainfall is by using the ARR Data Hub.
Breakout 2: Climate change – Rainfall Increase
ARR2019 Book 1 Chapter 2 recommends the application of a percentage increase to rainfall as a climate change
assessment. For ease of application, this has been pre-calculated on the ARR Data Hub. An example of the output
from the ARR Data Hub for climate changes related to rainfall is illustrated in Figure 3.7.
This output provides the percentage changes in design rainfall recommended for a series of years to 2090 for three
different RCP scenarios.
Figure 3.7: ARR Data Hub output for climate change factors
Source: Australian Rainfall and Runoff Data Hub (2022b).

Breakout 2: Climate change – Rainfall Increase

For an infrastructure project in Perth, the long range (2090) percentage increases are 8.5% and 18.1% for the RCP
4.5 and RCP 8.5 respectively. For the critical event used in the road design, the event rainfall depths should be
increased by 8.5% and the road made immune for the required AEP with RCP 4.5 climate change.
The critical duration for this catchment is 168hrs, giving a 1% AEP depth of 222mm.
Design Rainfall for a 1% AEP = 222 x 1.085
= 241mm
This would then be applied in the hydrologic model, in order to calculate 1% AEP flows with RCP 4.5 climate change.
A sensitivity would be undertaken for the most critical AEP where an increase of 18.1% is applied to the IFD to
account for a high emissions future scenario. Assuming the 1% event is critical to the design.
Climate change sensitivity Rainfall for 1% AEP = 222 x 1.181 = 262mm
This would then be applied in the hydrologic model, in order to calculate the 1% AEP flows with RCP 8.5 climate
change. The sensitivity test can consider the implications on the performance, cost and risk for the adopted design if
the future climate tends to conditions represented by RCP 8.5
The percentage increase should not be applied to the flow hydrograph instead of the rainfall.
3.2.4 ARR Data Hub Output for Climate Change Factor
While there are three different RCPs provided and ARR2019 suggests considering RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5,
this guide recommends the application of RCP 8.5. In general, where climate change needs to be
considered in the design, the result for 2090 will be required most frequently for road design work. The
CSIRO guidance as applied in ARR does not extend past 2090, so there is no factor to allow for a longer
design life. Major road infrastructure has a design life of 100 years, so extrapolation beyond 2090 is useful.
In the absence of any definitive projection, a linear extrapolation is suggested, though this recognises that
this suggestion may need change with future changes or climate modelling.
In the absence of more detailed and better quality information, this percentage change in rainfall is
recommended for all AEPs and durations up to the AEP 1:2,000 event.
In addition, the standard temporal patterns and other rainfall data should also be used for all cases.
3.2.5 Changes in Sea Level
As global temperatures increase, global sea levels will increase principally by thermal expansion of the
ocean and melting of glaciers. There is considerable uncertainty about the extent of the change in sea level
but the increase is certain to continue to 2100 and beyond.
The IPCC report has estimated an increase in global sea levels of between 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP 2.6
(significantly reduced emissions) to 0.52 to 0.98 m for RCP 8.5 (higher emissions) 2100. Some states have
specific policies and guidance including NSW.
This guide therefore recommends in the absence of state based policy an increase in sea level of 0.8 m for
the 2100 scenario, though the significant uncertainty is recognised.
While there are uncertainties in the projection of mean sea level rise, there are even more uncertainties in
how the different tidal levels and storm tide levels are affected by climate change.

Because of uncertainty, it is suggested in the absence of state-based policy that all tidal levels and storm
tides be adjusted by the same projection of 0.8 m. This advice is consistent with that in ARR2019.
3.2.6 Climate Change Design Guide
When the possible scenario for future flood risk has been assessed for the road planning and design,
considering both changes on rainfall and sea level, there is a decision needed concerning the way that this
risk is incorporated into the design.
Book 1 Chapter 5 of ARR2019 has a detailed discussion on the implications of this decision and means of
appropriate application for specific designs. This is discussed in ARR2019 as “non-stationary risk
assessment”.
ARR2019 outlines four different approaches to non-stationary risk assessment, that can be applied to the
assessment of the changing risk resulting from climate change over the design life of a road project. These
approaches are:
• Undertake risk assessment at the point in time of highest overall risk (T(max)): Typically, this may
be at the end of the project’s Effective Service Life (ESL). By applying the risk assessment at T(max),
and determining appropriate design criteria for this point, the proponent will effectively design its
infrastructure to be acceptable at all points of its ESL. This is considered to be the most conservative
approach and will lead to relative over-engineering of infrastructure at some points of its life, particularly
early in its life.
• Undertake risk assessment based on the existing environment (T(0)): This approach accepts that
non-stationary components have impacts on flood behaviour, risks will rise. This approach assumes that
this growth in risk will be acceptable and therefore it will lead to under-engineering relative to current
minimum design requirements as risks rise. This is considered the least conservative approach and the
most likely to result in higher long-term risks.
• Undertake risk assessment based on the existing environment (T(0)a) and commit to managing
residual risk as it arises: This approach will require periodic reassessment of risks associated with the
project at agreed points in time. This approach may lead to under-engineering towards the end of the re-
evaluation period and is considered the second least conservative approach.
• Undertake risk assessment at a representative point in the projects ESL (T(x)) and commit to
managing the residual risk. This approach will likely lead to over-engineering in the initial (pre – T(x))
period, after which it will require periodic reassessment of risks associated with the project at agreed
points in time.
Each of these four options revolve around the choice between conservatively over-engineering to ensure risk
levels are satisfied, against programs of continuous upgrades in which changes in risk may be responded to
through adaptation in design.
In general the T(max) approach may be identified as the preferred approach where:
• The magnitude of change in risk is well known and likely to be small
• A project’s effective service life is certain
• The costs of over-engineering are low
• The potential for retro-fitting / incorporating adaptability is low.
In contrast, The T(0)a and T(x) approaches are more likely to be favourable where:
• The potential change in risk is high or uncertain
• The projects effective service life is uncertain
• The costs of over-engineering are high

• The potential for incorporating adaptability is high.
While this guide does not recommend any particular approach, it is expected that most projects where the
risk of climate change is large and the assessment indicates that it should be considered would use
approach T(max) unless the assessment of cost indicates there is a excessively high cost, when more
detailed analysis is necessary.
Breakout 3: Climate Change Design Guide
The approaches are presented in Figure 3.8 for the hypothetical case of a road with an 80-year design life being
constructed in 2020. The options are:
• Design for current conditions (2020)
• Design for 2100 conditions
• Design for midpoint conditions which would be either 2060 or 2065.
While 2060 is based on time, a 2065 design averages out the overtopping events during the design life to be the same
as a stationary climate. The fourth case is to build an adaptive design that can be raised once overtopping becomes
an issue. What this case does not address is that often the decision to build infrastructure and keep it in that location
often exceeds the design life as parts are gradually updated or replaced.
Figure 3.8: Road design approaches to address climate change

3.2.7 Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) IS Rating Scheme
In addition to the ARR Risk Assessment process, the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA)
has developed a rating scheme for major infrastructure projects, that is used to assess the sustainability of
road projects, among others. Details of this process are beyond the scope of this guide, but the process can
be reviewed on the ISCA website.

3.3 Fauna Passage/Crossings
3.3.1 General
Through environmental management, some of the possible impacts of road infrastructure can be reduced or
eliminated.
Continuity of wildlife corridors may require consideration including the desirability of:
• extending vegetation cover that exists upstream and downstream under the bridge
• placing the bridge abutments away from the banks of the watercourse
• shielding road lighting where it may affect migration of nocturnal mammals
• fencing to guide fauna to crossings or exclude them from hazardous areas.
The passage of fauna and fish through culverts may require provision of larger culverts and/or special
features at inlets or outlets, or within culvert cells which could affect the hydraulics of the culvert.
Fauna crossings are explained in more detail in AGRD Part 6B (Austroads 2015).
Recognition of the impacts of road corridor development on fauna populations has led to modifications in the
way that roads are now designed. A substantial amount of research has been undertaken to develop
practices that facilitate fauna movement through the road corridor in a way that minimises mortalities. Much
of the research has focussed on passages that are integral with drainage structures. As such, the provision
of fauna passage is one of the key environmental factors which may influence the physical dimensions of a
drainage structure.
This section provides an overview of what steps need to be taken when the project environmental
assessment process has identified a need for fauna passage to be incorporated into drainage design.
3.3.2 Identifying Fauna Passage Criteria
When a project environmental assessment has identified fauna passage requirements, it is necessary to
undertake the following steps:
• identify terrestrial and aquatic fauna pathways and areas of high mortality on the road
• identify the species groups of concern
• consult with the relevant authority
• identify criteria affecting drainage design (e.g. ensuring dry fauna passage at all times).
3.3.3 Identify Terrestrial and Aquatic Fauna Pathways
A review of the project environmental assessment should be undertaken to check for the presence of any
significant terrestrial and/or aquatic fauna movement pathways which could be potentially affected by the
proposal.
If fauna pathways have been identified or are likely to exist in the study area, proceed to identifying the
species groups of concern. If not, document the outcomes of the environmental assessment review and
continue identifying other relevant drainage design criteria. Bridges provide a good solution to maintaining
terrestrial and/or aquatic fauna movement pathways as shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9: Fauna corridor under bridge

3.3.4 Identify the Species Group
Where fauna pathways have been identified, identify the relevant species group from the list below:
• fishes
• amphibians (frogs)
• mammals: macropods
• mammals: arboreal species (e.g. possums, gliders, etc.)
• mammals: koalas
• mammals: platypus
• mammals: bats/flying foxes
• mammals: small-size (e.g. echidnas)
• marsupials: bandicoots
• birds (flying and ground-dwelling)
• reptiles (e.g. snakes, lizards and turtles)
• invertebrates (insects and spiders).
3.3.5 Consult with the Relevant Authority
During the planning and design stages it is necessary to consult with the relevant authorities to establish the
type of fauna within the area of a project, their requirements and need to be designed into a specific project.
Many jurisdictions produce guidelines that outline the habitat and migratory requirements of particular
species. This is particularly important where a road alignment will dissect a population of a species and there
is a need to provide access across the alignment to ensure the population’s survival.

3.3.6 Identify Criteria Affecting Drainage Design
In consultation with the relevant authorities and from information provided in the environmental assessment
(i.e. baseline fauna studies), determine the following:
• Specific characteristics and requirements for the species of concern (i.e. movement patterns, habitat
range).
• Opportunities to facilitate safe passage of fauna through the drainage system (e.g. bridging options,
culvert modifications). See Table 3.1 for an indication of culvert size for various sized fauna, and fauna
sensitive road design guidelines, such as Queensland’s Fauna Sensitive Road Design Manual Volume 1
(DMR 2000) and Volume 2 (DTMR 2010a) and VicRoads Fauna Sensitive Road Design Guidelines
(VicRoads 2012).
• The economic and engineering feasibility of potential opportunities in consultation with the project
manager and designer.
• The need for further preliminary design work (i.e. implications for cut-and-fill balance if a different culvert
size is required, revised dimensions, etc.).
• Specific design criteria for drainage structures (i.e. allowable flow velocity, minimum culvert height, dry
passage requirements, etc.).
Table 3.1: Use of culverts or underpass types by fauna
Small box
Small pipe Large pipe Large box culvert > 1.2
Fauna type culvert Bridge underpass

< 0.5 m dia > 0.5 m dia m high
< 1.2 m high
Small mammal
Medium
mammal
Large mammal
Semi-arboreal
mammal
Arboreal (large only)
mammal
Bats (adapted (adapted

roof structure) roof structure)
Reptile
Bird
Amphibian
Introduced
predator
Caution: This table is based on preliminary research only. Although not confirmed at the time, fauna should pass through
all the culverts larger than the minimum ones shown. Recommended minimum sizes for design are shown in DMR
(2000).
Source: Adapted from DTMR (2010b).

3.3.7 Fish Passage
Barriers to fish passage
Any structure placed across a stream can impede fish moving upstream or downstream, including dams,
weirs, floodgates, roads, bridges, causeways and culverts. These structures can act as physical (e.g. dams
and weirs), hydraulic (e.g. fast flowing water through pipes) and behavioural barriers (e.g. long dark tunnels)
to fish movements, resulting in:
• restricted spawning migrations and movements to critical habitats
• reduced dispersal of juvenile fish
• large congregations of fish downstream of the structure that may lead to increased predation and disease
• genetically isolated populations upstream and downstream of the structure
• localised extinction of some species above the barrier.
In certain situations, culvert designs will have special requirements to allow the passage of fish and/or
terrestrial fauna. While the requirements will differ depending on whether fish and/or terrestrial fauna
passage is to be catered for, all will require a clear distinction between wet and dry passageways.
It is typically more efficient to determine size requirements for terrestrial fauna or fish passage prior to
undertaking any hydraulic calculations, as the former may dictate culvert size.
Fish passage may be required for regular movement between permanent ponds on each side of a roadway
(i.e. for feeding, shelter or breeding), or for seasonal migration for breeding. Fish migration is known to occur
through both instream and floodplain culverts.
Fish generally migrate upstream in response to rain events and hence may swim upstream where:
• the road crosses a stream with permanent water
• there are pools of water upstream and downstream of the road which would be connected by intermittent
flows through a road waterway
• significant rain events open upstream areas to fish habitat.
In fish migration areas, bridges are preferred, however, if a culvert is required, the following types in order of
preference) may be used:
• arch
• buried (earth bed) box culvert
• box culvert with low flow channel
• pipe culvert.
To allow fish to swim upstream through a culvert, the culvert should:

• where practicable, reproduce the natural conditions of the watercourse bed and ideally be recessed
below the natural bed levels (about 100 mm below, some guides recommending that the culvert be
recessed 20% of the cell height and backfilled with bed material won on site)
• have a floor slope that does not exceed 1 in 100
• have a minimum water depth of 0.2 m to 0.5 m and a water velocity at periods of migration not greater
than 0.3 m/s at 0.5 m water depth (noting that an additional cell or floor roughening to reduce velocity
may be required).

Where possible, a low flow channel should have:

• a maximum flow velocity of 1.0 m/s
• a maximum flow velocity of 0.3 m/s at a depth of 0.2 m to 0.5 m
• where practicable, a minimum flow depth of 0.2 m to 0.5 m
• an absence of areas of large-scale turbulence (relative to flow depth, i.e. whirlpools).
However, the above flow conditions are usually difficult to achieve, especially if the culvert floor cannot be
recessed below the natural bed level. In such cases the next preferred option is to size the culvert so that
there is minimal change in the channel flow area at the culvert.
To assist in the development of suitable low flow conditions and to assist in the control of sediment flow, an
inlet weir can be formed:
• to direct all base flows to one wet cell
• in front of the dry cells to a height of 0.3 m to 0.5 m
• and placed four times its height from the culvert entrance.
When fish passage is required, measures should be taken to ensure that light can enter the culvert, e.g. by
providing stormwater drop inlets from a median above the culvert.
Drop inlets are not recommended at culvert entrances in regions where fish migration is required. In areas
where fish passage occurs, high velocities may inhibit or prevent passage from occurring. For example,
where fish passage is a requirement, there may be specific velocity criteria that apply to normal and/or low
flow. These will typically be determined through an appropriate local process and use of a fish specialist.
However, the velocity requirement may depend on the fish species requiring passage.
Further information on fish passage can be found in Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? – Fish Passage
Requirements for Waterway Crossings (Fairfull & Witheridge 2003).
3.3.8 Fauna Crossings – Design Criteria
To allow for fauna crossings through a culvert, a raised ledge against the cell wall may be required on either
side of the watercourse, but aligned with the dominant movement of fauna. The ledge should be 0.3 m to 0.5
m wide, constructed of materials appropriate to the relevant fauna use, at least 100 mm above the base flow
water level, and connected to a dry path on both sides.
Other features associated with a terrestrial passage include:

• separate wet and dry cells to cater for both terrestrial and aquatic movement
• a low flow channel instead of a ledge
• a lizard run (Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.11)
• rough side walls as an alternative to a lizard run.
As a general rule, culverts should not be modified to provide or promote habitats for birds and terrestrial
animals as the habitats would not be natural and would be vulnerable to floods.

Figure 3.10: Example of a low flow channel and lizard runs in multi-cell culvert
Source: Catchments and Creeks.
Figure 3.11: Example of a lizard run detail

Source: Catchments and Creeks.
Table 3.2 is a guide to the appropriate culvert height to assist the passage of particular fauna.
Table 3.2: Minimum desirable culvert cell height for terrestrial passage
Species Culvert cell height (m)

Small mammals 0.5
Medium mammals 0.5
Large mammals 1.2
Semi-arboreal (e.g. Koala, Eastern Pygmy Possum) > 1.2
Microchiropteran bats > 1.2
Reptiles 0.5

3.3.9 Riparian and Wildlife Corridors
Riparian land is any adjoining land to creeks and rivers or any land that influences the waterway bank itself
and which may also be a wildlife corridor. Rather than just narrow strips of land adjoining these corridors,
riparian land may be quite wide and diverse. The riparian zone provides natural buffer zones that protect the
water quality and the watercourse banks and may extend across floodplains.
In some watercourses, management programs have been initiated to restore degraded land in the riparian
zone. These issues need to be considered when locating bridge abutments and piers. They may also need
to be considered when locating culverts.
In locations where terrestrial corridors are required under a bridge, and when suitable circumstances exist,
vegetation cover that exists upstream and downstream of the bridge, should be extended under the bridge.
Bridge abutments should be moved away from watercourse banks in order to increase the opportunity for
fauna passage that is usually required on both sides of the waterway. This also provides a benefit related to
the risk of scour.
Lighting or gaps may be required in culverts to assist diurnal animals to move through the culvert. This is
because they may not be willing to enter a dark entrance where the other end is not visible.
For guidelines on the use of wildlife exclusion or movement guide fencing, see the local jurisdiction’s fauna-
sensitive road design guidelines.
Reference should be made to the project’s environmental assessment for any specific requirements that
need to be considered in the location, orientation or geometry of the culvert/bridge.
3.4 Pollution Control and Water Quality
3.4.1 General
A significant amount of pollutants, ranging from litter to solid and soluble particles, accumulate on roads and
car parks and are conveyed into stormwater drainage networks during storm events. Between run-off events,
pollutants enter drainage networks as a result of ineffective street sweeping, wind action or vehicle
movement.
On highways and freeways, gross pollutant management is slightly less important than in local streets and
parking areas in typical commercial and industrial areas. For highways and freeways, the emphasis in
stormwater quality management is on control of suspended solids and associated contaminants and control
of turbidity.
Typical pollutant loads for various land uses and road operation are set out in Wong, Breen and Lloyd
(2000). For the considerable amounts of erosion that occur during construction, estimates need to be made
for the specific site and the months of the year that exposure occurs. Further detail on erosion and sediment
are provided in Section 3.6 – Erosion and Sediment.
Relevant issues should be covered in dealings with other authorities throughout the planning and design
process; it is suggested that designers should be aware of the initiatives and development work undertaken
by eWater CRC (e.g. MUSIC, a Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation model (eWater
CRC 2012)).

3.4.2 Sources of Pollution from Roads
Road operation contributes a range of pollutants to the environment including litter, suspended solids,
toxicants, oil and other hydrocarbons. These are usually washed off during rain events. The management
and clean-up of road accidents/incidents can also have a significant impact on a receiving water
environment. Table 3.3 lists a range of common sources of pollutants in road run-off.
Table 3.3: Common sources of pollutants in road run-off
Source Typical pollutants Source details

Atmospheric deposition P, N, S, heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Cu, Industrial activities, traffic air
Ni, Zn, Hg), hydrocarbons pollution, and agricultural activities
(all deposited as particulates).
Raindrops also absorb
atmospheric pollutants.
Traffic – exhausts Hydrocarbons including PAH Vehicle emissions, unburned fuel
(polycyclic aromatic and particles from catalytic
hydrocarbons), MTBE (Methyl converters.
Tertiary Butyl Ether), Pb, Cd, Pt,
Pd, Rh
Traffic – wear and corrosion Sediment, heavy metals (Pb, Cr, Tyre wear, vehicle corrosion.
Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd, Mn)
Leaks and spillages (e.g. from vehicles) Hydrocarbons, phosphates, heavy Engine leaks, hydraulic and de-
metals, glycol, alcohols icing fluids, refuelling and
accidental spillage and lubricating

oil can contain phosphates and
metals.
Roofs Heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn), Atmospheric deposition, corrosion
bacteria, organic matter of metal roofing or coatings such
as tar can sometimes contain
concentrations of heavy metals.
Animal droppings and vegetation
contribute organic matter and
bacteria.
Litter/animal faeces Bacteria, viruses, phosphorus, Drink cans, paper, food,
nitrogen cigarettes, animal excreta, plastic
and glass. Some of this will break
down and wash off urban
surfaces. Dead animals on roads
decompose and release pollutants
such as bacteria and nutrients.
Animals (including pets) leave
faeces that wash into the drainage
system.
Vegetation/landscape maintenance P, N, herbicides, pesticides, Leaves and grass cuttings,
fungicides, organic matter herbicides and pesticides used in
landscaped areas such as
gardens, parks, recreation areas
and golf courses can be a source.
Soil erosion Sediment, P, N, herbicides, Run-off from poorly-detailed
pesticides, fungicides landscape or other areas can
wash onto impervious surfaces
and cause run-off pollution.
Cleaning activities Sediment, organic matter, P, N and Washing vehicles, windows, bins
detergents or pressure washing hard surfaces
transports pollutants into surface
water drainage.
Illegal disposal of chemicals and oil Hydrocarbons and various Occurs at small (domestic) or
chemicals large (industrial) scales.

Source Typical pollutants Source details

Pavement Sediment Pavement wear from water, traffic,
and so on.
Tyre wear contributes to road grit and traces of the various metals used in tyre and brake manufacture.
Vehicle parts are a source of iron, nickel, copper, cadmium and chromium. Traffic crashes result in plastic
and glass fragments. Fuel combustion and additives produce lead, sulphur and nitrogen compounds. Fuel or
lubricant spills may result in release of petrol or oils and hence release hydrocarbons into stormwater
systems and/or groundwater.
Large car parks near regional shopping centres are sources of significant quantities of litter including plastic
containers, packaging, and plastic bags. Car parks are also major sources of oil, grease and other
hydrocarbons.
Residential streets, in addition to any pollutants from road operation, contribute vegetation from street plants
or lawn cutting, animal faeces, detergents and waste materials from building sites. Unsealed residential
streets add road materials and other sediments to the pollution load.
The relative contribution roads make to changes in catchment hydrology and pollutant load is directly related
to their contribution to total catchment imperviousness. In urban catchments, the impervious local road
network usually represents a significant proportion of the catchment compared to arterial roads and therefore
has a greater impact on the catchment hydrology.
3.4.3 Spill Management
The design of drainage systems can play a role in spill management. The type of transport, traffic volume per
day and receiving environment will need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis for each project. It may
simply be more feasible to realign the road project or design a different and more robust drainage system
that removes, or minimises the discharge of road run-off to very sensitive environments.
High volume road projects upstream of very sensitive waterways, such as Ramsar wetlands (Ramsar 2012),
may require specific spill management elements to be designed into the drainage system. While it could be
said that this should occur for all parts of a drainage system, this is neither practical, nor cost effective from a
construction or ongoing maintenance perspective. Specific capture techniques can be installed to respond to
high pollution locations, even retrospectively.
Occasionally trucks overturn, spilling their loads onto the road and in some cases into the drainage system.
The most dramatic event is incineration of part of a drainage system by ignited fuel. However, even solids
like fertilisers may be inadvertently hosed off the road and into the drains by emergency services personnel.
These events could occur at any point on the arterial road system and the emergency services, in
consultation with the environment protection agency, need to develop and use appropriate procedures for
collection of spills of toxic and nuisance materials.
However, when any drain is upstream of a reservoir supplying potable water, arrangements should be made
for interception and holding of effluents from the road reserve. This may take the form of a sedimentation or
retention pond, with gate valves to shut off flow to the reservoir in the event of heavy pollution or a toxic spill.
Toxic materials would then be pumped out and transferred to another site for treatment or disposal.
The issue of interception of contaminated water should be assessed on a project-by-project basis. However,
provision should be made to cater for the interception of about 20 m 3 of contaminated water. This amount will
vary depending upon the traffic type using the road and, where B-double tankers are expected, the
contaminated water volume could be doubled. The requirement should be confirmed with the relevant
jurisdiction.

3.4.4 Typical Steps for Pollution Control and Treatment
Guidance on the treatment of pollution in stormwater is given in:

• Road Run-off and Drainage: Environmental Impacts and Management Options (Austroads 2001)
• Guidelines for the Treatment of Stormwater Run-off from the Road Infrastructure (Austroads 2003)
• The Collection and Discharge of Stormwater from the Road Infrastructure (Alderson 2006)
• WSUD Engineering Procedures – Stormwater (Melbourne Water 2005b)
• Australian Run-off Quality – A Guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design (Wong 2006).
A flow chart for pollution control and treatment for both construction and operational phases is shown in
Figure 3.12.

Figure 3.12: Flow chart for design of pollution treatment train
Monitor existing Estimate construction Estimate operation

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

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

authorities
Source N In-transit N Outlet

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

factors
Preliminary sizing of
devices
Hydrological data
N Area
available?
Analysis outputs
N Meets Y Review
economy End
standard?
?s?
Note: For more information on treatment trains, see Section 3.5.10 – Treatment Train.
Source: Alderson (2006).

3.4.5 At-source vs Catchment-based Treatment for Roads
There has been a lot of discussion within the industry and agencies about whether it is best to treat
pollutants at a source or at a catchment level. There is sufficient justification for implementing treatment
elements at either location. The decision should reflect any high value ecosystems that may be impacted by
road run-off in the long-term. The land use, a project’s location within a catchment and the site or project
characteristics also need to be taken into account to properly assess the best option for a particular project.
A jurisdiction’s regulations may indicate when and where pollution control measures should be implemented.
At-source controls
At-source controls are those treatment elements that are placed on site or near the source of the pollutant
load. For road projects this means in road reserves and median strips and may include buffer strips, grass
swales or biofiltration trenches where there is sufficient room. Other treatment elements may be used where
available land, either on the roadside or belonging to others, may be utilised, e.g. for wetlands.
In-transit controls
In-transit controls are where treatment elements are constructed between the source and the receiving
waters. Retarding basins (for flood control or vegetated for treatment) are a common example. This type of
control is more likely to be undertaken by a drainage authority. At a localised point source of pollution, e.g.
roundabouts, the local ‘roundabout’ drainage system can be separated from the area wide road drainage
system and each system designed for the required pollution control.
End-of-pipe controls
End-of-pipe controls are treatment elements placed at the end or discharge point of a catchment area before
it enters the receiving waters and may include treatment elements such as litter traps. There are various
circumstances where end-of-pipe controls could be used on road projects, in particular projects in built-up
urban areas, which discharge directly to a waterway.
Discharge of road run-off into creeks, rivers and wetlands should first be treated by passing through
appropriate treatment devices so that discharge can be improved to a standard acceptable to the receiving
environment. The proposed treatment should be adequate depending on the risk, quantity and type of
pollutants and the environmental values of the receiving waters.
Catchment-based controls
Catchment-based controls are treatment elements/trains (i.e. a series of treatment elements designed to
collectively meet the treatment objectives, see also Section 3.5.10 – Treatment Train), that are strategically
placed to treat polluted stormwater from larger catchment areas and tend to be constructed by drainage
authorities, including local government.
Wetlands are a common type of treatment used and suit areas where at-source controls are not feasible and
where a better environmental outcome can be achieved further down the catchment or at the junction of
several smaller catchments.
The jurisdictional responsibilities of a road agency may also impact on the decision made regarding the type
of treatment train used and whether these are placed at source or are catchment based.
It is important to ensure that maintenance responsibility and requirements are identified and resourced as
part of the planning and design process.

3.4.6 Debris Control
The performance of culverts or other drainage infrastructure can be compromised by the accumulation of
debris at inlets. This accumulation can cause failure of the drainage structure, possibly resulting in over-
topping of the roadway by floodwaters, with ensuing damage to the embankment or to the properties
upstream and downstream of the culvert. Where there is likelihood of a culvert being so affected,
consideration should be given to the installation of a debris control structure.
Measures to control debris range from design precautions to providing elaborate control structures. Design
precautions include providing a smooth well designed inlet, avoiding multiple cells, and increasing the size of
the culvert. If multiple cells are unavoidable, provision of a sloping cut on the upstream pier (wall) ends may
help to align floating debris with the culvert entrance. More costly measures should be avoided unless there
is a definite and serious potential hazard.
A relief culvert passing through the embankment at a higher level than the main culvert permits water to
bypass the latter if it becomes blocked. The relief culvert could also be placed at a low level some distance
away from the main culvert where it is not likely to be blocked. If this relief culvert is an additional
requirement, the total cost of both culverts should be compared with that of a larger culvert that will be less
subject to blockage.
Debris control structures can be costly both to construct and maintain. Details of the various types of debris
control structures may be found in Bradley, Richards and Bahner (2005), which provides information on
debris accumulation and the various debris control countermeasures available for culvert and bridge
structures and:
• presents various problems associated with debris accumulation at culvert and bridge structures
• provides a procedure for estimating the potential of debris accumulating at a bridge structure
• provides general guidelines for analysing and modelling debris accumulation on a bridge structure to
determine the impacts that the debris would have on the water surface profile through the bridge structure
and the hydraulic loading on the structure.
Various types of debris countermeasures for culvert and bridge structures are also discussed.
The choice of structure type depends upon size, quantity and type of debris, the cost involved and the
maintenance proposed. However, for existing culverts which are prone to debris clogging, it may be
worthwhile to construct a debris control structure rather than replace or enlarge the culvert.
Experience has shown that the following combination of stream characteristics tends to produce the most
serious debris problems:
• susceptibility of stream to flash floods, i.e. relatively impervious watersheds with moderate or steep
gradients
• actively eroding banks bordered by trees or large shrubs
• relatively straight unobstructed stream channels with no sharp bends
• cleared land upstream with fallen trees on the ground.
A detailed explanation for the procedure for calculating potential blockage is outlined in Section 3.7.
3.5 Water Sensitive Design
Designers are encouraged to take a holistic approach to the management of water, particularly on larger
projects which have a large catchment area and influence significant watercourses. In some cases road
designers will be required to undertake water sensitive road design analysis and to use appropriate models
to define the existing conditions and to estimate pollution loads prior to construction.

The purpose of the treatment of pollutants in road run-off is to bring the effluents within the range of
standards prescribed by the relevant environmental authority having regard to the eventual use of the
stormwater. The objective is to provide a long-term solution to stormwater run-off quality for road projects. In
order to achieve this goal, drainage designers need to consider strategies to:
• reduce pollutants and sediments in the stormwater run-off from roads before discharge into receiving
waters
• control the outflow of stormwater so as not to erode or cause siltation of the receiving waters
• reduce the volume of stormwater to be discharged.
Studies around the world have shown that run-off from roads can have a detrimental impact on receiving
waters and the aquatic life they sustain. These contaminants include:
• particulate matter
• nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
• heavy metals
• petroleum-based products
• organic compounds
• rubber products.
The treatment of road run-off is an important element of catchment management, owing to the expected high
pollutant concentrations of metals and hydrocarbons generated from road surfaces. Treatment of road run-
off is primarily directed at the removal of suspended solids and associated contaminants such as nutrients
and heavy metals.
Roads and other transport-related surfaces can constitute up to 70% of the total impervious areas in an
urban catchment and these road surfaces contribute considerably larger pollutant loads compared with other
land uses. In many studies correlations have been made between the amount of pollutants generated and
the road traffic volume (Wong, Breen & Lloyd 2000).
The contribution of a road’s impact on increases in stormwater run-off from a catchment varies depending on
the road design, location and whether it traverses an urban or regional catchment.
3.5.1 Urban Stormwater Management Principles
Flood prevention and public safety remain fundamental objectives in the planning and design of any
stormwater drainage system, and stormwater treatment elements should in no way compromise these
objectives.
3.5.2 Water Sensitive Urban/Road Design
Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is the integration of the water cycle into urban planning and the
utilisation of best practice techniques to achieve sustainable water and ecological resource management.
While WSUD was initially an additional requirement to the traditional conveyance approach to stormwater
management, it is now an integral part of the drainage system. It seeks to minimise the extent of impervious
surfaces and mitigate changes to the natural water balance.
The application of WSUD into the planning and design of road networks is referred to as water sensitive road
design (WSRD). Whether building a new road or upgrading an existing road, it is necessary to improve the
quality of the stormwater run-off from that road. This needs to be incorporated into a project at the scoping
and design stages and requires best practice objectives to be met where practicable and feasible.

Roads may represent a relatively small proportion of the total catchment, but they sometimes contribute
significantly to water quality concerns. This is especially the case of erosion during construction and on roads
with high traffic volumes, where a number of different contaminants may be produced. Between rainfall
events, contaminates can build up and then run off at a greater rate than normal into receiving waters.
A key element of WSUD is that urban stormwater should be managed both as a resource and for the
protection of receiving water ecosystems. WSUD is a particular issue for urban planning and design, but the
key principles of WSUD are also applicable to road infrastructure in the rural environment. These principles
are:
• protect existing natural features and ecological processes
• maintain the natural hydrologic behaviour of catchments
• protect water quality of surface and groundwaters
• integrate water into the landscape to enhance visual, social, cultural and ecological values.
3.5.3 What is Best Practice?
Best practice is the application of sustainable planning and management practices in the management of
stormwater run-off to protect the downstream environment. The aim is to manage or treat the stormwater
run-off to meet the water industry’s performance objectives using the best available technology in a practical
and feasible way. Best practice can be described as the best combination of techniques, methods,
processes or technology used in an industry sector or activity that demonstrably minimises the environmental
impact of that sector or activity.
Road agencies need to be aware of all water-related issues, not only in the road reserve, but also both
upstream and downstream. In situations where the road crosses a waterway, or substantial fill is required for
road construction in a floodplain, there may be significant impact on the conveyance of waterways or drains,
with resultant damage to infrastructure including bridges and culverts. There are three primary principles that
form the basis of stormwater management:
1. Preservation: Preserve existing values of stormwater systems, such as natural channels, wetlands
and stream-side vegetation.
2. Source control: Limit changes to the quantity and quality of stormwater at or near the source.
3. Structural control: Use structural elements to improve water quality and control stream flow
discharges.
These principles should be applied as part of an ordered framework to achieve best practice environmental
management.
3.5.4 Performance Objectives
The Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (BPEMG) (Victorian
Stormwater Committee 1999) identifies and sets out the performance objectives that should be used to
assess treatment elements when designing water sensitive road design (WRSD) for a project. Performance
is measured by the WSRD elements/treatment trains ability to meet annual pollutant load reduction targets,
from typical urban loads. These objectives are:
• 45% reduction in total nitrogen (TN) of a typical urban load
• 45% reduction of total phosphorus (TP) of a typical urban load
• 80% reduction in total suspended solids (TSS) of a typical urban load.
Note: These objectives may vary between jurisdictions or even region to region and should be used as a
guide only.

3.5.5 MUSIC Model
By using a computer model, e.g. MUSIC (eWater CRC 2012), or specially designed graphs it is possible to
estimate if the WSRD elements designed for a project will meet these performance objectives. These are
further discussed in VSC (1999) and Melbourne Water (2005b). It must be noted that this model cannot be
used to undertake hydraulic design.
3.5.6 Key Design References
There are a number of key references available across Australia and New Zealand to a designer for the
planning, selection, design, construction and maintenance of treatment elements and include:
Alderson, A (2006) The collection and discharge of storm water from the road infrastructure, report no. ARR
368, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Auckland Regional Council (ARC) (2003) Stormwater management devices: design guidelines manual
(TP10), Auckland Regional Council, NZ.
Austroads (2001) Road run-off and drainage: environmental impacts and management options, AP-R180/01,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2003) Guidelines for treatment of stormwater run-off from the road infrastructure, AP-R232/03,
Melbourne Water (2005b), WSUD engineering procedures: stormwater, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Vic.
Pilgrim, DH (ed) (2001) Australian rainfall and runoff: a guide to flood estimation, vol. 1, rev. edn, Institution
of Engineers, Australia, Barton, ACT.
Victorian Stormwater Committee (1999) Urban stormwater: best practice environmental management
guidelines, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Vic.
Western Australia Department of Water (2004) Stormwater management manual for Western Australia
2004–2007, Western Australia Department of Water, Perth, WA.
Western Australia Department of Water (2011) Water sensitive urban design brochures, Department of
Water, Perth, WA, accessed 25 October 2012.
Wong THF (ed) (2006) Australian runoff quality: a guide to water sensitive urban design, Engineers Media,
Crows Nest, NSW.
There are a number of consultancy organisations and experts available to undertake, or advise on the
planning, design and construction of WSRD elements.
3.5.7 Selecting Treatment Elements
Selection of appropriate treatment elements depends on the site situation, constraints and treatment
requirements. Jurisdiction guidelines, VSC (1999) and Melbourne Water (2005b) describe in detail suitable
elements for road projects and should be referred to in selecting treatment elements. As a general rule, site
conditions and target pollutant characteristics influence the selection of the appropriate type of treatment
measure while climatic conditions (amount of rainfall) influence the hydrologic design standard (size) for the
treatment measure. There are a number of treatment options suitable for the treatment of road run-off and
managing peak flows.
Below is a brief summary of the main types used and their advantages and disadvantages. Further details
and the application, suitability, design and maintenance of these treatment options can be found in
Melbourne Water (2005b), VSC (1999) and local and state road agency and environment protection
authority, guidelines and manuals.

Assess potential pollutant control devices
Each potential pollutant control device needs to be assessed to determine if it is suitable for the site
conditions. Each pollutant control device can be accepted or rejected on the basis of screening criteria to
provide a short list. Table 3.4 provides a means of assessing common design elements in order to determine
if a particular control device is suitable for a specific site condition.
Table 3.4: Design elements associated with treatment devices
Pollutant control Area served

Head requirement Capital cost Maintenance cost
device (ha)
Oil grit separators <1 Low Moderate Moderate
Gross pollutant trap 5–5000 High High Moderate to high
Trash rack 20–500 Low to moderate Moderate Low to moderate
Downward inclined 5–500 High Moderate to high Low to moderate
screen
Extended detention >5 Low Low to moderate Moderate to high
basin
Sand filter 1–50 High Moderate to high Moderate to high
Filter strips <2 Low Low Low
Grassed swales <5 Low Low Low
Constructed wetlands >2 Low to moderate High Moderate
Notes:
From 0–5% slope preferred but the range can be extended beyond 5%.
Buffer zones should only be extended beyond 5% with careful design.
Source: Derived from EPA (1997) and Mudgway et al. (1997).
Buffer strips
A buffer strip is a densely vegetated area separating the road from the receiving stream (generally by at least
20 m), through which stormwater passes as overland flow. The length of buffer strip, slope, vegetative
characteristics, catchment characteristics and run-off velocity are all factors that may affect the pollutant
removal efficiency of buffer strips. The method is not so effective when slopes are steep, since steep slopes
lead to the development of rills and scour and subsequent erosion of the slope.
A buffer strip can achieve removal of most of the coarse sediment, regardless of the initial sediment load.
However, it is not so effective with respect to fine particles. The removal of total phosphorus decreases
significantly with increasing sediment input load and higher flow rates. Buffer strips are not suitable for
removal of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nutrients.
Buffer or vegetative filter length must be adequate and flow characteristics acceptable or water quality
performance can be severely limited. Furthermore, because the filtering occurs as water flows overland, and
no pond is involved, smaller particles may not settle during normal flows and re-suspension of sediment may
occur during high flows.
Swales
The location and side slopes of swales should be designed in accordance with AGRD Part 3
(Austroads 2016). Longitudinal gradient should ideally be between 2% and 4% to promote uniform flow
conditions. The foreslope and backslope of the drain should comply with guidance given in AGRD Part 6
(Austroads 2022). The width of the swale base should be not more than 2.5 m, unless measures are used to
ensure uniform spread of flow.

Maximum flow velocity should be less than the scouring velocity of the soil shown in Table 3.5 or less than
0.5 m/s (whichever is the smaller) for the one-year ARI event and not more than 1.0 m/s for the 100 year ARI
event.
Worked examples can be found in Austroads (2001), Melbourne Water (2005b) and Wong (2006).
Litter traps
Litter traps in drainage systems capture large objects such as cans, bottles, plastic bags, packaging and
rotting vegetation that are generally described as gross pollutants. Litter traps are the first stage of a water
quality treatment sequence. It is important that there be a systematic maintenance program, or both the
trapping and the hydraulic functions may fail.
A gross pollutant trap (GPT) is a permanent structure situated within a drain as a primary water treatment
upstream of other facilities. The GPT is designed to collect litter by means of a trash rack, and to settle
coarse sediment in a sediment basin. Gross pollutant traps generally have negligible effect on silt and clay
particles or dissolved chemicals. Some GPTs are designed specifically to capture oils, but many are not.
Table 3.5: Maximum velocity over surface
Soil description Maximum velocity (m/s) Soil description Maximum velocity (m/s)
Bare earth surfaces
Sand 0.4 Sandy loam 0.5
Silty loam 0.6 Stiff clay 1.0

Fine gravel 0.8 Coarse gravel 1.0
Vegetative grass covered surfaces
Maximum velocity (m/s)
Grass type Slope (%)
Erosion resistant soils Erosion susceptible soils
0–5 1.5 1.2
Grass mixtures
5–10 1.0 0.8
0–5 2.5 2.2
Kikuyu 5–10 2.2 2.0
> 10 2.0 1.8
0–5 2.2 2.0
Couch, bent or fescue 5–10 2.0 1.8
> 10 1.8 1.5
Sedimentation basins
Sedimentation basins may be installed temporarily during road construction, or may be designed as part of a
permanent water treatment process. A single basin is used for temporary works, but a permanent basin is
more efficient if partitioned into two segments, one for coarse sediment and the other for the fine particles.
See AGRD Part 5A – Section 7 for further details on the design of permanent basins within the road reserve.
Further details can also be found in Melbourne Water (2005b). Sedimentation basins are designed to remove
suspended solids from run-off. As a number of pollutants are often attached to soil particles, a basin will also
help to remove pollution. A typical layout is shown in Figure 3.13.

Figure 3.13: Typical sedimentation basin

Source: VicRoads (2003).

Melbourne Water (2005b) outlines a process for the design of a sedimentation basin and explains the steps
involved in producing an efficient layout. A number of factors can reduce the efficiency of a sedimentation
basin and these are also described.
The following factors reduce the efficiency of a basin:

• short circuiting of the flow from inlet to outlet
• turbulence
• bottom scour
• poor outlet design
• temperature currents
• wind currents.
Of these, turbulence has the greatest detrimental effect, and several smaller basins may be more effective
than a very large basin. Turbulence may be reduced by attention to the following details:
• maintaining a low flow velocity through the basin
• eliminating unnecessary changes in the direction of the flow
• keeping surface areas to a practical minimum, and shielding from wind.
Sedimentation basins are designed to catch the sediment and will fill up with sediment over time.
Consideration should be given to the need to access each basin for cleaning, and care is needed to ensure
that the access road itself does not become a source of sediment. Depending upon the slope of the batters,
cleaning equipment may not need any special access provisions. At each permanent sedimentation basin,
the access track should allow safe all year round access.
Infiltration basins
An infiltration basin is an impoundment that is designed to infiltrate stormwater into the groundwater. The
sides of the impoundment are prepared with batter slopes that remain stable in the presence of standing
water. Typically, an infiltration basin will be dry for most of the time and will only fill during periods of rainfall.
An infiltration basin associated with road reserves has two purposes:
• disposal of stormwater run-off from the vicinity of roads to prevent flooding
• a method of treating stormwater so that it can be used in a number of environmentally beneficial
practices.
There are four approaches to the design of infiltration basins:

• for a storm event with a specific ARI
• to catch a certain amount of run-off
• to attenuate channel (stream) discharge
• for risk management.
Typically, on-site detention and infiltration basins are designed with an ARI of between 2 to 10 years as
applicable to a minor drainage element. This would satisfy requirements for an off-line stormwater
management device, with excess flows from larger storm events bypassing the basin. The size of the
overflow facilities will depend upon the design ARI selected. The overflow facilities should be checked for the
appropriate major design event.

Infiltration is believed to have high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge the groundwater,
thus restoring low flows to stream systems. Infiltration basins can be challenging to apply on many sites
because of soil requirements.
Permeable pavements have also been used but this form of construction requires good drainage conditions
to ensure adequate subgrade bearing capacity and some road agencies may have reservations about the
structural capacity of these pavements for use on major roads.
The time required to clean the pre-treatment facilities needs to be compared against the time required to
clean the infiltration basin. In some situations it may be just as easy to clean out the basin rather than having
to clean out a trash rack and the sediments from the basin.
Design considerations for infiltration basins are contained in Melbourne Water (2005b). A worked example
for an infiltration basin is described in Appendix A.
Further information on drainage basins can be found in AGRD Part 5A – Section 7.
3.5.8 Bio-retention Systems
A schematic diagram of a bio-retention treatment system is shown in Figure 3.14.
Design principles
The primary design objective is to maximise the detention time in the filter medium. A minimum detention of
12 hours is recommended.
If the water table is too high or the filter medium has a high hydraulic conductivity, consideration should be
given to placing a layer of material with a lower hydraulic conductivity at the base of the filter zone to ensure
that the water quality meets the target values.
The depth of the soil filter and the provision of above-ground detention storage are the two principal design
considerations when specifying the dimensions of the bio-retention zone. Three equations define the
operation of this zone:
• the hydraulic residence time
• the surface detention storage
• the maximum infiltration rate.
The hydraulic residence time (THRT) in the bio-retention zone is made up of detention above the filter zone
and the time taken through the filter medium. Hydraulic residence time should be checked for:
• maximum depth of inundation
• minimum depth of inundation.
For further information designers are also referred to Schueler (1987) and the Guideline Specifications for
Soil Media in Bio-retention Systems developed by the Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (FAWB
2009).

Figure 3.14: Typical bio-retention system incorporating grassed buffer strips source
3.5.9 Wetlands
A wetland is a permanent, shallow water body with extensive emergent vegetation. A schematic diagram of a
wetland system is shown on Figure 3.15. An ephemeral wetland does not have a permanent water body, but
is wet often enough to support aquatic vegetation. Wetlands improve water quality by settling the finer
sediments, binding and adsorbing heavy metals and by taking up nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
in growing plants. A guide to layout, sizing and planting of constructed wetlands may be found in Melbourne
Water (2005a) and the Western Australia Department of Water (2007).
The use of constructed wetlands varies from between jurisdictions and depends on the requirement to treat
the road run-off specifically or greater parts of the catchment. Wetlands require continual/regular inflow to
maintain minimum water levels to ensure the survival of aquatic vegetation and the level of treatment to be
maintained, and therefore catchments that are purely based on road run-off rarely provide enough run-offs to
maintain these water levels. Some areas of Australia and New Zealand which receive regular rainfall may
provide the continual inflow required.
The lower chart in Figure 3.16 shows that if excess nitrogen is not dealt with at source, the area of wetland
required to attenuate it is much greater than for total suspended solids (the upper chart) and the removal
efficiency is quite low.
Where grated pits are provided in wetlands, bar spacings of about 60 mm may be suitable in remote
locations. Where the pit may be traversed by pedestrians and bicycles, a bar spacing of 20 mm with the bars
aligned at right angles to the direction of traffic may be suitable.

Figure 3.15: Schematic plan and profile view of a typical constructed wetland
Note: Image supplied courtesy of Melbourne Water.

Source: Melbourne Water (2005a).

Figure 3.16: Estimated total area of wetland

Source: Wong, Breen and Lloyd (2000).
3.5.10 Treatment Train
A treatment train is a series of treatment elements designed to collectively meet the treatment objectives,
e.g. a gross pollutant trap used in conjunction with a biofiltration trench. Implementing a treatment train using
structural treatment elements allows various types of pollutants and particulate sizes to be trapped.

For a road project this may involve designing a treatment train that includes grass buffers, vegetated swales
or biofiltration trenches which then discharge to a traditional drainage system or a waterway. At each stage
different size particles and contaminants may be removed. Comprehensive software has been developed by
the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology at Monash University for the modelling of
catchments and development of stormwater treatment strategies which can provide detailed information, e.g.
MUSIC (eWater 2012).
Obtain hydrological data
Prior to commencing the process illustrated in Figure 3.12, the designer will need to obtain hydrological data.
The pollution concentration at a point depends upon cumulative pollution transport in a series of frequent
rainfall/run-off events, so rainfall records for the catchment are required, or must be simulated. While rainfall
of low average recurrence interval such as a one-year ARI may be used for preliminary sizing of a treatment
device, a single event does not satisfactorily define the effect of that device.
Monitor existing water quality
For major road projects it may be desirable to monitor water quality in affected streams for up to a year
before commencement of construction. Tests commonly included are for suspended solids, dissolved solids,
pH, and turbidity.
Where the road receives effluent from farmland, tests may have to be made for components of fertilizers,
pesticides, insecticides and animal faeces. In such cases, negotiations should be made with the
environmental authority to have these pollutants dealt with at the source rather than at the expense of the
road agency.
Estimate pollution loads during construction
Construction activity, especially when the earthworks have no vegetative cover or other protection, may
result in significant soil erosion. The soil loss may be estimated using the universal soil loss equation, or a
similar method found in Book 2, Appendix E3 of the International Erosion Control Association (IECA 2008),
or can be calculated using a computer-assisted method such as SOILOSS (Rosewell & Keats 1993).
Estimate pollution loads during operation
Pollution loads from road operation are partly a function of traffic volume. Estimates of pollution loads may be
obtained from Wong, Breen and Lloyd (2000) or Wong (2006). On major roads, consideration should be
given to the possibility and treatment of toxic spills.
Project-specific water quality standards
On major road projects, or where projects are close to significant water sources, the relevant water resource
management agency, catchment management authority or other relevant authority may require adoption of
specific water quality standards, taking into account the amenity and proposed use of the run-off. Elsewhere,
generic standards may apply.
Catchment management authorities may be concerned about the levels of sediment, phosphorus and
nitrogen in road run-off. The concentrations of heavy metals are not easy to test for, but it is assumed that
they are adsorbed to the sediments, and that if both large and small sediment particles are trapped then the
heavy metals are also satisfactorily removed from the effluent. Computer simulation of a proposed basic
pollution treatment train typically shows that extra devices are necessary for nitrogen removal. An example of
pollution reduction targets is provided in Section 3.5.4 – Performance Objectives.

Consider treatment options
The method of treatment and its location depends on the scale of the pollution load and the availability of
land for treatment devices. Where new subdivisions are being laid out, some land should be specifically
reserved for drainage swales and treatment areas. Ideally, pollutants should be captured and removed at or
near their source. They may otherwise be captured in-transit or at the end of the drainage path. Typical
treatment devices are listed in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Locations and types of treatments
Location Treatment
Source controls Community awareness
Land use planning and regulation
Street cleaning
Isolation of sources of high pollution
Buffer strips
Litter traps
On-site detention basins
Permeable pavements
Stormwater infiltration systems
In-transit controls Swale drains

Bio-retention filters
Gross pollutant traps
Separators
Sedimentation basins
Wetlands and ponds
Outlet controls Gross pollutant traps
Floating booms
Flood detention basins
Wetlands and ponds
In relation to source controls it should be noted that:

• Community awareness programs promote the responsible disposal of pollutants rather than tipping them
into the drainage system.
• Land use planning can isolate point sources of pollution from other sensitive areas, and also provide the
space for storage and treatment of pollutants.
• In rural and semi-rural areas, consideration should be given to diverting the road alignment, if practical, to
avoid or minimise encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas or water resources.
• A regular street cleaning program can prevent significant amounts of sediment, road grit and vegetation
from entering the stormwater system.
• A bund could be placed around fuel or oil storage tanks to retain any spillage.
• Buffer strips are areas of 20 m to 100 m in width with thick ground cover and other vegetation placed
between a run-off source and the receiving water (see also Section 3.5.7).

Select the treatment train
There is no single device that can economically treat stormwater for all pollutants. Road run-off requires
several treatment stages, depending on the nature of the pollutant load and the water quality standard to be
achieved for the end use of the water.
A typical comprehensive treatment sequence would be:

• capture of litter and large fragments from traffic crashes
• trapping of coarse sediments
• settlement of finer sediments
• adsorption of a proportion of dissolved solids in wetlands
• aeration of water in large ponds to remove the biological oxygen demand (BOD).
Not all of these steps may be taken in practice, or they may occur at different locations in the system.
Selection of the appropriate treatment for a specific location will require consideration of a range of factors
including capital and maintenance costs, and the need for fencing to restrict access of persons to bodies of
water.
Typical treatment measures include vegetated buffer strips, swales, litter traps, sediment basins, wetlands
and regional lakes. For effective operation of devices a regular maintenance program is essential. Also, they
should be inspected and maintained after large storm events.
It must be recognised that there may be extensive land requirements involved in providing treatment
solutions for effective pollutant removal, together with ongoing and possibly substantial maintenance costs.
These should be explicitly considered in the decision making process.
Where control of the peak flow of water is required as well as control of pollution, a detention basin may be
added. Provision of a separate detention basin is now rare, because volume can often be added above a
wetland for this function. However, there are many types of wetlands and this approach may not be available
if the wetland is environmentally sensitive.
Preliminary sizing of devices
Before proceeding to computer simulation of the effect of the selected treatment train, it is necessary to
estimate preliminary sizes and ensure that the devices can fit in the area available. If not, the components
selected for the treatment train need to be reviewed. Methods for design of various devices are set out in
Wong, Breen and Lloyd (2000) and Alderson (2006). At this stage, consider the requirements of the
municipality, the landscape architects and other stakeholders.
Analyse effects of treatment
Some catchment management authorities will accept the design of devices in accordance with Austroads
(2003), provided that they are sized to meet the specified water quality objectives. Others will require a
computer simulation to demonstrate that the proposed treatment train is likely to achieve the required results.
A typical program, MUSIC, is available from eWater website (eWater CRC 2012). The program simulates
pollution generation and transport, but cannot undertake hydraulic design.

Review treatment train
Should the treatment train not achieve the required results, some components may have to be increased in
size, or different devices added to the train, or a totally new treatment train devised. The process is then
repeated until a satisfactory result is obtained.
In cases where satisfactory results are not possible, further negotiations with the local Environment
Protection Agency and the Catchment Management Authority will be required.
3.5.11 Maintenance and Disposal
The costs associated with maintenance and disposal of collected material are an important aspect of the
type and sizing of the treatment device/s used. If periodic maintenance and cleaning requirements require
specialist machinery and/or are expensive, they are unlikely to be undertaken regularly, if at all. This will
result in the device failing to operate properly and may cause blockages in the system.
Devices designed to collect sediments may contain a high level of contaminants and pollutants. The
regulatory requirements for the disposal of this material will vary between jurisdictions.
Jurisdictions should ensure that proper maintenance procedures are developed and undertaken for all
treatment devices constructed and that these are written into maintenance requirements. See the reference
list cited in Section 3.5.6 – Key Design References and Section 5 – Operations and Maintenance, for further
maintenance considerations.
3.6 Erosion and Sediment
3.6.1 General
Soil characteristics are a major determinant of soil erosion risk, and hence should be collected during the
early stages of the planning and design process. Field inspections can quickly identify existing erosion and
sediment issues along an existing or proposed road corridor. Investigations can be completed to ascertain
the causes of the erosion by:
• discussing the problems with maintenance personnel, local residents and land owners
• reviewing maintenance procedures
• completing site measurements, sampling and testing soil properties
• reviewing hydraulic and drainage calculations for the existing designs to determine flows and velocities.
The activities that cause erosion include:

• stripping of vegetation and loosening of soil, followed by heavy rains and strong winds
• diversion and concentration of streams or drains that increase flow velocity
• construction work in or near streams
• discharges from construction sites
• release of groundwater flows.
Soils data is collected for drainage planning and design purposes from catchment locations, drainage
channels, eroded areas and the road alignment to obtain soil properties that can be used to determine the
suitability and limitations of the soils in service in the following situations:
• flow limitations for inlets and outlets to cross drainage
• open channel permissible velocities
• stability or the need for lining of longitudinal drainage

• slopes to cut and fill batters.
Soils information can be obtained from:

• published soil maps and reports
• government departments responsible for environment and resource management, and CSIRO soil
databases
• field investigations at each site.
It is important to note that in the majority of cases, soils data should be collected for both surface and
subsurface layers, as the upper topsoil layer is usually removed and stockpiled prior to construction.
3.6.2 Scour
Scour at inlets
A culvert normally constricts the natural channel, forcing the flow through a reduced opening. As the flow
contracts at the entrance to a culvert, vortices and areas of high velocity flow impinge against the upstream
slopes of the embankment adjacent to the culvert. Scour can occur just upstream of the culvert entrance as a
result of the acceleration of the flow into the entrance. Upstream wingwalls, aprons, cut-off walls and
embankment paving assist in protecting the embankment and streambed at the upstream end of a culvert.
The formation of vortices at the culvert entry may also considerably reduce the capacity of culverts by
entraining air either continuously or intermittently. Vortices are known to form at low heads and in situations
when there is a dead body of water present above the culvert entry. Vortices also pose a safety problem and
their formation should be eliminated if at all possible. Elimination of vortices is undertaken through
streamlining and the construction of a hood and/or headwalls sufficiently high to prevent circulation of water
above the culvert entry. Where these devices are employed, the use of a physical model to confirm their
hydraulic performance is recommended.
Scour at outlets
If the flow emerging from a culvert has a sufficiently high velocity and the channel is erodible, the jet will
scour a hole in the bed immediately downstream and back eddies will erode the stream banks to form an
elongated circular scour hole. Coarse material scoured from the hole will be deposited immediately
downstream, often forming a bar across the stream, while finer material will be carried further downstream.
The provision of wingwalls, headwalls, cut-off walls and aprons is generally all the protection that is required
at culvert outlets.
If an unacceptable scour hole does develop, a decision must be made as to which type of scour protection is
suitable for the site, and consideration given to:
• protection of the natural stream bed material
• provision of a flow expansion structure
• provision of an energy dissipating structure.
For discussion on the selection of an energy dissipator, see Section 3.6.10 – Energy Dissipators.
Stream bed protection can be achieved with a concrete apron, rock riprap, or rock mattresses, or concrete
filled mattresses. Mattresses should be selected on the basis of information provided in other sections
dealing with construction materials. It is important that mattresses are anchored to the cut-off wall or apron at
the culvert outlet, to stop them moving downstream. A geotextile filter is usually provided under the
mattresses and may also be required under the rock riprap.

Relevant road agency guidelines provide additional information on the use and design of energy dissipators.
The judgement of designers is required to determine the need for scour protection. As an aid in evaluating
the need for protection, culvert velocities should be computed and compared with the velocities occurring in
the natural stream.
When comparing velocities, it should be noted that in many streams the maximum velocity in the main
channel is considerably higher than the mean velocity for the whole channel cross-section. Investigation of
scour and outlet protection at similar culverts in the vicinity of the culvert being designed will provide
guidance on whether further protection is required. Periodic site visits and inspection after major flood events
will also confirm whether the protection is adequate or further protection is required.
Further information on the flow velocities and culvert outlet protection is contained in AGRD Part 5B –
Section 3.13.
3.6.3 Erosion Estimates
An assessment needs to be undertaken to estimate the susceptibility of the soils to erosion. Soil maps will
provide some guidance on what to expect at the site. However, a survey of the soils at the proposed site is
essential.
It should be realised that a soil with a high potential for erosion will not erode if it is not exposed to water flow
or wind action. It is necessary to examine those layers, which will be exposed, either during construction, or
at the completion of the project.
The presence of vegetative cover protects the soil from the erosive forces of wind and rain and greatly
reduces the run-off volume (retention), promotes infiltration and decreases flow velocities (retardation). The
level of erosion protection varies depending on the vegetative cover provided (Table 3.7). Protection can
also be provided using various other coverings (Table 3.8).
Table 3.7: Protection provided by vegetative cover
Description Protection provided

Well established and stable vegetative cover High
Grassed areas with or without intermittent taller growth Intermediate to high
Lightly timbered area with some grass cover Intermediate
Re-establishing growth with soil visible in places Low to intermediate
Bare earth with little or no vegetative cover Low
Table 3.8: Cover and management factor
Description Factor (C)

No cover 1.00
Straw secured with netting 0.20
Mulch 0.10
Fibre glass rovings 0.05
Bitumen emulsion 0.02
Grass (few trees) 0.04
Shrubs 0.01
Trees (few shrubs) 0.01

Erosion estimates are required for the design of erosion protection measures, such as temporary sediment
basins during construction (see also Section 3.6.12 – Sediment Transport and Melbourne Water 2005b). The
size of the basin may be determined by the volume to be stored between specified clean-out dates rather
than by the minimum area required for the sedimentation process.
The method currently used is the universal soil loss equation, or the more recently released revised universal
soil loss equation. For a detailed discussion on the use of this approach, see Hu et al. (2001). Both methods
require an estimation of a number of factors such as:
R Rainfall run-off erosivity factor (it can be estimated from R = 164.74 x 1.118I x I0.644 where I is the two
year, six hour ARI (mm/h)).
K Soil erodibility factor found from nomographs relating particle size, soil structure, organic content and
permeability. Typical values range from 0.01 to 1.0 t/ha/metric EI units. Low K values (low erosion) are
associated with sandy soils of high permeability and high organic matter. As organic matter declines, K
increases, and hence erosion increases. Decreasing permeability increases K and granular structured
soils have lower K values than massive or blocky structured soils.
LS Slope length factor, slope factor multiplied by a steepness factor which are usually tabulated against a
range of soil types. Typical values range from 0.05 (for swelling clays on short (≤ 12 m), shallow (≤
2%) slopes) up to 95 (for any soil apart from swelling clays on long (≥ 500 m) steep (≥ 60%) slopes).
The slope factor is given by:
S = 16.8 * sin(slope as a decimal) – 0.5.
P Support practice factor which compensates for surface treatment practices. Taken as 1.0 for
construction sites.
C Cover management factor which allows for erosion protection practices such as provision of
vegetation or other erosion protective measures (e.g. mulching) (see Table 3.8 for some common
practices).
A detailed method may be found in Book 2, Appendix E3 (IECA 2008) or can be calculated using a
computer-assisted method called SOILOSS (Rosewell & Keats 1993).
Basic calculations will readily show that the area cleared for works should be kept to a minimum. High, steep
batters are very vulnerable to erosion. Where possible, earthworks should be advanced in stages, each
stage being protected quickly by processes such as hydromulching and in the longer term by vegetation.
Typical values are given for erosion losses in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Typical erosion estimates for erodible soils (As)
Annual average loss

Description
(tonne/ha/year)
Earthworks with 1:2 batter slopes and high cuts and fills (more than 2 m) 300
Earthworks with low cuts and fills (less than 2 m) 150
Frontage road earthworks 15
Steep pasture 5
Flat pasture 0.5

3.6.4 Erosion and Scour Protection Measures
In all aspects of road construction and operation there is a need to minimise erosion and scour as a result of
stormwater. This can be accomplished by ensuring flow velocities are maintained below critical values or by
providing some form of protection to the underlying surface where these critical velocities are exceeded.
A culvert usually has less waterway area than a natural channel and is designed to flow faster. However, the
velocity in the barrel needs to be kept within limits so that the change in velocity at the outlet will not damage
the channel downstream. Table 3.10 shows advisable maximum culvert velocities (column two) and typical
maximum velocities before scour will occur in unprotected soils of various types. However, if the channel has
good vegetative cover (i.e. is only intermittently inundated) the permissible velocity can be increased.
As may be seen by comparing columns two and three in Table 3.10, there is usually some distance
downstream of the culvert where the flow is decelerating and the streambed and banks require protection by
rock beaching. Where for some reason, such as a steep culvert slope, the culvert velocity exceeds the
allowable value in Table 3.10 column two, an energy dissipator will be required (see Section 3.6.10 – Energy
Dissipators).
Table 3.10: Desirable maximum flow velocities in culverts or unprotected stream beds
Maximum advisable culvert Maximum allowable stream

Stream bed soil type
velocity (m/s) velocity (m/s)
Silt 1.0–1.5 < 0.3
Clay, soft 1.0–1.5 0.3–0.6

Clay, stiff 1.2–2.0 1.0–1.2
Clay, hard 1.2–2.0 1.5–2.0
Sand, fine 1.0–1.5 < 0.3
Sand, coarse 1.0–1.5 0.4–0.6
Gravel, 6 mm 1.0–1.5 0.6–0.9
Gravel, 25 mm 1.2–2.0 1.3–1.5
Gravel, 100 mm 2.5 2.0–3.0
Rocks, 150 mm 3.5 2.5–3.0
Rocks, 300 mm 3.5 4.0–5.0
Source: Derived from DTMR (2010b) and VicRoads (2003).
3.6.5 Rock Protection
Rock beaching (Figure 3.17) (or other form of protection) should be used whenever the flow velocity is likely
to erode an exposed surface. Beaching is most often applied to channel beds and banks but is equally
applicable to spillways, levees and the like. The nominal size of rock protection (beaching) shown on
drawings may be d50, the average diameter of stone, or may be the rock class specified by weight. Standard
classes and thickness of rock slope protection are set out in Table 3.11 and Table 3.12. The stone should be
reasonably well graded throughout the thickness. The stone must be hard, dense, durable and resistant to
weathering.
Where necessary, a filter layer should be placed between the embankment fill and the rock protection to
prevent fine material from being washed out through the voids of the face stones. Geotextile fabrics have
generally replaced sand/gravel filters in road works.

Figure 3.17: Detail of rip rap protection (major channels and culverts) and beaching (channels and culverts less
than 6 m2 in cross-sectional area)
1.5
1
Thickness, T (m)

On culverts where the waterway cross-sectional area is less than 6 m2, smaller-sized stones known as
beaching are used to protect the culvert entrance, and the stream bed and banks. For larger waterway
areas, specialist hydraulic engineering advice should be obtained.
The average size of stone used in beaching may be estimated from (Equation 1):
(𝑄 x 𝑆𝑜2.16 x 𝑅)0.4 1
𝑑50 = 8550
𝑃0.4
where
𝑑50 = 50th percentile rock size (mm)
𝑄 = Design discharge (m3/s)
𝑆𝑜 = Channel bed slope (m/m)
𝑅 = Channel hydraulic radius (m)
𝑃 = Channel wetted perimeter (m)
The design discharge is based on the ARI used in the design of the particular drainage element (e.g. culvert,
levee bank, channel, etc.). The beaching should be a densely graded mixture of stone with the specified
average size. This calculation does not apply to grouted beaching, or to stones used to fill gabions.

A preliminary guide to length of beaching is (Equation 2):
𝑋 = 5 (𝑉𝑜 − 𝑉𝑎 ) 2
where
𝑋 = Length of beaching downstream (m)
𝑉𝑜 = Average outlet velocity (m/s)
𝑉𝑎 = Maximum non-scouring velocity from Table 3.10, Column 3 (m/s)
A more accurate method is to calculate a backwater curve and to apply beaching or geotextile reinforced vegetation
wherever the velocity exceeds the allowable non-scouring velocity for the soil type in the streambed, Va.
Table 3.11: Design of rock slope protection
Velocity (m/s) Class of rock protection (tonne) Section thickness, T (m)

<2 None –
2.0–2.6 Facing 0.50
2.6–2.9 Light 0.75
2.9–3.9 ¼ 1.00
3.9–4.5 ½ 1.25
4.5–5.1 1.0 1.60
5.1–5.7 2.0 2.00
5.7–6.4 4.0 2.50
> 6.4 Special –
Source: MRWA (2006).
Table 3.12: Standard classes of rock slope protection
Rock size(1) Rock mass Minimum percentage of

Rock class
(m) (kg) rock larger than
Facing 0.40 100 0
0.30 35 50
0.15 2.5 90
Light 0.55 250 0
0.40 100 50
0.20 10 90
¼ tonne 0.75 500 0
0.55 250 50
0.30 35 90
½ tonne 0.90 1000 0
0.70 450 50
0.40 100 90
1 tonne 1.15 2000 0
0.60 1000 50
0.55 250 90
2 tonne 1.45 4000 0
1.15 2000 50
0.75 500 90
4 tonne 1.80 8000 0
1.45 4000 50
0.90 100 90
1 Refer to relevant jurisdictions for specific requirements.

Source: MRWA (2006).

3.6.6 Gabions
Gabions are rectangular wire cages used to retain rockfill to serve as retaining structures or surface
protection against erosion and scour (Figure 3.18) The baskets can be filled with smaller rocks than would be
required for mass rock retaining walls or rip rap protection. Typically, the gabion baskets are 0.5 or 1.0 m
thick.
The flexible wire mesh allows the use of gabions on soft ground where more rigid structures would require
soil stabilisation or stronger substructures. The highly permeable rockfill releases hydrostatic pressure
behind gabion retaining walls and avoids uplift caused by turbulent flows.
Where used as retaining walls, gabions should be designed to be stable as gravity structures.
Where gabions are to be used in polluted, corrosive or marine environments, the specification should require
the wires to be coated with a layer of ultra-violet stabilised polyvinylchloride.
Figure 3.18: Gabions

Source: VicRoads.
3.6.7 Rock Mattresses
Rock filled wire baskets with a thickness of 150 mm to 300 mm are known as rock mattresses. They are
used at culvert outlets, to line waterway channels and on embankment slopes. They protect against scour
and erosion, and depending upon the soil type, can contend with water velocities of between 2 and 6 m/s. It
is usual to specify a geotextile filter between the mattress and the soil.
3.6.8 Geotextiles
A wide variety of geotextiles may be used as filter layers or for slope protection. The use of filter fabrics in
subsurface drains is covered in AGRD Part 5A – Section 8.
Some organic textiles such as jute are intended to break down soon after vegetation is established on the
slope. Other types, e.g. polypropylene netting, are designed to retain soil and seed and to last through
several seasons until shrubs and cover plants are fully established. A woven polyester mattress can provide
protection to stream banks or seawalls. It is placed in position then filled with grout, providing flexibility in
shape and is easier to construct than rock rip rap.

Geotextiles placed on slopes must be anchored top and bottom and fastened to the slope at regular
intervals. Care needs to be taken during construction so that the geotextile is not punctured or torn.
3.6.9 Ground Cover
Establishment of ground cover is essential for erosion protection. The type of ground cover selected should
be appropriate to the environment, and should also take into account maintenance requirements. Usually
landscape architects will be asked to investigate and advise on native and endemic plants for each project.
Slopes near the road should be gentle and grassed. Steep slopes or inaccessible areas should be mass
planted with compatible mixtures of hardy native plants.
Ideally, a grass should be easy to establish, drought tolerant, have a low nutrient requirement, a low long-
term growth rate, and inhibit weed invasion. Usually, grass mixes for roadwork contain some rye grass,
which grows quickly then dies off as other types such as fescues become established. Research is
continuing into the use of native grasses for roadwork.
For selection of water-tolerant or wet-dry species such as those required for wetlands, see references such
as Melbourne Water (2005b).
3.6.10 Energy Dissipators
Where the outflow velocity is greater than can be accommodated by the receiving waters, a form of energy
dissipator will be required. Energy dissipators are most often associated with culverts. Some types of
dissipators are shown in Figure 3.19.
The erosive forces existing in a natural drainage network may be increased by road construction. This results
from the concentration of overland flows, the increase in flow velocities, increased run-off caused by building
impervious road pavements and finally the discharging of culverts and spillways into locations susceptible to
erosion damage.
Energy dissipators are installed to allow a return to the existing drainage conditions as quickly as possible.
Energy dissipators should not be considered in isolation but as part of a larger design system which includes
the culvert, channel protection requirements and perhaps a debris control structure. The choice of dissipator
also needs to consider tail water depth/critical depth.
The operation of any hydraulic energy dissipator depends largely on expending a part of the energy of the
high-velocity flow by some combination of the following methods:
• external friction between water and device
• friction between the water and air
• internal friction and turbulence.
The energy dissipators shown in Figure 3.19 show the general arrangement of four types and are based on
dissipators which incorporate methods of expending energy in their operation. Care should be exercised in
the application of dissipator types as each site has its own particular peculiarities and problems. Designers
need to be flexible in their approach to ensure that the dissipator operates as intended.
Each type of dissipator requires a certain set of conditions in order to operate efficiently, and the final selection
should account for such circumstances. Table 3.13 lists a few of the design parameters which need to be
considered. The table also indicates several other dissipator types available to the designer. The four types
shown have a wide applicability in most situations, relative simplicity of design and general performance.
However, very little reliable data are available regarding the performance of any dissipator types, and it is better
for the designer to err on the side of caution than to treat the calculated results as sacrosanct.

Energy dissipators require specialist and sometimes complicated maintenance regimes due to clogging from
debris, causing system failure, and require increased safety design.
An important parameter in the selection of an appropriate energy dissipator is the Froude Number (Fr) of the
outlet flow. Where an outlet has Fr < 1.7, a simple apron structure, riprap, or a flow expansion structure will
suffice. Where 1.7 < Fr < 3, riprap basins or horizontal roughness elements basins are appropriate. Where Fr
> 3, a hydraulic jump basin will be required.
Further discussions on Froude Number can be found in AGRD Part 5B – Section 2.3.
Stream bed protection can be achieved with a concrete apron, rock riprap, or rock mattresses, or concrete
filled mattresses. Mattresses should be selected on the basis of information provided in other sections
dealing with construction materials. It is important that mattresses are anchored to the cut-off wall or apron at
the culvert outlet, to stop them moving downstream. A geotextile filter is usually provided under the
mattresses and may also be required under the rock riprap.
Relevant road agency guidelines provide additional information on the use and design of energy dissipators.
Further information on energy dissipators in relation to culverts is supplied in AGRD Part 5B – Section 3.13.
Specialist technical knowledge should be sought in the design of energy dissipators.

Figure 3.19: Energy dissipator types
Type A (riprap) energy dissipator
Type B (horizontal roughness element) energy dissipator

Type C (forced jump) energy dissipator
Type D (impact) energy dissipator

Table 3.13: Dissipator limitations
Allowable Debris(1)
Froude
Dissipator type Tail water (TW)
number(7)
Silt/sand Boulders Floating
Flow transitions na H H H Desirable
Scour hole na H H H Desirable
Hydraulic jump >1 H H H Required
Tumbling flow(2) >1 M L L Not needed
Increased na M L L Not needed
resistance(3)
UABR type IX <1 M L L Not needed
baffled apron
Broken-back >1 M L L Desirable
culvert
Outlet weir 2–7 M L M Not needed
Outlet drop/weir 3.5–6 M L M Not needed
USBR type III 4.5–17 M L M Required
stilling basin
USBR type IV 2.5–4.5 M L M Required
stilling basin
SAF stilling basin 1.7–17 M L M Required

CSU rigid <3 M L M Not needed
boundary basin
Contra Costa basin <3 H M M < 0.5 D
Hook basin 1.8–3 H M M Not needed
USBR type VI na M L L Desirable
impact basin(4)
Riprap basin <3 H H H Not needed
Riprap apron(8) na H H H Not needed
Straight drop <1 H L M Required
structure(5)
Box inlet drop <1 H L M Required
structure(6)
USACE stilling well na M L N Desirable
1 Debris notes: N = none, L = low, M = moderate, H = heavy.

2 Bed slope must be in the range 4% < So < 25%.
3 Check headwater for outlet control.
4 Discharge, Q < 11 m3/s and Velocity, V < 15 m/s.
5 Drop < 4.6 m.
6 Drop < 3.7 m.
7 At release point from culvert or channel.
8 Culvert rise less than or equal to 1500 mm.
Note: na = not applicable.
Source: Thompson and Kilgour (2006).

3.6.11 Minimum Energy Loss Structures
Minimum energy loss structures are designed to pass water through a bridge site or a culvert with a low
expenditure of energy. They can be described as ‘minimum energy’, ‘constant energy’ or ‘minimum energy
loss’ structures. Minimum energy loss structures are very rarely used by road agencies these days as less
expensive and more effective options are available.
3.6.12 Sediment Transport
Construction of road drainage infrastructure has the potential to cause environmental harm and subsequent
damage to infrastructure if not properly managed. One of the most common environmental impacts of road
construction is the erosion of soil and subsequent sedimentation of watercourses, roads or drainage
infrastructure. Therefore control of erosion and sediment transport on and from project sites is a
responsibility of site managers, project and contract managers, designers and contractors.
Areas subject to erosive flow velocities should be identified and protected by the appropriate control
measures. Erosion may be controlled by drainage control measures (Table 3.14) or velocity control
measures and devices (Table 3.15). Most of the latter group rely on roughening the flow surface or
decreasing the longitudinal gradient of the flow path.
Table 3.14: Measures for drainage control
Intended duration of
Practice Velocity range Application
usage
Channels with impervious High Protection against high velocity Permanent
linings
Chutes High Passage of flow down steep Permanent
slopes or embankments
Diversion banks Low – medium Diversion of flow away from Permanent
disturbed areas
Diversion channel/drain Medium Large drainage areas Permanent
Erosion control Medium – high Used to line channels where Permanent or temporary
mats/geotextiles medium to high velocities are
expected
Outlet protection Control of erosion at outlets. Permanent or temporary
Reduces velocity and
dissipates energy
Reinforced turf lined Medium – high Alternative to hard channel Permanent or temporary
channels linings in urban environment
Rock lined channels Medium Temporary and permanent Permanent or temporary
channels
Rock mattress channels High/turbulent Areas with turbulent flow or Permanent or temporary
high velocity. Can be used as a
permanent measure
Slope drains High Conveyance of flow down long Temporary
or irregular grades
Temporary watercourse Low – high Most types of watercourses Temporary
crossings subject to environmental
impacts
Turf lined channels Low – medium Alternative to hard channel Permanent or temporary
linings in urban environment

Table 3.15: Measures for velocity reduction
Practice Application Intended duration of usage

Check dams: Act as a physical barrier and reduce Permanent or temporary
• rock gradient through ponding.
• recessed rock
• gravel/sand bag
Drop structures Can be created using rock, timber or Permanent or temporary
geotextile. Reduce gradient of
channel, but require stabilisation at
base of drop.
Lengthen flow path Where sufficient room exists, Permanent or temporary
velocities may be reduced with
subsequent lowering of invert grade,
or through lengthening of the flow
path. The latter may be achieved
using bunds or baffles.
Surface roughening Increases roughness through Permanent or temporary
vegetation, gravel or other barriers
to shallow flow. However, this will
not always be cost effective.

Erosion control practices can protect exposed soil or reduce the duration of soil exposure. Sediment-trapping
controls may be effective for preventing medium-to-coarse sediment like sand and silt from entering watercourses
and drainage lines. However, erosion controls are designed to prevent or minimise the amount of sand, silt, clays
and fine sediment from being removed or transported from a site. Hence, erosion control should be used to
prevent on-site degradation and the occurrence of sedimentation, whilst sediment controls are more useful for the
prevention of off-site transport and impacts associated with deposition of already-eroded, coarser particles.
Logically, sedimentation is a product of erosion, therefore minimising erosion will ideally assist in the efficacy
of sediment controls. Therefore, erosion prevention or minimisation should be a primary focus of on-site
drainage. Measures for controlling erosion are outlined in Table 3.16.
Sedimentation management devices and controls should be installed to retain mobilised sediment on site
and to prevent sediment from entering waterways. Hence, sediment controls are selected only after first
choosing effective drainage, velocity and erosion controls. Sedimentation management and control
measures are outlined in Table 3.17.
Table 3.16: Measures for erosion control
Practice Application
usage
Chemical surface Dust control on large areas such as haul roads and access tracks. Permanent or
stabilisers(1) Some products can be used as an alternative to erosion control temporary depending
blankets. on construction
materials
Geocellular Three-dimensional honeycomb-shaped mesh that protects Permanent or
confinement system unbound or exposed steep cut and fill slopes or earth channels temporary
from hydraulic flows, erosion and downward slip of unbound
materials.
Erosion control Protect against raindrop impact erosion and sheet flow down Temporary
blankets batters.

usage
Mulching – timber, Protection against raindrop impact erosion usually as a channel Left in situ after
rock, straw, hydro, liner when in conjunction with revegetation. Stabilises exposed application
bitumen emulsion surfaces. Also reduces moisture loss from the soil.
Revegetation for Used on disturbed, cleared or graded areas and stockpiles. Temporary or
erosion control Provides surface protection and soil stability. permanent
Surface roughening Increases surface infiltration, minimises rutting and reduced wind Temporary
erosion.
1 Chemical stabilisers should be applied with care to prevent any impact on receiving water bodies. Source: DTMR
(2010b).
Table 3.17: Measures for sedimentation control
use
Construction exits Removal and trapping of sediment from vehicles leaving site. Temporary
Drop inlet and pipe inlet Used to trap entrained sediment prior to entering drain inlet. Temporary
protection
Vegetative buffer zone Includes buffer zones and grassed filter strips. Involves filtering Permanent or
and trapping of sediment run-off in areas of sheet flow. Most temporary
effective on sandy soils.

Rock sediment trap Placed in gullies and other flow paths to trap entrained sediment. Permanent or
Use to form small sediment ponds. temporary
Sediment basins Used to pond water and settle sediment-laden run-off. Permanent or
temporary.
Sediment fences Used to reduce velocity and pond run-off to promote settlement of Temporary
entrained sediment. Not to be used in concentrated flow paths.
Filter cloth or filter Can be placed at a point downstream of sediment source or Temporary
media construction site to trap sediment.
In addition to these sediment controls, the techniques shown in Table 3.18 and Table 3.19 may be used for
de-watering and in-stream sediment control.
With all in-stream sediment controls, amounts of sediment that exceed regional water quality objectives or
parameters must be prevented from entering the main body of the watercourse. Clean and dirty water must
not be allowed to mix.
Table 3.18: Dewatering sediment control techniques
Practice Description Application

Filter bags and filter Large reinforced, non-woven, geotextile Only suitable for low to medium flow rates
tubes filter bags attached to the end of a hose or depending on the sediment content of the water
pump. and the total surface area of the filter.
Sediment basin Typically a temporary above-ground pond The primary action is that of gravitational
formed by and earthen embankment, settlement of the sediment, thus these ponds
however can be below ground effectively are usually significantly larger than filter ponds.
making it a sediment basin. They are normally used for de-watering large
volumes of water at the beginning of each day.

In stream sediment controls must be designed so that no more than 50% of the channel width is obstructed
by in-stream sediment controls at any one time. Unpolluted water flows are not to be obstructed.
Table 3.19: In-stream sediment control techniques
Practice Description and application

Floating silt curtain Geotextile filter fabric (silt curtain) suspended vertically in a water body between
contaminated and uncontaminated water.
Rock sediment trap A rock dam constructed across a drainage channel or small watercourse. The dam is
formed primarily from coarse rock with a filter layer on the upstream face. The upstream
filter layer may consist of a geotextile filter cloth or a layer of clean aggregate.
Staked sediment fence A standard U-shaped sediment fence staked across a channel. A wire mesh backing is
normally placed behind the fabric to provide additional support. Only used as a
precaution in minor drains when flow is not expected but sediment flow may still occur
due to non-stormwater flow.
3.6.13 Managing Sediment within Culverts
Sediment deposits within culverts, especially multi-cell culverts, can cause significant operational and
maintenance problems.
Occasionally sediment traps (basins) are constructed upstream of culverts. In these cases, an access ramp
for maintenance must be provided to allow de-silting of the trap.
In critical areas, or for long culverts where maintenance is extremely difficult, a small sediment trap/weir can
be constructed at the inlet to divert low flows to just one or two culvert cells. This will allow the flow to enter
the remaining cells only during high flows. These sediment weirs should be designed to be fully submerged
during major flood events so that no adverse backwater effects occur.
It is important that sediment traps are designed so that maintenance activities are able to be undertaken in a
practical and economic manner. Factors that should be considered include access to the basin for the
removal of sediment and debris, access for low loaders delivering plant, and the type of plant that will be
necessary (e.g. the reach of a backhoe compared to an excavator).
3.6.14 Installation of Control Measures
The installation of control measures should be coordinated with the project’s construction works. Measures
should be installed prior to and during clearing and grubbing, topsoil stripping and stockpiling, installation of
access tracks and compounds, and cut and fill operations.
A summary of the control techniques is contained in Appendix C.
3.6.15 Maintenance of Control Measures
At all times during their required operational life, erosion and sediment control devices must be maintained in
proper working order.

Regular clean out
The frequency of maintaining and/or replacing control measures should be based on the type of measure,
type of soil, type of vegetation used and expected run-off characteristics. The accessibility of a control
measure after a rainfall event must also be taken into account when determining the frequency of cleaning
and hence the required size of the control. As a general rule, control measures should be cleaned out when
60% full of sediment.
Repair and replacement
The second key maintenance requirement includes the repair and replacement of deteriorated materials
within the control measure (e.g. sediment fence fabrics). Controls that are continually damaged may indicate
the need for additional or alternative controls. If a control measure is to be replaced, its replacement should
be chosen based on the compatibility of the objectives.
3.6.16 Removal of Temporary Control Measures
Design documentation should specify that before the removal of all temporary control measures, the site
should be inspected and stabilised. Generic guidelines should require that:
• a check for evidence of erosion is undertaken prior to removal to ensure erosion will not occur through the
removal, and after the removal of control measures
• removal and disposal of any deposited sediment is carried out in an appropriate manner
• the removal process (e.g. machinery used) does not cause excessive ground disturbance
• any revegetation of the area has stabilised prior to the removal
• tall areas disturbed during the removal process are stabilised.
3.7 Blockage
Blockage refers to the influence of debris or sediment blocking drainage structures, especially culverts, and
limiting the performance of these structures. Blockage has been referred to only generically in previous
editions of the GRD, similar to coverage in most other design guides. However, ARR2019 has recognised
this shortfall and has a procedure that can be applied to assist in drainage design. Procedures for
assessment of blockage are covered in ARR2019 Book 6 Chapter 6 of ARR.
In the context of road flood and drainage design, the major issue is the blockage of culverts in cross
drainage structures.
Blockage is a difficult concept to quantify and may not be a concern at all in some designs but has a large
impact in other situations. Blockage can affect the design and performance of structures by changes in flood
levels and flow velocity, additional ponding, additional hazards (water over roads for example) or flow
diversions.
In the design modelling of drainage structures, underestimation of blockage can result in unrealistically low
upstream levels, increased downstream flood levels, under-sized culverts and/or excessive flow
downstream. In contrast, overestimation of blockage can result in decreased downstream flood levels,
oversized culverts and overestimation of upstream flood levels. It is therefore important to allow for a
reasonable estimate of blockage since incorrect estimation can lead to an incorrect estimate of the flood
immunity of the structure or resulting increases in flood levels upstream or downstream of the structure
depending on specific conditions. It is also important to note that the extent of blockage varies from one
event to another. For this reason, it is also important to understand that blockage might not occur, therefore it
should not be relied upon to reduce downstream flood levels.

As introduced in ARR, the factors that most influence the likely blockage of a bridge or culvert structure are:
• Debris Type and Dimensions – whether floating, non-floating or urban debris is present in the source
area and its size. The type of debris influences the risk of blockage, larger debris can be more easily
wedged in culverts, while smaller pieces can pass straight through.
• Debris Availability – the volume of debris available in the source area. There needs to be a source of
debris that can be carried towards the drainage structure, if the catchment is clear of debris the risk is
reduced.
• Debris Mobility – the ease with which available debris can be moved into the stream. Even if debris is
available, it must be capable of being moved by rainfall and runoff and carried into the water course.
• Debris Transportability – the ease with which the mobilised debris is transported once it enters the
stream. Once debris is mobilised in the catchment, it must be transported in the channel until it reaches
the drainage structure. Narrow channels, low flow velocities or shallow flows will reduce the risk of
debris transport.
• Structure Interaction – the resulting interaction between the transported debris and the bridge or
culvert structure. This refers to the size and configuration of the culvert, with smaller culverts being more
susceptible to blockage than larger structures.
• Random Chance – an unquantifiable but significant factor. Every flood event is unique and different
conditions can lead to very different blockage outcomes, sometimes without any apparent cause,
making assessment of blockage a difficult problem.
These various factors which impact debris movement and interaction with the structure are incorporated into
the ARR blockage assessment procedure.
The recommended procedure for incorporating blockage in road design follows the ARR procedure, which is
a decision tree approach, where the influence of each factor affecting blockage is evaluated and
incorporated into a resulting design blockage to be used in the design. ARR includes a form to assist in the
determination of blockage.
The form to be applied is included in Appendix G.
The guidance for incorporating blockage into road drainage design is covered extensively in ARR and the
associated form. Some particular issues that are especially relevant to road design are as follows:
• The debris size is an important parameter for assessing the risk of blockage and the ARR guidelines
provide a means of determining the debris size. The objective of the ARR approach is to consider the
larger debris items that may influence blockage of culverts, but not the most extreme debris items. This
is expressed in ARR as L10, which is the average size of the largest 10% of each debris type likely to
reach the site, it does not represent the largest possible item of debris or an average size, it represents
a large but not extreme size that can be reasonably expected to impact on the drainage structure. It
should preferably be estimated from sampling of typical debris loads. However, if such data is not
available, it should be determined from an inspection of debris in the catchment of the source area, with
due allowance for snagging and reduction in size during transportation to the structure. Some judgement
is needed in assessing this parameter. In an urban area the variety of available debris can be
considerable with an equal variability in L10. In the absence of a record of past debris accumulated at the
structure, an L10 of up to 1.5 m should be considered as many urban debris sources produce material of
at least this length such as palings, stored timber, bins and shopping trolleys.

• There is the possibility that blockage is rarely encountered at a particular site so the “all clear” condition
should be considered. This is the condition where there is no allowance for blockage, and the hydraulic
analysis assumes that the structure flows freely. This condition should be considered at least as an
important sensitivity case, since the “all clear” condition will reduce the upstream flood level and may
increase flood levels downstream depending on the storage and flood immunity of the structure being
considered. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, blockage may not need to be considered at all or
may need consideration as a nominal allowance, if there is no history of blockage at this site or at similar
neighbouring sites, especially if there is low risk of damage or disruption caused when blockage is
neglected. Based on historical records, many sites do not appear to have blockage concerns and
blockage can therefore be neglected without significant risk. These additional considerations should be
analysed in the design as sensitivity tests, with the main design based on the “most likely” blockage
scenario.
• Consideration of blockage for duplication and brownfield projects is different from consideration for
greenfield projects. If a duplication or brownfield development is proposed there is likely to be
information on historical records of blockage that may have occurred during the lifetime of the existing
infrastructure. This can help in understanding the allowance that needs to be made in the new
development. In the case of duplication, either extending an existing culvert or constructing a duplicate
carriageway, the culvert should at least match the existing culvert capacity if the road crest level has not
been changed. If the duplication has a higher level, the culvert waterway area needs to be increased to
compensate for the flow that previously overtopped the road. If the blockage assessment seems to
indicate a larger culvert is needed, this will not provide any benefit since the smaller existing culvert will
collect any debris. In the brownfield situation, the existing and proposed cases should both be checked
for blockage and allowance made for in the design.
• Design of culverts needs special consideration where the blockage assessment indicates a high risk of
blockage or where there is historical records of debris transport and deposition. Making allowance for
extremely high levels of blockage can add considerably to cost therefore alternative methods need to be
considered to mitigate the blockage risk for example, by increasing the culvert size, choosing a bridge
structure or by providing for a structural debris management measure of some type.
3.7.1 Procedure
The procedure to incorporate blockage into road design is to prepare the ARR design form for each culvert in
the design and then incorporate the estimated blockage percentage into the design. This form can be
standardised if there are multiple culverts on a project since catchment conditions are likely to be similar for
the total project unless there is a significant change in landuse.
Analysis of blockage is required for all drainage structures where flow through the structure is critical and
where there may be adverse impacts if blockage is greater than expected.
In general, blockage for most road projects is expected to be in the range up to 20%, except for extreme
locations where it may be higher.
In locations where blockage is expected to have a serious impact on the drainage and the road design, there
are guidelines to minimise the potential impact of blockage as outlined in ARR, summarised below.
While bridges are less susceptible to blockage than culverts, there is some risk of blockage, so to minimise
the adverse impacts of debris blockage on bridges the following design approaches should be given
appropriate consideration:
• Minimise the number of in-stream piers.
• Piers in line with the flow direction are less likely to catch debris.
• Minimise the exposure of services (i.e. water supply pipelines) on the upstream side of the bridge,
and/or minimise the likelihood of debris being captured on exposed services.

While culverts have a greater risk than bridges, this can be reduced by considering several different design
concepts:
• Larger culverts have a lower risk than small culverts, so an appropriate minimum size culvert should be
considered. Depending on the location, a minimum culvert size of 600 mm or 900 mm could be
considered.
• Take all reasonable and practicable measures to maximise the clear height of the culvert, even if this
results in the culvert hydraulic capacity exceeding the design standard. This minimises the likelihood of
debris being caught between the water surface and obvert, and also minimises the risk of a person
drowning if swept through the culvert (i.e. the culvert is more likely to be operating in a partially full
condition). Section 4.7 suggests including additional freeboard to allow for the reduced capacity caused
by debris blockage or other factors that are difficult to quantify.
• The risk of debris blockage can also be reduced by using single-cell culverts, or in the case of floodplain
culverts, spacing individual culvert cells such that they effectively operate as single-cell culverts without
a common wall/leg.
Design considerations can include debris deflector walls, which allow the debris that normally collects around
the central leg to rise with the flood, thus maintaining a relatively clear flow path under the debris. Following
the flood peak, the bulk of the debris rests at the top of the deflector wall allowing easier removal.
Sedimentation problems within culverts may be managed using one or more of the following actions:
• Formation of an in-stream sedimentation pond or trap upstream of the culvert.
•
Formation of a multi-cell culvert with variable invert levels such that the profile of the base slab simulates
the natural cross section of the channel.
• Installation of sediment training walls on the culvert inlet, which reduce the risk of sedimentation of the
outer cells by restricting minor flows to just one or two cells.
• Where space allows, a viable alternative to increased culvert capacity (in response to the effects of
debris blockage) may be to lengthen the roadway subject to overflow (i.e. the effective causeway weir
length), which can be effective for crossings with a low flood immunity.
• Where high levels of floating debris are present and frequently become trapped on hand rails,
collapsible hand rails may be considered. Such systems typically include pins or bolts designed to fail
when water becomes backed up by the handrails and therefore require ongoing maintenance. If used as
traffic barriers the downstream rail fixing can be problematic. They can however limit rises in floodwater
levels upstream of the structure.
Debris control structures or traps are structural measures provided in a watercourse upstream of critical
structures to collect debris before it reaches the structure and causes problems. These can be:
• Fences, posts or rails providing a much larger ‘interception area’ for debris than a pipe or culvert
entrance
• Storages or dry basins in which boulders or other debris can collect
• Diversion structures designed to provide safe bypass of debris or water.
• Maintenance of drainage structures is a critical process in managing the risk of blockage. Maintenance
is often neglected until there has been a flood event. A formal maintenance programme will help in
reducing blockage risk.
Such structures can occasionally be incorporated into a water quality management plan for a catchment.

Where debris control structures or at-source control measures have been implemented, these should be
incorporated into the assessment of the drainage system. This could mean a reduction in the allowance that
needs to be made for blockage. Ongoing maintenance is however fundamental to the successful operation
of these measures. Unless a deliberate maintenance program is in place and has been demonstrated to
work, it would not be prudent to lower design blockage levels as a consequence of such works.
Care should also be taken to ensure that the hydraulic impact of the debris control structure does not itself
aggravate flooding in the system.

Breakout 4: Blockage Procedure
A site visit to several causeways in a catchment and the surrounding source area showed some of the culverts
inspected to be affected by blockage. An example of a 4/1500 x 300 mm RCBC cell culvert arrangement and likely
source material for blockage is shown below. The site was inspected following a rainfall event.
Figure 3.20: Example culvert

A schematic of the catchment and some of the subcatchments to the cross-drainage locations inspected is shown
below. The subcatchments are relatively undeveloped and are heavily vegetated.
Figure 3.21: Subcatchments and cross-drainage locations

The typical debris load was determined to be leaf litter, vegetation, branches, cobble and rocks for the source areas
inspected. However, although not sighted during the site visit, the lower reaches of the catchment which are sparsely
populated could experience blockage from urban materials such as paling fences, sheds, garbage bins or loose
materials.
In this example, four interacting crossings are shown. There are many possible blockage scenarios which could be
modelled for these crossings; however, the aim of the assessment is to determine the ‘likely’ combinations of
blockage which could occur in the catchment.
The L10 value was estimated to be 1.5m in the more urbanised reaches (crossing 1) and 1.0m in the lower rural
reaches (crossings 2 to 4). Culvert dimensions for the crossings as shown summarised below. Note that crossing 3
has with dimensions that exceed 3 x height. Therefore for this crossing, vertical dimensions of the culvert and L10
should be considered. As a rule of thumb, unless data is available to support the choice of L10 (vertically), it should be
taken as not less than one half of the assessed debris L10 (length). Crossing 3 L10 (vertical) adopted as 0.5m.
Table 3.20: Culvert dimensions
Crossing 1 and 2: Crossing 3 Crossing 4

2 RCBC 2.4m x 1.5m 2 RCBC 1.5m x 0.3m 2 RCP
The debris availability was determined to be high in all subcatchments. Due to the high annual rainfall in the region
and moderate-dense vegetated source areas located around the streams, the debris mobility was determined to be
medium in all cases, except Catchment 1 which was considered High. The debris transportability was determined to
be low for subcatchments 3 and 4 due to the meandering nature of the streams and the shallow depth. Catchments 1
and 2 were considered to have medium transportability.
The site-based debris potential for the crossings assessed was:
• Crossing 1: HHM → DPhigh

• Crossings 2-4: HMM, HML and HML → DPmedium
In keeping with ARR2019 methodology and using the ARR Blockage Assessment Form, the most likely inlet blockage
levels (BDES%) were determined and are summarised in Table 3.21.

Table 3.21: Summary of design blockage at crossings assessed
Event AEP Crossing BDES% Crossing 2: BDES% Crossing BDES% Crossing BDES%
1: AEP AEP 3: AEP 4: AEP
Adjusted Adjusted DP Adjusted Adjusted
DP DP DP
AEP > 5% Medium 10 Low 0 Low 25 Low 0

(frequent)
AEP 5% - High 20 Medium 10 Medium 50 Medium 10

AEP 0.5%
AEP < 0.5% High 20 High 20 High 100 High 20

(rare)
Application of Design Blockage – Hydraulic Model Blockage of crossing 1 in the upper reaches of the catchment
will result in the increasing of upstream flood levels, whilst blockages applied at crossings 2-4 in the lower reaches of
the catchment will increase levels in this area. Attenuation of flows at any point in the catchment is likely to alter timing
(routing) of flow as it travels down the catchment, which can lead to significant variations in design event results. This
is particularly noticeable in larger design events, and if blockages are applied for an impact mitigation assessment.
As the subcatchments are of similar nature, the blockage was applied in the hydraulic model as a conservative
standardised value at each crossing, this being 10% for the intermediate AEP events and 20% for the rare AEP
events assessed. It was considered that while the blockage values for Crossing 3 were high, the design of the culvert
meant that while blockage may impact the frequency of overtopping, it was unlikely to impact flood levels at a
catchment scale. A scenario assessing the blockage of crossing 1 only was run (upstream blockage) as well as a
scenario assessing the blockage of crossings 2-4 (downstream blockage). An ‘all clear’ (BDES=0) scenario was run for
the design events, and a comparison made between the scenarios.
Design inputs
Blockage can have a significant impact on flood levels and flood impacts, but this assessment is recognised
as uncertain. In design, the blockage estimates should be developed as a “most likely” or “AEP
independent”, which is the objective of the estimates provided in ARR. These values should be applied in the
design, but in particularly critical locations, sensitivity analysis could be considered to assist in assessment of
risk.
3.8 Miscellaneous
3.8.1 Backwater
Backwater is the accumulation of water in a stream that can be caused by:

• an obstruction limiting downstream channel capacity (that causes afflux in the stream)
• tidal flow (Section 3.8.2 – Tidal Waters)
• a downstream body of water such as a weir, dam or lake
• a higher-than-normal flow stage in a downstream connecting stream.

The presence of backwater typically causes an upstream section or body of water to have a level that is
increased above normal depth. The cause of backwater can be a significant distance away from, but still
affect, the site being assessed. Therefore designers should check the downstream conditions of planned
sites or designed infrastructure for possible backwater influence.
Calculating the effect of backwater on normal stream flows can be difficult and is beyond the scope of this
Guide. If it is considered that backwater could be affecting stream flow, advice and/or assistance should be
sought from a hydraulics specialist.
3.8.2 Tidal Waters
Backwater as a result of tidal flow can affect stream flow and in turn drainage infrastructure design. When
determining backwater effects on tail water levels for streams discharging into tidal waters, three factors may
influence the final design level:
• tide levels
• storm surges
• climate change.
Sea and tide levels

Tide tables are published by local organisations. This data is used to estimate backwater and tail water
levels for drainage designs.
The mean high water spring (MHWS) tide is often applied as a tail water level since this is a reasonable high
tide level, but not overly conservative. Spring tides occur approximately once a fortnight at full and new
moon. The definition of different tidal levels is provided in Figure 3.22, reproduced from the tide tables.
Storm tides are an increase in ocean levels above the expected tidal levels caused by low pressure and wind
effects. Storm tides can occur at any stage of the tidal cycle.
As with other effects, the selection of a storm tide needs to consider the combined risk of occurrence of the
storm tide and the flood from the waterway. The probability of a catchment flood at the same time as a storm
tide is the product of the probabilities of the separate events, resulting in a much rarer combined recurrence
interval than that of the separate events.
Storm tides may have been analysed by relevant local authorities and these levels may be available for
usage. It is important to note that:
• mean sea level given for the location may be different to Australian Height Datum (AHD) which is the
average mean sea level of 42 locations around Australia
• tide levels are given at or very close to the coastline
• tide levels are often specified in terms of low water datum.
It is very difficult to estimate the tide level at a location in a stream some distance from the coastline. The
time for the tide to rise along the creek and to then flow back in the opposite direction is one factor. Another
is the existence of local sand bars or raised areas of the creek bed closer to the mouth of the stream, which
may prevent a tide from reaching or falling below a certain level at a particular road crossing. The transient
nature of sand bars adds to the difficulty in estimating the tidal reach.
Although precise tide levels are not usually necessary at an upstream road or bridge crossing, tide levels at
the mouth of the tidal stream are not sufficient to give tide design parameters at the road or bridge.

The absolute minimum survey requirements at a road or bridge site are the times and levels for successive
low-high-low tides. Alternatively, successive high-low-high tide information may be found. The more tidal
cycles measured the better.
This information when compared with tide levels at the mouth of the creek will allow experienced hydraulic
engineers to predict approximate design tides such as MHWS and MLWS (mean low water springs) at the
project site.
Section 6.12, suggests a methodology for including tidal levels into design flood analysis.
Figure 3.22: Tidal planes

Mean Low Water Springs (M.L.W.S.)
(L.A.T.)
Notes:
- MSL (Mean Sea-Level) The average level of the sea over a long period (preferably 18.6 years) or the average level
which would exist in the absence of tides.
- HAT (Highest Astronomical Tide)/LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide) These are the highest and lowest levels which
can be predicated to occur under average meteorological conditions and any combination of astronomical conditions.
These levels will not be reached every year. HAT and LAT are not the extreme levels which can be reached, as storm
surges may cause considerably higher and lower levels to occur.
- MHWS (Mean High Water Springs) Long term average of the heights of two successive high waters during these
periods of 24 hours (approximately once a fortnight) when the range of tide is greatest, at full and new moon.
- MLWN (Mean Low Water Neaps) Long term average of the heights of two successive low waters when the range of
tide is the least, at the first and last quarter of the moon.
- MLWS (Mean Low Water Springs) The long term average value of two successive low waters over the same periods
are defined for MHWN.
- AHD (Australia Height Datum) This Datum has been adopted by the National Mapping Council as the datum to which
all vertical control for mapping is to be referred.

3.8.3 Storm Surge
A storm surge is the rise (or fall) of open coast water levels relative to the normal water level and is due to
the action of wind stress and atmospheric pressure on the water surface. Storm surges occur as part of
major storms such as cyclones where there are low atmospheric pressures and the wind blows over reaches
of the ocean.
Some predicted surge heights have been produced by local authorities and this data should be referenced if
available. There is no correlation with tide levels, nor are there any predictions for wave break set-up and
wave run-up on the land. These factors will need consideration for any design with storm surge as a factor.
Storm surges would need to be considered with respect to coastal developments, the protection of coastal
roads, route immunity for evacuation purposes, and for major coastal drainage designs. Local government
may also have specific requirements or data in relation to storm surge.
There is a low likelihood of occurrence of storm surge coinciding with flood events, so calculation of design
floods does not need to consider both together, but the two effects should be considered independently. The
designer should review analysis of meteorological data to ensure the appropriate coincident conditions or the
extreme water level conditions are used in backwater analysis.
3.8.4 Downstream Tributary
If the crossing is located on a stream which joins another watercourse (larger or smaller) downstream, other
issues need to be considered.
As the two open channels have different catchment sizes, they will peak at different times. The combined
flow at their junction needs to be assessed.
In this case, two situations need to be considered:

• major flood on tributary with limited flow in the main stream
• major flood on the main stream and limited flow in the tributary.
Both cases need to be analysed to provide an understanding of the potential flood conditions at the road.
The risk of coincidental flooding in the two streams needs to be considered to determine the combined risk of
flooding. Depending on the relative sizes of the two streams, it may not be realistic to expect floods to occur
together in the two streams.
Section 6.12, suggests a methodology for including tidal levels into design flood analysis.
3.8.5 Tail Water Levels
Tail water level refers to the normal water level, for a given flow, in a channel immediately downstream of a
drainage structure. Details on tail water levels, tail water effects and design levels for tail water are provided
in AGRD Part 5B – Section 2.6.
3.8.6 Acid Sulphate Soils
Government departments responsible for environment and resource management will be able to provide
information and advice on areas dominated by actual and potential acid sulphate soil deposits (e.g. plotted
on maps) which may include presence or depth to actual acid sulphate soil horizons and presence or depth
to potential acid sulphate soil.
Designers should see the local jurisdiction and the CSIRO website for further information.

Many road construction activities may cause potential acid sulphate soils to be exposed to air, including:
• stripping of topsoil
• excavation of soil for underground drains and table drains
• excavation of sediment retention basins
• dewatering of cuts
• construction of culverts
• construction of bridge foundations.
Actual acid sulphate soils produce sulphuric acid which dissolves heavy metals in soils, causing damage to
both the natural environment and engineering works. Engineering works are affected by sulphuric acid
leaching from actual acid sulphate soils, which corrodes iron, steel and aluminium and attacks concrete,
causing the concrete to expand, weaken and spall and subsequently exposing reinforcement to corrosion.
Engineering works are also affected by the breakdown of soil structure in clays as heavy metals are
dissolved in sulphuric acid. Changes in soil structure may reduce the shear strength of the soil and allow
subsidence and erosion to occur.
Management of acid sulphate soils
When undertaking road construction activities at sites where either potential or actual acid sulphate soils
(ASS) have been identified, the preferred management option is to avoid any disturbance to the existing
ground surface and groundwater regime. Design of proposed road construction activities should be
undertaken based on these restrictions.
If the exposure, excavation or dewatering of acid sulphate soils during road construction activities is
unavoidable, either neutralisation, containment or sulphide removing techniques must be adopted to prevent
damage to the natural environment and engineering works. Neutralisation is undertaken by the addition of a
neutralising agent (usually quicklime) to exposed acid sulphate soils, which removes excess hydrogen ions
beyond the capacity of the soil to neutralise the acidity. Containment can be achieved by excavating acid
sulphate soils and reburying immediately (to minimise exposure to air) in impermeable excavations below the
water table. Sulphide removal techniques involve excavating the acid sulphate soil, removing the iron
sulphide using a hydrocyclone, replacing the clean soil and containing the remaining iron sulphides in a
suitable manner.
Further information on design and construction through acid sulphate soils can be found on jurisdictional
websites such as the DTMR (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au), and VicRoads Acid Sulphate Soils (VicRoads
2006). Other road or environment protection agencies may have their own local requirements.
Design and construction considerations through acid sulphate soils
Acid sulphate soils (ASS) occur naturally over extensive low-lying coastal areas, predominantly below an
elevation of 5 m AHD. In areas where the elevation is close to sea level, these soils may be found close to
the natural ground level but at higher elevations they may also be found at depth in the soil profile.
In areas that have a high probability of containing ASS, local government planning strategies should, as far
as practical, give preference to land uses that avoid or minimise the disturbance of ASS. Land uses such as
extractive industries, golf courses, marinas, canal estates, and land uses with car parking or storage areas
below ground level which are likely to result in significant amounts of excavation, filling (or even de-watering),
should be avoided in high probability areas. However, where the ASS occur at significant depth, the
previously mentioned land uses may be appropriate if they are unlikely to result in the disturbance of ASS
layers. Jurisdictional planning policy requirements should be investigated during the planning and design
stages to ensure regulatory requirements are included.

Alternative uses such as open space or wildlife corridors may be allocated to areas with high sulphide
concentration. It is preferable to maintain groundwater levels in a steady state. Works to be avoided include:
• construction of drains or canals which unnecessarily lower the groundwater table, either during normal
operation or during maintenance works such as de-silting
• construction of drains or canals that may cause significant water level fluctuations during dry periods
• construction of water storages, or sediment/nutrient ponds in acid sulphate soils.
All new drainage works in coastal areas should be investigated, designed and managed to avoid potential
adverse effects on the natural and built environment (including infrastructure) and human health from ASS
where such works may:
• disturb the groundwater hydrology or surface drainage patterns below 5 m AHD
• disturb subsoils or sediments below 5 m AHD where the natural ground level of the land exceeds 5 m
AHD (but is below 20 m AHD).
In situations where the ASS investigation has identified high levels of sulphides in the soil, the design of new
drainage works must incorporate appropriate management principles, such as:
• disturbance of ASS to be avoided wherever possible
• where disturbance of ASS is unavoidable, preferred management strategies are:
–
minimisation of disturbance
– neutralisation
– hydraulic separation of sulphides either on its own or in conjunction with dredging
– strategic re-burial (reinterment).
Other management measures may be considered but must not pose unacceptably high risks, such as:
• Appropriate consideration of alternative development sites, and/or alternative sites to locate drains, roads,
pipelines and other underground services.
• In situations where avoidance of all ASS is not possible, drainage should be designed so that areas with
the highest levels of sulphide are either not disturbed (preferred), or minimally disturbed (where non-
disturbance is not practical) and overall ASS disturbance is minimised.
• Wherever practical, drains are designed so that they do not penetrate the acid sulphate soil layers, and
preferably the acid sulphate soils are at least 0.5 m below the channel invert.
• Drainage designs must allow construction and ongoing maintenance works to be performed in
accordance with best practice environmental management as defined in documents such as the
Queensland Acid Sulphate Soil Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines (Dear et al. 2002) and
jurisdictional regulations requirements.
• Neutralising agents may need to be incorporated into the lining of constructed drainage channels to aid
the neutralisation of acidic stormwater run-off, and to neutralise acidic water entering from acidified
groundwater inflows. It is inappropriate to apply neutralising agents into natural watercourses or water
bodies unless carefully planned and approved. This is particularly important for waters where pH-
sensitive wildlife may be present such as in naturally acidic coastal wetlands.
• Drainage designs should not rely on receiving marine, estuarine, brackish or fresh waters as a primary
means of diluting and/or neutralising ASS or associated contaminated waters.
• Larger drainage works (e.g. greater than 5000 tonnes of soil disturbance) should be staged to ensure that
the disturbance is manageable.

In addition, the design of drainage systems in new urban development should give preference to:
• firstly, open channels with inverts at least 0.5 metres above ASS layers
• secondly, open channels with inverts above ASS layers
• thirdly, piped drainage systems that discharge directly to open waterways that will allow maximum dilution
of acid waters
• fourthly, piped drainage systems that discharge directly to existing open channels or waterways, i.e. do
not require the construction of new open channels that may intersect ASS layers or cause a lowering of
surrounding groundwater levels.
The application of WSUD into potential ASS regions should give preference to systems that:
• maintain natural stormwater infiltration into the soil
• maintain or increase local groundwater levels
• avoid the need for groundwater to be used as a source of non-potable water.
A detailed management plan will be required:

• for disturbances greater than 1000 tonnes (note: amount may vary between jurisdictions)
• where the proposed works are likely to alter the groundwater table of the area or where the site is close to
an environmentally sensitive area (even if less than five tonnes of lime treatment are required).
Environmental management plans (EMP) may be requested by the local government or environmental
protection agency to support a drainage proposal, or prepared by a proponent who wishes to demonstrate
their general environmental duty effectively.
3.8.7 Roadside Stops
In rural areas, litter concentrations occur near facilities such as rest areas, truck-parking bays, and wayside
stops. Where kerbs and channels and underground drainage are provided on these facilities, grated pits or
grated side entry pits may be used as litter traps.
There is a need to consider water sensitive road design where run-off from the paved area is ‘treated’ prior to
discharge to the surrounding environment. For rural roadside stops this may simply include allowing the run-
off to sheet flow off the paved area over vegetated/grassed land surrounding the rest area. Broken/slotted
kerb or fencing may be installed if delineation is required. Management of litter may need to be addressed.
See AGRD Part 6B (Austroads 2015) for further design considerations of roadside rest areas.
The use of recycled water, rainwater tanks and water harvesting may be designed into the toilet facilities
provided at a roadside stop.
3.8.8 Water Harvesting
Stormwater pollution is a major threat to urban rivers and creeks whereby excess nutrients can lead to the
demise of animals, plants and fish living in waterways. Furthermore, heavy rainfall and associated flooding
can cause erosion that also threatens plants and animals. This situation is exacerbated by the significant
growth of many large cities and the resulting increase in run-off from rainfall.
Stormwater harvesting can assist in managing the adverse effects of storm run-off on waterways by reducing
the volume and speed of flow of water and the amount of pollution reaching waterways. Water from the
harvesting process may require treatment to remove pollutants before it is used for appropriate purposes.

Urban stormwater harvesting schemes can be defined as the collection, treatment, storage and use of
stormwater run-off from urban areas. Figure 3.23 illustrates the harvesting process; however, it should be
noted that whilst schemes will have common elements their characteristics will vary.
Storage associated with water harvesting may include wetlands, retarding basins, dams or lakes.
Consequently, the effects on the catchment and waterways upstream and downstream of the harvesting
scheme are a most important consideration.
Figure 3.23: Conceptual illustration of the stages of a stormwater harvesting scheme

Note: Image supplied courtesy of Melbourne Water.
Source: Melbourne Water (2012a).
Stormwater proposals must be considered in the context of the entire catchment, recognising the intrinsic
value of rainfall in replenishing surface water flows and groundwater. They must also give consideration to
the environmental and social/visual values of urban waterways.
The availability and quality of water for harvesting will vary from catchment to catchment depending on a
range of issues including:
• catchment characteristics (level of urbanisation, environmental significance of waterways within the
catchment)
• receiving environment (bay, estuary, freshwater system)
• existing demands (urban and rural).

The planning and development of stormwater harvesting schemes will therefore require the involvement of
specialist designers. It will also involve a knowledge and understanding of the requirements of the
environmental protection authority.
Road designers are likely to become involved in the planning and design activities where harvesting
schemes are associated with major road projects, as coordination of the road design and road drainage with
the harvesting facility is essential.
To better understand stormwater harvesting and to obtain further details regarding the design and
establishment of a stormwater harvesting scheme, designers should refer to national and local drainage
authority guidelines, including links to other sources, such as National Water Quality Management Strategy,
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse (Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council et al. 2009) and Guidelines for Stormwater Harvesting (Melbourne Water
2012b).
3.8.9 Drainage Shadow
On open, gently sloping terrain, the inclusion of a raised road embankment can lead to the creation of a
drainage shadow (Figure 3.24). The disruption of drainage sheet flow (i.e. creation of drainage shadows) can
adversely affect the local ecology, leading to significant tree and (potentially) animal habitation loss. The road
embankment effectively intercepts drainage that would normally flow across the affected area. Increasingly,
large side drains or table drains have been typically used to carry the water down to low points on the land
profile to cross under the road in a concentrated fashion via large culverts.
However, by placing smaller culverts at closer spacing with associated short levee banks, rather than
accumulating the flow and taking it via table drains to larger (less frequent) culverts, the surface water is
better able to regain sheet flow characteristics on the downstream side of the road. As a consequence, the
ground flows more closely replicate traditional water flow patterns and better preserve the local vegetation
(Figure 3.25). This approach also serves to reduce scour potential.
Additional treatments may be used at culvert outlets to shorten the distance required to re-establish sheet
flows. Figure 3.26 illustrates the concept of a sill drain. Discharge is redirected parallel to the road within a
section of an open drain before overtopping as sheet flow. The need for such treatments will depend on the
significance and proximity of downstream vegetation.

Figure 3.24: Typical drainage

Figure 3.25: Modified drainage

Figure 3.26: Section A of a sill drain


4. Drainage Considerations
4.1 General Considerations
Any drainage design requires consideration of:

• the appropriate ARI for various parts of the system
• the quantities of water to be managed
• how stormwater run-off can be most efficiently captured
• the environmental consequences of road operation and drainage design options
• the natural water balance of the site and the desire to maintain this balance where possible (i.e. at source
infiltration)
• capacity, condition and durability of existing systems where present
• what external constraints affect the design choices
• how the drainage design impacts on other aspects of the project
• the consequences of failure of the system
• occupational health and safety issues in construction, operation and maintenance

• future operational costs and requirements of the drainage system.
Each design will have different attributes that will affect these considerations. For example, the
considerations influencing the design of an urban drainage system can be substantially different to those
influencing the design of a rural drainage system.
Notwithstanding these differences, the fundamental input for all drainage design is the determination of the
peak run-off from a catchment, for an accepted ARI. This requires analysis of the catchment characteristics
and the range of rainfall events that can be expected across the catchment. The definitive Australian work on
this subject is ARR2019 (Ball et.al 2019) which forms the basis of most drainage design manuals developed
by road agencies and others. Catchment run-off/peak flow is covered in further detail in Section 6 –
Hydrology.
4.1.1 Australian Rainfall and Run-off (ARR)
ARR2019 (Ball et.al 2019) supersedes the previous version of ARR, last undertaken in 1987 with select
updates in 2001 (Pilgrim 2001). comprises a series of books dealing with various aspects of the design
process and the range and interrelationships of the building blocks of drainage design. Depending on the
project, some or all of these topics need to be addressed:
Book 1 – Scope and Philosophy
Book 2 – Rainfall Estimation
Book 3 – Peak Flow Estimation
Book 4 – Catchment Simulation for Design Flood Estimation
Book 5 – Flood Hydrograph Estimation
Book 6 – Flood Hydraulics

Book 7 – Application of Catchment Modelling Systems
Book 8 – Very Rare to Extreme Flood Estimation
Book 9 – Runoff in Urban Areas
4.2 Road User Considerations
For road user safety, rain falling on trafficable lanes should be removed as quickly and directly as possible
(to reduce the risk of aquaplaning), primarily through appropriately designed road geometry. Further to this
requirement, all surface flows either conveyed to or emanating from the roadside should be confined to
gutters and shoulders as applicable. Contour plans of the road surface can be used to estimate the flow
paths and identify the potential for aquaplaning. See AGRD Part 5A – Section 4 for further details.
On a typical kerbed roadway, road surface run-off begins to accumulate within the gutter. The depth and
width of flow needs to be assessed to verify that the encroachment of the channel flow into the roadway
does not pose a safety hazard to road users travelling within the roadway or create a nuisance impact for
those general public (off-road users) travelling alongside the roadway (i.e. splashing of pedestrians). Further,
the depth and velocity of the flow need to be assessed to ensure that they fall within safe limits and minimise
the impacts on all road users.
The location of drainage pits and other drainage structures is also an important consideration in road user
safety and level of service. Care should be taken to ensure that:
• pit covers do not pose a hazard to cyclists or pedestrians (i.e. metal covers in tight radius curves creating
a slip hazard for cyclists or covers in front of pedestrian ramps). Refer also to Section 2 – Safety in
Design
• on-grade inlet spacing is such that encroachment of gutter flow into trafficable lanes is within acceptable
limits and that a minimum width of carriageway remains open during severe storms for the particular class
of road
• inlets are placed at appropriate, fixed locations to ensure road safety, such as prior to the development of
superelevation to prevent the gutter flow sheeting back across the carriageway
• location of infrastructure takes into consideration future maintenance operations, the safety of workers
and the road users around them
• inlets are placed to ensure an appropriate flow width is achieved adjacent to kerbs to minimise splashing
of pedestrians, maintain access at bus stops, ensure access to pedestrian crossings and allow access to
parked vehicles
• drainage pits and covers are located clear of the travel lanes. Pit covers are motorcycle-friendly and any
gratings are aligned transverse to the travel path and have a skid resistant surface.
The safety of road users in other situations is discussed further in Section 2 – Safety in Design.
Further information on road surface flow is provided in AGRD Part 5A – Section 3.2.

4.3 Design Considerations
4.3.1 Identifying Design Considerations
The construction of new or upgraded road drainage infrastructure may lead to changes in the existing road
and external environments. Problems associated with erosion and sedimentation, flooding (changes in peak
water levels) and water quality are of concern to road and drainage authorities, adjacent land owners, road
users and the local community. The occurrence of these problems, particularly after a project is completed,
can be costly to remedy and may lead to reduced amenity.
Development of the most appropriate drainage solution for a project and avoidance or minimisation of
adverse impacts requires effective planning and design which may involve a multi-disciplinary team on large
or complex projects.
A generic set of design considerations that may apply to projects is summarised in Table 4.1. Designers
should use the table as a check list for design considerations within the following categories:
• geometric
• geographic
• environmental
• crossing type
• drainage system risks, including the consequence of failure
• drainage structures
• maintenance
• safety
• staged construction of roads.
It should be noted that identified design considerations may present several options when being addressed.
It is possible that upon further consideration or review, some design considerations may no longer be part of
a project while others develop into key design controls.
Table 4.1: Summary of design considerations
Aspect Consideration Comment

Geometric considerations
Stream Stream • Usually only one alignment for all flows, but it is possible to have different
geometry longitudinal alignments for a low and high flow in the same stream.
alignment • Preferable to maintain or preserve the existing stream alignment as changes
will affect the existing flow parameters (velocity, depth of flow and energy).
• It is possible to alter the alignment of existing streams to improve the
hydraulic performance of the road-stream crossing.
Stream • Has a significant influence on flow velocity which has a significant effect on
gradient sediment transport and scour potential.
• Changes to stream gradient will also affect flow parameters.
Channel shape • Tends to dictate the size and configuration of drainage structures.
• Altering the channel shape to accommodate a drainage structure will affect
flow parameters and could increase the risk of erosion.
• It is preferable to maintain or preserve the existing channel shape and culvert
structures should be designed to ‘fit’ the shape of the stream.
• Some channels may not contain all of the design storm run-off and
overtopping of the banks will occur. Multiple culvert installations for the one


catchment will be required and in this instance, specialist advice/design will
be required.
Road geometry Horizontal • Minimising the skew angle between the road alignment and drainage
alignment structure (or eliminating it altogether) is most desirable as it reduces costs
and construction difficulty.
• Usually highly recommended to preserve stream alignment and hence high
skew angles may be unavoidable.
Vertical • An initial vertical alignment design would be used to undertake the initial
alignment drainage design of various structures. It may be necessary to adjust the
vertical alignment of the road in order to achieve the most efficient and
effective drainage designs (considering allowable headwater levels, afflux
and minimum cover requirements for structures) provided that appropriate
values for road design parameters can be achieved.
• Minimum and maximum grade requirements for longitudinal drainage
channels (such as table drains) should be achieved so that effective flow is
achieved but higher erosive flow velocities are avoided.
Stormwater • This aspect is critical as water flow (and depth) on the road surface relates to
run-off from aquaplaning.
road • Any identified problems should be solved and mitigated through amended
geometric road design (combination of horizontal, vertical, cross-section
elements).
• A drainage solution to aquaplaning should be only considered as a ‘last
resort’ option, for which specialist advice is highly recommended.

Stormwater • Where there is a possibility of stormwater crossing over the road (whether
across road intentional or unintentional), adequate stopping sight distance must be
provided.
Geographic
All regions Flood immunity • Drainage structures should be sized to ensure that the flow velocities and
afflux are acceptable.
• Refer to local drainage and management plans.
• Ensure that property and crops will not be affected by a change in water
levels or duration of inundation.
• Minimise the concentration of flow on floodplains because of the risk of
scour.
• Maintain free drainage and do not create ponding of low flows.
• Changes to flow patterns.
• Consideration of seasonal variations in hydraulic roughness linked to
changes in vegetation cover.
Urban regions Intense level of • Provision for higher peak flows arising from uncontrolled upstream
development development (many local authorities now require flow increases to be
and afflux mitigated).
which is usually • Assess requirements of any catchment management plan or stormwater
of more management plan prepared for the watercourse.
concern in
• Consider need for pollution control measures.
urban areas
• Interaction of road drainage provisions with existing services.
• Minimisation of ground disturbance during construction as urban
environments often have limited space for large control measures such as
sediment basins.
• Consideration and control of afflux effects. There is often a requirement that
negligible afflux increases be generated upstream/downstream of the
proposed drainage structure. With respect to possible changed water levels,
it is important that each case is assessed fully in keeping with a risk
management approach.


Coastal Tidal • Legal requirements with respect to the protection of marine environments
regions inundation, a (e.g. protection of fish habitats and marine plants) must be met.
corrosive • Natural flow systems (e.g. tidal exchange) should be properly assessed and
environment not be compromised.
and sandy soils
• Corrosion resistant materials should be used.
(i.e. soils with
little cohesion). • Potential acid sulphate soils (typically below five metres AHD) should be
Coastal identified and managed appropriately.
environments • Storm tide influence upon peak water levels and greenhouse related sea
are also often level rise should be considered.
highly sensitive • Designs should allow for the presence of highly erodible or mobile materials
to pollution. such as sand.
• Consideration should be given to directing drainage to natural channels or
swales rather than to hard structures.
• Bi-directional flows (due to tidal effects) must be identified and appropriately
considered.
Flat terrain Nature and • Flow velocities in flat areas are usually low so larger structures are needed to
impact of water convey the flow.
flow • Flow may be widespread and/or shallow so minor obstructions to the flow
may divert flow significantly. These minor obstructions include levees and
other floodplain works. Even the road itself may cause major diversions.
• It is often difficult to determine the catchment areas accurately because of
minimal relief in terrain and the presence of minor obstructions.
• Poorly defined flow paths also mean that it is sometimes difficult to place
culverts in the most suitable locations.
• In flat terrain the impacts of the road on flood levels may extend for
significant distances upstream of the road. Where afflux is a concern, this
impact may often be critical.
• There is usually an increased risk of erosion at culvert outlets because flow
will be concentrated by drainage structures, particularly where there are
poorly defined flow paths and/or most flow occurs across the floodplain.
Mountainous Steep terrain • Control of velocities in roadside drains and culvert outlets.
terrain • Collect and discharge of water from the upslope side of the road to the
downslope side.
• Prevent erosion at outlets onto steep areas.
• Consider need for small scale drop structures, weirs or drop manholes.
Environmental
Environmental Scour, erosion • The risk of scour/erosion and sediment movement caused by the
impact and sediment concentration of flows that typically occurs with drainage structures is of
particular concern.
• Causal factors including changes in flood flow patterns and changes in peak
water levels should also be checked.
• In some instances, a new road embankment could lead to long-term ponding
of water which in turn could have adverse environmental impacts.
Fauna habitat • Where there is a need, provide for fauna passage and the maintenance (or
and passage improvement) of water quality.
• Streams are usually riparian corridors and all drainage works on roads
should minimise any adverse impact on these important corridors. Therefore
they can provide a corridor for fauna movement as well as providing a habitat
for terrestrial and aquatic fauna.
Broader context • Careful review of any relevant environmental assessment documentation,
including any recommended management strategies, needs to be
undertaken as some of these strategies may become design requirements or
criteria.


• The recommended management strategies are generally based on the
requirements of relevant legislation, policy, codes, guidelines and current
best practice within the industry.
Other
Safety An integral • The safety of the public, road users and maintenance personnel must be
aspect of the considered (see Section 2 – Safety in Design).
detailed design
of all road
drainage
systems
Whole-of-life • Planning and design should take proper account of both expected and
approach potential changes that will or may occur as traffic grows and the surrounding
land use develops or changes.
• This aspect is most important for projects that are planned to be built in
stages over a period of time. Making allowance in current designs for these
Staged changes ensures that future enhancements can be accommodated in a cost
construction effective, efficient and safe manner.
• Other future benefits include:
- reduced disruption to road users and adjacent property owners
- early/coincident resumption of properties
• reduced environmental impacts.
4.4 Selection of Recurrence Interval and Flood Immunity
The components of a drainage system are designed to handle a specific design discharge which is linked to
the ARI. The ARI is selected after considering the potential effects of the ARI being exceeded. The
probability of exceeding the design discharge is determined by a statistical approach rather than being a
deterministic statement. Recurrence intervals are a long-term average and intervals between specific
discharge events may be considerably shorter or longer than the ARI for that event.
Design ARIs should take into consideration a number of factors including:

• existing capacities of structures, both upstream and downstream and the ARI to which they were
designed
• other proposed developments
• road usage and alternative routes
• consequences of the ARI being exceeded.
4.5 Defining Immunity
The design criteria for a particular project may be set either by the client or drainage authority and may be
based on any of the following conditions:
• flood immunity
• trafficability
• time of submergence/closure.

4.5.1 Flood Immunity
Flood immunity is defined as the ARI of a flood that just reaches the height of the upstream shoulder of the
road, or where the road is kerbed, the top of the inlet pit. In other words, the road surface remains dry/is
immune to a flood corresponding to the selected ARI. Furthermore, freeboard (see Section 4.6 – Freeboard)
may be required to ‘lower’ the water level further to keep the pavement dry in the face of uncertainties in flow
estimates, hydraulic calculation, etc.
For a particular road (considering road importance, traffic, alternate routes etc.) this immunity level can be
altered to allow water onto the road surface. The amount of acceptable encroachment must be specified by
the client or road agency.
Guidance on how to set the level of immunity is provided in Section 6.4.4 and Section 6.4.5.
4.5.2 Trafficability
Some states recommend that vehicles should not cross flooded roads at all because of safety concerns
while it was also recognized that shallow flows can be crossed safely, especially in remote and less trafficked
roads where it is generally regarded as necessary to drive across roads with at least some flooding. The
design criteria therefore may be specified in terms of the AEP of the flood at the limit of trafficability. Therefore,
based on the recent recommendation in ARR2019, the criterion of adopting a depth x velocity (DV) factor of
0.3 m²/s was accepted for the definition of trafficability of a road. This means that the road surface will be free
of water up to the ARI 20 year event, but still trafficable (having less than 0.3 DV) in an ARI 50 year event.
4.5.3 Time of Submergence/Closure
All drainage structures including bridges, culverts and floodways are designed for a particular average
recurrence interval flood (e.g. 10, 50, 100 years). Larger catchments may require bridge and floodway
sections to cater for a design flood of such magnitude with significant cost implications. For economic
reasons the design of the waterway area to carry water beneath the road may have to be based on a lower
standard flood which will lead to more overtopping of the road during larger floods.
Strategic transport routes are likely to be provided with a high level of flood immunity with road submergence
or closure being a rare event. However, where a low level of flood immunity is considered appropriate, the
cost of the drainage structures will be less but the frequent and possibly lengthy road submergence or
closure will cause costly delays to traffic, damage to the road surface and require consideration of expensive
protective measures for the road embankments.
Consideration of the time of submergence or closure is therefore an important aspect of drainage design to
supplement the flood immunity assessments. The time of closure is a measure of the disruption to traffic and
in some ways is a better measure of the performance of the road. In some cases, low flood immunity may be
acceptable if the times of closure are low and the expected disruption is relatively minor. This measure can
be expressed in terms of submergence or closure as discussed below:
Time of submergence (ToS)
This is a measure of the expected time that the road is submerged in any flood but especially in a major flood
such as the ARI 50 year event. Submergence is defined as the point where the road is just overtopped, even
by very shallow water.
Average annual time of submergence (AAToS)
This is a measure of the expected average time per year of submergence of the road caused by flooding. It
is expressed as time per year.

Time of closure (ToC)
This is a measure of the expected time of closure of a road (road not trafficable) in any flood but especially a
major flood such as an ARI 50 year event.
Average annual time of closure (AAToC)
This is a measure of the expected time of closure of the road due to flooding, expressed as time per year.
The procedure included in AGRD Part 5B – Section 4.4 is also relevant for bridges and culverts.
The average annual times of submergence and closure depend on the frequency of submergence/closure as
well as the duration of each occurrence. For example, two streams may have a similar average annual time
of submergence, but quite different flood immunity, if one is closed frequently for short durations, while the
other is closed more rarely for longer times. The impacts of these different patterns can be analysed to
determine the most appropriate design for each particular crossing.
The time of submergence/closure is related to catchment area and response times as well as the flood
immunity. These times are calculated either from design flood events or from stream flow data as described
later in the Guide.
More details on time of submergence and closure are provided in AGRD Part 5B – Section 4.4 where the
methods of calculation are included.
4.6 Freeboard
Freeboard is an allowance made between the design water level and some identifiable/specific point, such
as a bridge, top of an embankment, high bank of channel or adjacent buildings. It is an allowance applied to
the height of the design flow to cater for:
• the uncertainty of modelling the design flood event and predicting the flood level
• floods of greater magnitude
• floods of the design discharge that may be higher in level due to blockage, debris or other effects that
may be difficult to quantify
• wave action on the water flow.
The assessment of the amount of freeboard required needs to be based on the risks of overtopping,
characteristics of the catchment and storm flows. Allowances can be adjusted for significant roads,
surrounding property development or other criteria. The level of importance of a road may affect the
freeboard used to ensure trafficability.
Freeboard is not required in all situations and this may be specified as part of the design. For example,
allowance of freeboard for an open channel through parkland may not be required as any overtopping of the
channel will simply flood the adjacent parkland, not causing any damage or inconvenience. The following
sections discuss the application of freeboard across a variety of drainage scenarios. Figure 4.1 provides
some examples of the use of freeboard for various situations.
4.6.1 Kerbed Drainage
Kerbed drainage typically collects water from the pavement surface for typically the design minor event and
is discharged via a piped drainage network or open channel.

The constraints imposed by adjacent development on urban drainage networks are significant. There can be
considerable financial liability borne on a road agency should residential or commercial property become
subjected to flood damage as a result of road drainage infrastructure having insufficient capacity with
inadequate, or little to no contingency (i.e. overland escape paths) in place. Freeboard of 0.3 m for the
design major event should therefore be taken to the floor level of all potentially susceptible properties as
shown in Figure 4.1(A).
The ARI used for this situation should be confirmed with the relevant catchment management authority and
is generally the 100 year event.
Kerbed drainage is discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5A – Section 5.
4.6.2 Underground Piped Networks
The underground stormwater networks used to convey road surface run-off to suitable drainage outfalls are
generally designed to accommodate the design minor event. Consequently there should be no surcharge of
captured run-off from within the network. Freeboard of 0.15 m in this case should be taken to the top of pit,
which in the majority of cases (urban road drainage networks) is also the road surface level adjacent to the
kerb invert as shown in Figure 4.1(B).
Underground piped networks are discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5A – Section 6.

4.6.3 Drainage Basins
Drainage basins are typically used as intermediate (detention) or end of line (retention) stormwater disposal
points. Their consequences of failure are dependent upon the method of their construction as follows:
• Where construction utilises the road formation as part of the containment, freeboard should be taken to
the subgrade surface as shown in Figure 4.1(C). ARI as per open drains
i.e. 5–10 years.
• Where construction utilises a levee bank, freeboard should be taken to the spillway invert as shown in
Figure 4.1(D). Freeboard in this case is the distance between the overflow level for the design event and
the major event, e.g. ARI 20–100 years.
Drainage basins are discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5A – Section 7.
4.6.4 Vertical Controls – Flood and Groundwater Levels
On most projects, minimum clearances above flood levels and water tables should be defined by the client
either in the design brief or in the design specifications. The following issues should be considered:
• Where a road is designed not to be overtopped during a set ARI flood event, it is desirable to provide
freeboard of 0.3 m between the design upstream floodwater surface and the pavement subgrade or
upstream road shoulder edge as shown in Figure 4.1(E). The pavement design should make allowance
for higher water levels and the likely duration of inundation should the subgrade not be used as a control
for freeboard.
• Freeboard of 0.3 m should be provided between the maximum annual groundwater level to the subgrade
surface as shown in Figure 4.1(F). In flat terrain, the grade line should generally be located so as to
provide a clearance of 0.5 m to 1.0 m between the water table and the pavement boxing at its lowest
point. Further geotechnical and pavement design advice should be obtained to determine the required
clearance for specific projects. Subsurface drainage is discussed in detail in AGRD Part 5A – Section 8.
See also AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2016) for further information on flood levels and water tables.

4.6.5 Open Channel Design
Open channels can be used to either manage the minor or major event ARIs (or both) therefore the size of
the open channel can vary greatly depending on its function.
Freeboard allows for inaccuracies in data used in calculation and possible surcharge due to silt/debris build
up and/or grass growth in the channel because of delayed maintenance of the channel. In steep terrain, it
may be applicable to apply freeboard equal to the design flow depth to compensate for the large variations in
flow caused by waves, splashing and surging.
The design water level in a table drain or open median drain should desirably be set below the subgrade
level of the road pavement, particularly in flat country or in high water conditions. Where the material
between the table drain and the road pavement is impermeable, the table drain may flow up to a level which
provides a 0.15 m freeboard against overtopping, (i.e. below the level of the outer shoulder), provided that
this does not flood subsurface drain outlets.
The design water level in catch drains should be at least 0.15 m below the top of the bank.
Freeboard as applicable to open channels should be as follows:

• For table drains, freeboard should be as shown in Figure 4.1(C) for drainage basins utilising the road
formation for containment. That is, freeboard should be taken to the subgrade surface.
• For median drains between carriageways, freeboard should be taken to the lowest adjacent subgrade
surface level as shown in Figure 4.1(G).
• For open channels away from the road formation, freeboard should be taken to the top of the drain as
shown in Figure 4.1(H).
• For catch drains, freeboard should be taken to the top of the drain (i.e. top of cut batter) as shown in
Figure 4.1(I).
For large open channels, freeboard should be the greater of the following calculations:
• 0.30 m – where flooding of adjacent land and buildings does not represent a risk, the 0.30 m requirement
can be reduced to 0.15 m
• 20% of the flow depth
• velocity head of the flow.
For temporary open channels, depending on an assessment of risk, it may be applicable to adopt zero freeboard.
For details regarding the design of open drains see AGRD Part 5B – Section 2.

Figure 4.1: Examples of application of freeboard for a variety of situations

Note: x represents the freeboard to be determined for each situation.

4.6.6 Culvert Design
Culverts and bridges are generally used to manage flows from a major ARI event across a road formation.
Freeboard as applicable to culverts and bridges should be as follows:

• For culverts and bridges with a cross-section greater than 6 m2, freeboard of 0.3 m should be provided as
shown in Figure 4.1(J) and Figure 4.1(K) is required to prevent blockages of, or damage to, the culvert or
bridge by debris.
• Culverts with a cross-section less than 6 m2 are usually designed with submerged inlets as shown in
Figure 4.1(L) that is, without freeboard, unless it is known that debris will be carried down the catchment.
The control point may be the lower edge of shoulder or the subgrade level of the road pavement. The
designer should consider the damaging effects of water infiltrating the road pavement when determining
or setting the maximum allowable headwater including freeboard for the design of submerged culvert
inlets. The use of impermeable shoulder, verge or pavement materials may allow higher water levels and
consequently reduced freeboard heights.
For details regarding the design of culverts see AGRD Part 5B – Section 3.
4.7 Other Considerations
4.7.1 Drainage Construction Materials

Designers should carefully consider proposed drainage materials against the site-specific requirements. For
example, Appendix B contains a list of materials commonly used in culvert construction and the advantages
and disadvantages of each type based on the site-specific conditions. In addition, road agencies may have
specific requirements or exclusions around the use of particular materials.
4.7.2 Recycled Materials
Until recently roadwork specifications have generally required naturally occurring materials for elements such
as pavement layers, pipe bedding and backfill for pipes and drainage structures. However, specifications
have been developed by organisations providing a basis for the increased use of recycled materials in road
construction (e.g. Savage 2010).
Recycled materials can be produced from a variety of sources that include crushed concrete, bricks and
pavers, glass products, plastics and blast furnace by-products.
Typical applications for the use of recycled material include:

• road base material suitable for a range of traffic conditions
• select fill for improving subgrade performance and also for raising site levels
• bedding material suitable for use as a base layer for pavers
• drainage medium for backfilling drainage structures.
Road agencies and drainage authorities will usually have a policy and specifications regarding the use of
recycled material and designers are advised to refer to the relevant documents.
4.7.3 Road Assets
Water may threaten the integrity of the road asset through inundation or by the movement of water causing
scour and erosion.

Structural properties of materials used in road and pavement construction will, to varying degrees, depend
on their moisture content Austroads (2001) and Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2
(AGPT Part 2) (Austroads 2017b). These properties will be determined by testing prior to design and
construction and results incorporated in the final design. Achievement of design performance will require the
moisture content to be maintained within the design range. Austroads (2001) and Alderson (2006) deal with
the susceptibility of road pavements to moisture. Moisture may enter from beneath through infiltration into the
shoulders and pavement edges or through porosity or defects in the road surfacing. These factors need to
be considered in the drainage design and are particularly relevant in high rainfall areas.
Depending on the topography, extensive measures may be required to prevent groundwater intruding into
the formation and possibly the pavement. This may include provision of cut-off drains to intercept moisture
and subsoil drains beneath the formation.
Silty-sand subgrades may incur significant loss of strength if allowed to ‘wet-up’ following construction.
Similarly, moisture movement into expansive clay subgrades may lead to substantial loss of pavement shape.
4.7.4 Groundwater
The performance of pavements can be affected by the presence of groundwater which can change the
strength or stiffness of the pavement materials. Sometimes lowering the groundwater level can also affect
the pavement. Specialist geotechnical advice should be sought when groundwater is encountered.
The presence and quality of groundwater has an influence on the:

• selection and design of subsurface drainage systems to intercept groundwater to lower the water table
and to prevent the subgrade and road pavement from wetting-up both during and after construction
• design of special systems to treat groundwater that contains a higher than recommended amount of
dissolved minerals and salts, prior to discharge into the surface drainage system and watercourse
• rate and amount of consolidation in locations where stress on the ground is increased, particularly where
embankments are to be constructed over soft and/or saturated soils
• design of stable batter slopes.
Site information gathered on groundwater should indicate the location of high water tables, springs and/or
aquifers that may influence the stability of cuts and fills or permit the ingress of water into the pavement. In
many situations the design of stable slopes and embankments will require complementary subsurface
drainage systems.
In high groundwater situations, sealed pipes joints may result in pipe/culvert flotation. An alternative is to
utilise a geotextile joint strap and use the pipe/culvert as a subsoil pipe. With this detailing, groundwater
lowering can be expected and enhanced pavement protection can be achieved.
Appendix B of the Guide to Road Design Part 1: Objectives of Road Design (Austroads 2021) provides those
engaged in road design activities with a basic understanding and appreciation of the importance of
geotechnical investigations and how road design outcomes and other design activities are influenced by site
conditions, associated ground response, geological hazards and locally available materials. It also includes
information on groundwater including its measurement, interception of groundwater to protect roads and
treatment of the water.
4.7.5 Self-cleaning Sections
Self-cleaning sections, e.g. culverts and channels require a reasonably regular flow of a specific velocity/energy
that will pick up and transport any silt or debris within the section to a specific location beyond it.

The required minimum velocity/energy for a self-cleaning flow through the section must be determined based
on the anticipated sediment and/or debris (type/size/weight) that may accumulate in the section. This flow
must be generated by a design storm with a suitable average recurrence interval (ARI) such as ARI one, two
or five years depending on how often the channel should be cleaned. Intervals of one or two years are
preferred while intervals greater than five years are not recommended.
The location that any silt or debris can be transported to (and deposited) must also be considered as it must:
• be accessible to allow maintenance/clean out
• must not cause any adverse effects to the environment (e.g. water quality and fish passage)
• must not adversely affect any future flows (e.g. cause ponding/increase tail water levels).
Whilst the inclusion/presence of a self-cleaning section does not entirely remove the requirement for
regular/routine maintenance it can reduce the frequency that these operations are required.
4.8 Extreme Events
An extreme event can be defined as an infrequent event at the high or low end of a range of values of a
particular climate or weather variable or the occurrence of earthquakes. An extreme event is either, notable,
rare, unique, profound, or otherwise significant in terms of its impacts, effects, or outcomes in the context of
the area in which they occur, e.g. a 250 mm rainfall event in Hobart is likely to be considered extreme but not
necessarily so in Darwin during the monsoon season.
An extreme event is not simply ‘something big and rare and different’. These events demand some type of
temporal and spatial boundaries, and ‘extremeness’ reflects an event's potential to cause change.
‘Extremeness’ comes from the human perception of consequences, which in turn reflects the character of the
affected system.
Extreme weather events can cause excessive rainfall which exceeds the design criteria of the infrastructure.
This increases the risk of damage to either the road asset or adjacent environment and may also increase
the risk of the loss of life to both road users and the general public. An earthquake can cause damage to
road drainage infrastructure in a way that adversely affects the performance of that infrastructure.
This Guide does not address the management of an extreme event, however extreme events should be
considered in the design of drainage infrastructure to protect the road asset and/or surrounding environment.
Where risks and consequences are unacceptable, consider appropriate mitigating measures.
4.8.1 Extreme Event Data Collection and Site Assessment
An important part of the data collection and site assessment work for drainage infrastructure is the collection
and analysis of data following naturally occurring events such as seasonal storms and extreme events such
as floods, abnormally high tides and storm surges that can accompany cyclones.
These events occur from time to time and are an excellent opportunity to gather data on the performance of the
road network. The data collected as part of this program needs to be archived in an appropriate database to be
available as a historical record for planning and design. Routine inspections following seasonal storm events
provide opportunities to assess drainage performance and document maintenance requirements.
When a surge or flood event has occurred, it is necessary to visit that region as soon as possible after or even
during the event if safe access is possible. While there are other requirements for staff to attend to during after
extreme events, collected data will provide lasting benefits for many years after the flood has receded.

During site visits, observations and measurements need to be documented to record matters such as:
• flood levels
• inundated areas
• water flow patterns
• scour and erosion behaviour
• debris accumulation and debris levels
• floodway performance
• culvert embankment performance under prolonged headwater
• aerial photography
• fauna assistance measures.
Observed features (e.g. flood and debris marks) should be photographed or videoed and marked for later
survey and documentation. Road agency staff, land owners and residents are sources of anecdotal
information that could be useful in confirming or calibrating measured information.
4.8.2 Planning and Design
While the planning and design of road drainage systems is based on a determined average recurrence
interval or set of average recurrence intervals, it is also a requirement to review designs for possible adverse
outcomes that may occur during an extreme rainfall event.
To illustrate this, most arterial roads are designed to an ARI 50–100 year standard. However, should an ARI
100 year event or larger occur, culvert velocities may become unacceptably high causing significant
environmental harm. Afflux may increase above the acceptable ARI 50 year limit causing excessive flooding
and the road may overtop threatening the integrity of the road embankment, safety of road users, and so on.
The extent of the extreme events to be analysed depends on particular circumstances, so the requirements
cannot be defined exactly. Furthermore, while the risk of occurrence of these extreme events is low, the
impacts of an extreme event may be severe and should be assessed.
If the adverse outcomes/risks of an extreme rainfall event are deemed to be unacceptable, the design criteria
may need to be altered and the design recalculated or appropriate mitigating measures developed and
included into the project.
It is important to note that any outcomes (adverse or otherwise) resulting from an extreme rainfall event
could occur within both the road and external environments therefore identification of possible outcomes
should not be limited to the road reserve and/or chainage limits of the project.
The following sections outline some situations where the design of a project should be assessed for adverse
outcomes and risks that may occur during an extreme rainfall event. However, other situations may also exist
where assessment should be undertaken, therefore careful engineering consideration and judgement should
be exercised. Assistance in identifying or confirming situations requiring assessment and at what level (ARI)
assessment should be undertaken can be provided by the drainage authority or drainage expert.
4.8.3 Impacts of Extreme Events on Erodible Soil Environments
If an extreme rainfall event occurs, the maximum allowable velocity for a given structure/device will most
likely be exceeded which in turn could result in excessive scour, erosion, environmental harm or even failure
or collapse of the structure itself. It is therefore important that these situations are identified and assessed.
See AGRD Part 5B – Section 2.7 for information on maximum velocities.
If this situation is considered applicable on a project, specialist advice needs to be sought from the drainage
authority or drainage expert as analysis methods are beyond the scope of this Guide.

4.8.4 Very Rare and Extreme Events
Introduction
Most flood and drainage design analyses for road projects consider floods up to and including the 1% AEP
event. While floods larger than the 1% AEP are very rare, they do occur. Rarer floods are used for certain
aspects of bridge design and tunnel portals. It is also important to consider the impact of a road on larger
floods. For this reason, it is common practice to check there are not substantial change in flood
consequences in a larger flood event. ARR2019 has a detailed coverage of very rare to extreme flood
analysis in Book 8, though the main focus of this book of ARR2019 is on design of dams. Less rigorous
approaches are often used for floodplain management and road design. This section of the GRD outlines the
issues related to road design for these large floods as well as recommended methods for analysis and how
to incorporate the findings into the design.
Issues for road design
Floods larger than 1% AEP should be considered for road design projects for several applications,
summarised as follows.
Flood resilience
Floods larger than the design flood may occur, so there should be at least some consideration of what may
happen during such events. While the road drainage network cannot be expected to perform well during a
very rare event with parts of it being completely under water, a resilient design should not suffer total failure
or extreme damage of large sections in these events.
Part of this criterion is to consider if changes to flow patterns for an extreme flood could have unexpected
consequences that are not apparent for smaller floods. Where there is a possibility that the road construction
for a flood much larger than the design flood may result is a particularly adverse outcome, such as a major
diversion for example, floods larger than the design flood may need to be considered to test if this result
does occur.
Road geometry
This situation is commonly encountered when an existing road is upgraded, by an overlay, road raising to
improve flood immunity or by the construction of noise or safety barriers. It is also a possible issue when the
drainage structure is under a location where the road geometry depends on factors other than flood
immunity, such as an overpass.
The important issue for this risk is where there is a significant difference between the magnitude of the
design flood conveyed by the drainage structure and the flood that overtops the road crest. If a flood only
slightly larger than the design flood overtops the road, the larger flood will not have a significant impact.
Where this situation occurs, the water above the level of the design flood will flow over the road, and the
effects of this flow can be managed by the road design.
The analysis needed to test this condition should consider floods larger than the design flood up to the level
where the road is overtopped, which may be a very large event. Careful consideration needs to be given to
safety and noise barriers and whether they would collapse from the hydraulic load.

Bridge design
The third place where larger floods are needed is as part of bridge design where the Australian Standards
relevant to the hydraulic design of bridges have adopted a limit state approach. For the Ultimate Limit State
Floods, it is necessary to assess flood loading up to and including the 1 in 2000 AEP event.
The analysis for bridges should consider design floods between 1% AEP and up to the 1 in 2,000 AEP
event.
Tunnel portals
Drainage design for tunnel portals is described in Section 6.10.2 of this guide where it is noted that floods
larger than the usual road design levels may be needed because of the specific high risk for the public. The
design probability is selected for tunnel portals depending on the results of a risk assessment, and this may
be a larger flood than the 1% AEP event.
Definition of very rare and extreme events
ARR2019 has classified the range of flood and rainfall probabilities that form the topic of this section, with the
classification shown in Figure 4.2, extracted from ARR2019.
Figure 4.2: Design characteristics of notional event classes

The analysis procedures in the GRD generally cover the “rare” range in this figure. The events that are
generally of relevance to road design are classified in the “very rare” class of this figure. Occasionally road
design may need to consider even larger events in the “extreme” range as classified by ARR2019.
In most road design projects, floods up to the 1 in 2,000 AEP event are sufficient

Analysis methods
Book 8 of ARR2019 provides detailed guidance for analysis of very rare to extreme floods, mainly focusing
on dam design and other major projects. This guide extracts the relevant methods from ARR2019 to be
applied to road design projects.
For the purposes of this guide, it is assumed that design floods up to 1 in 2,000 AEP will be adequate for
most applications, that is the very rare events. The rare events up to the 1% AEP are covered elsewhere in
this guide and the extreme events are not discussed. In the occasional application were floods larger than 1
in 2,000 AEP are required, specialist analysis using ARR2019 is recommended.
The practical limit for flood frequency estimates in the locations with the longest records in Australia is 0.5 %
AEP. Therefore most very rare design flood estimates are based on rainfall simulation methods which are
described in Section 7 of this guide and ARR2019 Book 3. Flood frequency records can be used with
specialist paleo information. This is described in ARR2019 Book 8.
In general, this level of analysis is not usually necessary for road design projects.
The basic input for the rainfall based method recommended for determination of the these floods covers the
range up to 1 in 2,000 AEP, and this rainfall data can be extracted from the Bureau of Meteorology website.
Details of this process are covered in Section 6.7 of this guide.

Breakout 5: Rare and Vary Rare Design Rainfall
A Rare rainfall can be extracted from the BoM website using either a coordinate reference or GIS region file of the
location of interest. Design rainfalls can be extracted in either table or chart format. An example of the design rainfall
results using the Bureau of Meteorology website is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Example of design rainfall results for rare rainfall events
Source: Bureau of Meteorology, Design Rainfall Data System (2016).

Table 4.2 shows the procedures to calculate design rainfalls for the rare and very rare rainfall inputs (up to 1
in 2,000 AEP).
Table 4.2: Summary of rainfall inputs for rare and very rare flood events
Rare Very Rare

Design consideration
Towards 1 in 100 AEP Beyond 1 in 100 AEP to 1 in 2000 AEP
Point Design Rainfall Depths up to Generalised information on design rainfall bursts, as described in Section 6.7
the PMP of this guide.
Areal Design Rainfall Depths up to Derived from point design rainfalls by application of Areal Reduction Factors
the PMP (ARFs), selected as a function of storm area, duration, and AEP as
referenced in Section 0 of this guide.
Temporal Patterns Areal patterns (for bursts and • GSAM & GTSM-R areal patterns for
complete storms) as referenced all long durations2
in Section 0 of this guide. • GSDM point patterns for short
durations2
• Both GSDM and GSAM/GTSM-R
patterns for intermediate durations2
Spatial Patterns Regional information on design Use either GSDM, GSAM, or GTSMR
rainfall spatial patterns as spatial patterns as appropriate for the
referenced in ARR2019 Book 2 location and duration.2
Chapter 4, though frequently not
necessary for road design

projects.
Once the design rainfalls have been estimated, the design floods for the very rare events can be calculated,
with the methodology summarised in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Summary of methods to calculate design flood for rare and very rare flood events
Rare Very Rare

Losses Use “complete storm” initial and continuing losses for all durations and all
• For complete design storms AEPs.
Hydrograph model • Non-linear storage-routing models (or equivalent)

• Selection and configuration • Calibration to range of flood magnitudes, including reconciliation
• Calibration with design flood estimates derived from at-site/regional flood
frequency and paleohydrological procedures
• For Rare to Extreme events non-linearity in S = kQm relation
generally assumed to be in range 0.8 to 0.9 (depending on
catchment characteristics)
Baseflow Adopt baseflow recommendations as discussed in Section 0.
Design flood frequency curve Derive rainfall-based estimates for range of design rainfall durations and
AEPs, and adopt highest of the mean peak discharges from the range of
durations for each AEP
2 Nathan & Weinmann, 2019, Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation, Book 8

4.8.5 Earthquake-prone Areas
At sites that are susceptible to earthquakes, longitudinal connectivity, robustness of the drain foundation and
anchorage by the inlet and outlet structures should be considered to mitigate the effects associated with:
• foundation liquefaction
• road formation lateral spreading
• batter instability.
4.9 Waterway Structures
4.9.1 Factors Affecting Selection of Waterway Structure
A key decision in the provision of a road crossing of a waterway is the type of structure to be provided,
usually a bridge, culvert or floodway. The factors to be considered in determining the type and size of a
waterway structure include:
• the level of serviceability to be provided to traffic and the magnitude of the design flood
• the magnitude of the total waterway design flood where a lower level of serviceability is to be provided to
traffic
• road alignment and geometric standards
• the topography at the site and geometric characteristics of the system

• the hydraulic aspects of the stream such as stage/discharge and velocity/discharge relationships, and
flow patterns at the site
• limits on backwater imposed by river authorities or resulting from development upstream
• requirements for watercraft navigation
• soil conditions and potential for scour at the site
• the incidence and nature of debris carried by the stream during floods
• environmental considerations.
Culverts and floodways are discussed in greater detail in AGRD Part 5B – Section 3 and Section 4
respectively.
For the majority of designs it will be obvious as to whether a bridge or culvert is required at a location. The
decision will generally be made on the basis of serviceability, the existing bank height of the watercourse,
potential for debris to affect the waterway, whether the stream bed is active or not and, in some cases, to
allow for the passage of fauna. In the case of an active stream, building a bridge may be easier and will have
less impact on the environment than a solution with culverts.
Occasionally however, waterway openings can be provided by either a culvert or bridge. Estimates of costs
and risks associated with each will indicate which structure alternative should be selected on the basis of
economics. Other considerations which may influence selection of structure type are given in Table 4.4.
Some road agencies have a policy requiring culvert/bridge design to be referred to a structural engineer
where the waterway area served by the structure exceeds a specified limit. See AS5100 Set–2007 and local
policy for further details.
A floodway is a low-level section of road, specially constructed to allow the passage of floodwater across it
without damage to the road. Floodways are generally provided where traffic volumes are low, under the
following circumstances:
• where flow across the road will be infrequent or of short duration

• in conjunction with a bridge or culvert, where the bridge or culvert is designed to pass a lesser flood than
the total waterway design flood. The bridge or culvert may be designed such that it will not be overtopped
or be designed to be submerged as part of the floodway.
The structural design of larger drainage structures is not covered by this Guide. Details on the design of
floodways are provided in AGRD Part 5B – Section 4.
4.9.2 Bridges – General
The Guide provides guidance only on the location and layout of a bridge but does not provide a detailed
process for bridge design. Additional information on the design of bridges with respect to drainage can be
found in:
• Austroads Guide to Bridge Technology series
• AS 5100 Set–2007 Bridge Design Set
• local jurisdictional guidelines.
The Guide does, however, provide designers with an overview of the criteria to be investigated and
addressed in establishing:
• deck drainage
• bridge geometry
• bridge skews
• road grade and hydraulic clearance
• span lengths and pier location
• riparian and wildlife corridors under the bridge
• bridge location and waterway alignment
• scour protection
• overtopping of the road
• maintenance requirements.
Table 4.4: Advantages and disadvantages of bridges and culverts
Bridges
Advantages Disadvantages
• Provide greatest flood immunity. • Higher design and construction costs.
• Waterway area increases with rising water surface • Require more structural maintenance than culverts.
until water surface begins to submerge • Spill slopes susceptible to erosion and scour damage.
superstructure. • Piers and abutments susceptible to failure from scour.
• Less susceptible to clogging with debris. • Buoyant, drag and impact forces are hazards to
• Scour increases waterway opening. bridges.
• Minimal impact on aquatic environment and wetlands. • Susceptible to stream/channel migration.
• Widening does not usually affect hydraulic capacity. • Increased buoyancy, drag and impact risks.
• Less impact on fauna/fish. • Higher risk for maintenance activities, i.e. traffic
• Low flow capacity. management and height.

Culverts
• Changes to vertical geometry and road width can • Silting may require periodic cleaning.
generally be accommodated by extending culvert • High risk maintenance work location being in a
ends. stream/river bed.
• Require less structural maintenance than bridges. • No increase in waterway as stage rises above soffit.
• Usually simpler and quicker to design and construct • Generally require higher levels of maintenance due
than bridges. to:
• Scour is localised, more predictable and easier to - clogging with debris
control. - scour at outlets
• Generally the most cost effective option. - abrasion and corrosion damage.
• Extension may reduce hydraulic capacity.
• Inlets of flexible culverts susceptible to failure by
buoyancy.
• Rigid culverts susceptible to separation at joints.
• Susceptible to failure by piping (leading to failure of
embankment).
• Increased environmental impacts on fauna/fish.
Floodways
• Generally simple to design. • Allow water flow over road – immunity and safety
• May offer environmental advantages over culverts issues.

and bridges since they will tend to spread flows more • Increased disruption to traffic due to overtopping.
widely. • Can have higher construction costs than culverts.
• Typically have low embankments. • Batter slopes can be affected by erosion/scour
• Risk of scour to waterway and surrounding land is (particularly for higher embankments).
reduced. • Generally have costly batter protection requirements.
• Susceptible to stream/channel migration.
• Can have environmental impacts (fauna/fish
passage).
• Potential for failure of embankment (depending on
provided protection).
4.9.3 Drainage of Bridge Decks
The drainage of bridge decks is an important component of bridge performance. The surface water needs to
be removed from the bridge deck effectively to minimise the safety hazard of water on the pavement surface,
and prevent corrosion of the structure. The collected run-off needs to be discharged appropriately to meet
the environmental requirements, prevent erosion of the surrounding ground and possibly undermining the
foundations, and the width of flow on a bridge deck should not exceed that specified for its road approaches.
Every effort should be made to ensure that longitudinal sags are not located on bridges.
Drainage of carriageway
Transverse and longitudinal drainage of the carriageway should be undertaken by providing a suitable cross-
fall and camber or gradient, respectively. Water flowing downgrade on bridge approaches should not be
permitted to run onto the bridge unless permitted otherwise by the road agency. To reduce costs, short
bridges, should be detailed without formal superstructure drainage wherever possible, with the run-off from
the bridge discharged into outfall drains at the end of the structure, as specified by the agency.

Longer bridges require drainage facilities; otherwise flow widths may exceed the allowable limits. Inlet
structures, such as flush grates connect to the under-deck pipe work, which discharges away from the
structure, waterway, or other thoroughfare beneath the structure. Drainage inlets should be of rigid,
ultraviolet and corrosion-resistant material, not less than 100 mm in their least dimension, and should be
provided with provision for cleanouts.
Deck drainage should be detailed to prevent the discharge of drainage water against any portion of the
structure and to prevent erosion adjacent to the point of impact of the discharge from the outlet of the
downpipe. The overhanging portions of a concrete deck should be provided with a drip bead or notch, which
should be continuous where possible.
Drainage from bridges should not discharge directly into waterways, onto traffic lanes, railway corridors or
any other thoroughfare below. As such the use of scuppers for bridge deck drainage should be precluded.
Detailing for drainage
Design details should ensure that water drains from all parts of the structure and should prevent the retention
of dirt, leaves or other foreign matter.
Where drainage pipes are provided in the closed cells of bridges, the pipes should be of durable material.
Where pipes carrying liquids are located inside closed cells, drainage should be provided in case of leaking
or bursting of the pipes.
Drainage of ballast railway bridges
Consideration should be given to the effective drainage of ballast-topped railway bridges, and waterproofing
should be provided where necessary.
4.9.4 Bridge Location and Waterway Alignment
Where practicable, the alignment of the bridge should be chosen to avoid unstable sections of a watercourse
channel, such as sharp or obviously mobile channel bends.
If piers must be located within the channel, and if a pool is likely to form within the channel at the bridge
location, then the foundation design must allow for future bed erosion.
When it is considered necessary to realign a waterway channel as part of a bridge design, the following
issues and concerns should be investigated and appropriately addressed:
• potential environmental impacts of sediment run-off from the construction of the new channel
• erosion potential of the downstream channel in response to the proposed realignment
• possible changes to existing bed conditions, including pool-riffle systems, within the channel
• the need for rock protection of the channel bed and banks given the potential to adversely affect the
continuity and health of riparian vegetation and consequently the quality of the wildlife corridor
• any reduction in the length of the main channel and a consequential increase in the hydraulic gradient
and erosion potential
• the form, condition and location of the low-flow channel; where practical, all of these should be
maintained.

The location of the low-flow channel can have a significant effect on channel stability and aquatic habitat
values. It can also meander within the bed of the main channel and the form, condition and location of the
low-flow channel can vary from flood event to flood event.
4.9.5 Bridge Geometry
In establishing the geometry of a bridge, the following aspects need to be considered:

• road grade and height clearances (above accesses, environmental features and services)
• hydraulic clearance (freeboard)
• span lengths and location of piers
• scour protection
• overtopping
• maintenance requirements/access.
Road grade and hydraulic clearance
In general clearance is dependent on:

• design road levels
• whether the bridge is to be designed with freeboard or for overtopping

• the size and nature of flood debris
• environmental features
• built features
• navigation requirements (where relevant).
Hydraulic clearance in most bridge designs refers to the amount of freeboard to be provided between the
underside of the bridge superstructure and the design flood level.
In some instances, clearance has also to be provided for road access, environmental features and watercraft
navigation requirements.
Reference should also be made to jurisdictional legislation and regulations regarding navigable waterways
and access rights. It is important to note that when in tidal waters, the relevant authority and/or waterway
manager must be consulted. Some jurisdictions may require external approval for bridge spans and vertical
clearance for boats (including yachts, where relevant).
Span lengths and pier location
In selecting span length, the following factors must be considered:

• bridge design and construction issues
• whether any piers will be allowed within the main watercourse channel
• size of debris that is likely to be present within the watercourse
• required road elevation
• required waterway area to satisfy allowable afflux limits.

The spacing of bridge piers can have an important factor, having a significant influence on the cost of a
bridge. It is dependent on:
• the stability of the stream bed and banks
• the environmental sensitivity of the waterway (i.e. should piers be allowed within the low-flow channel)
• the presence of any existing bridge piers – where duplication or upgrade of roadways is planned, new
piers should be aligned with existing piers where possible
• geotechnical conditions for pier foundations
• navigational requirements (where relevant)
• required permits.
Where practical, bridge piers should be located away from the low-flow channel. Large-scale turbulence
caused by bridge piers located within low-flow channels can adversely affect fish passage and can cause
bed and bank erosion.
Scour protection
Scour of bridge foundations or abutments can arise when bed or bank surfaces are not designed to resist
likely peak velocities. Peak velocities can also be exacerbated when a build-up of debris results in a
decrease in waterway area.
The most common form of scour-induced failure relates to scour of the river or creek bed in the vicinity of
bridge piers, as shown in Figure 4.4 and/or abutments. During flood events, river or creek beds may be
mobilised to significant depths, hence it is necessary to design bridge foundations to remain stable during or
following such events.
The selection of appropriate scour protection measures should be based on:

• an understanding of peak velocities (adjacent to both the bed and banks)
• maximum depth of bed mobilisation
• erodibility of bed and bank material
• likelihood of flow deflection occurring (i.e. as a consequence of river geometry)
• an estimation of whether piers are likely to cause deflection of flow (i.e. for a skewed bridge).
For the analysis and design of bridge scour, see AS 5100 Set-2007.

Figure 4.4: Scouring around bridge piers
Overtopping
The maximum flood design load on a bridge usually occurs when the flood carrying debris is at deck level
(not relevant for high level bridges). Hydraulic calculations are required for either a flood at deck level, or the
2000 year ARI flood level (whichever is the higher). Floods at or above superstructure level will also require
the consideration of buoyancy factors.
Access for inspection and maintenance
Under workplace health and safety legislation, the finished bridge becomes a workplace for inspection and
maintenance personnel. Therefore, provision should be made to facilitate safe work practices.
The design of road, railway, pedestrian and bicycle-path bridge structures must allow for safe access for all
inspection and maintenance activities. Anticipated maintenance activities must be listed at the time of design.
Maintenance activities are to be in accordance with the road agency inspection and maintenance manuals.
Drainage connections to bridges (including any pollutant control devices) may need to be designed for the
ultimate configuration (e.g. need to cope with additional surface run-off from a widened structure).
For further guidance, see the Guide to Bridge Technology Part 4: Design Procurement and Concept Design
(Austroads 2018) and Guide to Bridge Technology Part 7: Maintenance and Management of Existing Bridges
(Austroads 2018b).

5. Operations and Maintenance
Appropriate maintenance of drainage infrastructure plays a crucial part in its effective operation. This also
minimises environmental harm and provides a level of safety to users of the road corridor.
This section of the Guide is targeted primarily at managers of road maintenance operations and road
maintenance contractors. It outlines the maintenance process and uses examples of drainage failures to
illustrate the need for effective maintenance operations. It also provides steps for the remediation of
problems or deficiencies.
The process outlined in this section relies on the design process undertaken in previous sections and AGRD
Part 5A and AGRD Part 5B and reference to the design criteria, assumptions, calculations and assessments
within these Guides for the various drainage elements may be required.
Reference should also be made to road agency performance contract manuals and asset maintenance
guidelines. The philosophy of this section is to use the maintenance process for identifying failures in the
drainage system and to assist learning from these failures to prevent future failures.
Regular inspection and maintenance of road and drainage infrastructure is an essential part of the asset
management process aimed at maximising the life of the asset and maintaining the day-to-day operational
level of service, minimising environmental harm and ensuring a level of safety to road users. Drainage
infrastructure should be designed and constructed acknowledging that such periodic inspection and repair
will be required and provide for the safety of maintenance personnel as well as for road users.
An effective design must balance a number of factors against the construction cost of the level of protection
proposed including the implications for safe access by maintenance crews and road maintenance cost.
Designers should consult with the relevant agency regarding the provision and location of maintenance
access facilities and devices.
Safe access needs to be provided to all drainage infrastructure that requires either ongoing (i.e. mowing of
drains) or occasional (i.e. removal of debris) inspection and maintenance. This access is required for
vehicles and/or maintenance crews depending on the type of maintenance that will be undertaken.
5.1 Maintenance Access and Location
Designers should ensure, as far as it is physically and economically feasible, that safe and efficient
maintenance access is provided to all drainage facilities including open drains, inlet structures, pits,
channels, piped networks, culverts and outfalls. Drainage infrastructure should be designed to minimise
maintenance, provide for safe vehicle and personnel access and have adequate working space for
undertaking manual activities. Particular consideration should be given to:
• ensuring drainage infrastructure is located outside the trafficable area for all road users as much as much
as possible, including placing pits outside of shared paths
• providing protection for, or suitably delineating, infrastructure that may be susceptible to damage from
regular maintenance operations (i.e. the use of coloured guide posts at culvert locations to prevent
graders striking headwalls)
• access to pits conforming with workplace health and safety (WHS) requirements with respect to rungs,
ladders, landings and working in confined spaces
• outlet screens on pipe/box units up to 1800 mm in width being designed such that the full width of the
outfall pipe/box can be accessed for periodic maintenance, including the removal of debris

• culverts or drainage networks under very high fills where there is the possibility of piping and barrel
settlement, in which case a minimum 750 mm diameter pipe or 750 mm x 750 mm box allows access to
facilitate maintenance inspection
• suitable clearance width between fencing and the top of batter for drainage basins and open drains
• an overall easement/reserve width for open channels having an access/maintenance berm of minimum
width 4.5 m on at least one side of the main channel
• the location of maintenance berms within the channel (not desirable in natural channel design) if it is
necessary to provide access for mowing or debris removal, or if it is important to obtain maximum
hydraulic efficiency within a specified easement width. These berms may be benched into the channel
bank at an elevation above the one year ARI flow. In addition, a 1.5 metre wide safety/access strip should
be provided along at least one side of the channel above the design flood level in addition to the
access/maintenance berm
• maximum channel depth may be limited by maintenance requirements
• where a floodway (very wide berms) is incorporated into a channel, a minimum floodway cross slope of 1
in 80 should be adopted to prevent water logging problems and allow regular maintenance mowing
• vehicle access, including:
– width and type of construction vehicle for all-year access
– the use of cross-sections suitable for conventional equipment such as graders, back hoes, front-end
loaders, mowers and trucks (i.e. batter widths and flat bottom drains at least as wide as
mower/grader blades)
– clearly identified and delineated entry and exit access to alert maintenance personnel of their
location in addition to warning the general public that large, slow moving vehicles may be entering
or exiting the roadway
• the use of low maintenance treatments, such as concrete lined or stone pitched channels in locations
where it is difficult to provide access for conventional maintenance equipment.
5.2 Operation
The operation of the road and in turn the drainage system commences immediately after the road is opened
to traffic. This section deals with the period immediately after construction while Section 5.3 – Maintenance
discusses the ongoing maintenance considerations and activities which span the life of the road.
An important function or activity that should be conducted in the period after construction is the
inspection/check of the drainage system’s actual operation or performance against the design intent. This
can only happen after a reasonable rainfall/storm event and will either validate the design or identify
deficiencies. This performance check is particularly important for drainage devices protecting/maintaining
water quality. Depending on the deficiency, remedial works (see Section 5.5 – Remediation) may be covered
under the defects liability component of the construction project.
It is important to note that the inspection period for the site should be extended to check the performance of
any remedial work.
5.2.1 Period of Inspection
It is difficult to define an actual time period for inspection(s)/check(s) to be undertaken, as rainfall events are
unpredictable and therefore it is impractical to define a set time period. As stated in the Section 5.2 –
Operation, the purpose of the inspection is to check the operation or performance of the drainage system
and this requires at least one significant storm or rainfall event to test the system. It is recommended that
several rainfall events should be monitored/checked to ensure the on-going, successful operation of the road
drainage system.

It is also recommended that inspections should occur as soon as possible after a rainfall event has
commenced so that actual stormwater flows can be observed/tested.
5.2.2 Performance
Drainage infrastructure is constructed to primarily carry/transfer and possibly treat stormwater. These
devices are designed for a certain discharge and/or capability. With respect to drainage devices constructed
to protect and/or maintain water quality, they have been designed to meet specific water quality
requirements. It is important that the performance of these devices be checked to ensure that they are
achieving the design requirements. If it is found that the requirements are not being met, the site:
• must be fully investigated to determine the reasons why the device is not achieving required targets
• requires evaluation for the appropriate remedial action to be planned and designed to correct the
deficiency
• should be listed for remedial work to be undertaken.
This investigation and remedial work must be undertaken as soon as possible after the deficiency has been
identified as the risk of causing harm or damage will remain elevated until the work is completed.
5.3 Maintenance
5.3.1 Maintenance Process
Part of the management of a road is to maintain the road network to a standard which ensures the safety and
efficiency of the travelling public and protection of the environment.
The road drainage infrastructure (or system) is designed for a certain discharge and/or capability and needs
to be properly maintained to ensure continued performance. Poor maintenance reduces the performance
(capacity) of the drainage device or system and this in turn can increase the risk of:
• upstream flooding
• failure of the device/system and potentially the road
• accelerated deterioration of the road asset
• accidents (such as unexpected water on the road surface)
• damage to the environment.
Maintenance works on the state controlled road networks should be undertaken in accordance with
agencies’ maintenance contract requirements.
5.3.2 Types of Maintenance
Routine maintenance is the most common type of work undertaken on drainage infrastructure.
Emergency maintenance work relates primarily to work performed immediately following an emergency (e.g.
vehicle accident, natural event) to ensure the safety of motorists and/or pedestrians using the corridor. Other
routine maintenance work may be necessary after making the situation safe. Drainage structures should be
designed and constructed acknowledging that periodic inspection and repair will be required and provide for
the safety of maintenance personnel as well as for road users.

5.4 Drainage Failures
A failure in road drainage may be caused by any number of problems or combination of problems and can
occur during the construction or operation of the road. Erosion at culvert outlets, undermining of pavement
and drainage structures, soil loss on steep batters and sedimentation of drains are all common failures.
Figure 5.1 illustrates a drainage failure that has occurred during construction.
While flooding of the road corridor is the most common problem resulting from insufficient drainage capacity
or a blockage of cross drainage, there are other issues that can occur as a result of failure (reduced
performance/capability).
Figure 5.1: Drainage failure

5.4.1 Causes of Failure
Failures in the drainage system or device/component may result from a number of situations. Some of the
more prominent causes of failure are:
• inadequate/inappropriate design
• poor construction practice/post-construction inspection
• changes to the site’s physical conditions (e.g. alteration to landform, vegetation, and surrounding land
use)
• poor maintenance inspection/practice
• an extreme rainfall event which delivers a storm much greater than the design storm the drainage
infrastructure was designed to handle
• out-of-specification materials.

Failure may also be caused by site maintenance operations. For example, the re-grading or re-cutting of
table drains (to clean out silt and so on) may accidentally knock out table drain blocks. These devices are
typically used on downgrades to ‘dam’ stormwater flow and direct it into culverts to carry the stormwater
across the road. If these blocks are removed, the stormwater will bypass the culvert and continue downgrade
until it reaches the last or lowest point culvert. This culvert will now be expected to carry much more
stormwater than it was designed for which could result in higher outlet velocities or even water overtopping
the road. Where water overtops the road, the risk of an accident occurring is greatly increased.
Another example could be where a slasher, mowing a narrow grassed verge at the toe of a steep batter,
damages the batter toe. During a storm event, run-off over the exposed batter face could lead to erosion and
undermining of the batter toe which could lead to slippage of the batter slope.
An actual or potential failure in the road drainage infrastructure is often not evident until it has been subject
to storm events or similar conditions. For example, the scouring of a creek bed downstream of a culvert
outlet may not occur or be evident until the first storm event.
It is recognised that maintenance of the drainage infrastructure plays a crucial part in its effective operation.
5.4.2 Types of Failure
A number of types of failures are evident in the road drainage system. The more common failures include:
• surface/slope/bank erosion
• undermining or piping
• sedimentation
• debris accumulation (e.g. litter and vegetation)
• structural failure of the drainage device/component.
These are discussed below.
Erosion
Erosion is the most common failure. Roads tend to concentrate stormwater flows which in turn increases flow
velocities and energy. This combination increases the risk of erosion and scour. Figure 5.2 shows an
example of erosion on a fill embankment.

Figure 5.2: Erosion of a highly dispersive soil
Erosion can occur at or in:

• culverts (inlets and outlets)

• piped network (outlets)
• bridges
• floodways
• diversion channels
• catch banks and drains
• table drains
• unsealed shoulders, verges and batters.
Undermining or piping
Undermining refers to the loss of soil from underneath some part of the road infrastructure (e.g. pavement
surface, concrete-lined drain, culvert apron). This can result in direct damage to the road infrastructure such
as cracking or slumping. Figure 5.3 shows an example of undermining.
Piping is the term used to describe the mode of embankment failure that involves the washing out of the
smaller soil particles from a section of the road embankment by water leaking through a weak point in its
structure. The weak point can occur either from the side on the embankment, through the top surface of the
embankment via cracks in surfacing or unsealed shoulders or through gaps in disjointed culverts. The
progressive removal of fine soil particles will further increase the rate of flow of water and the rate of removal
of the soil particles. As the rate of leakage accelerates, larger soil particles can be transported. Eventually
localised collapse of the embankment will occur.

Figure 5.3: Undermining-dispersive soil
Sedimentation
Sedimentation is another common cause of failure and is the deposition of soil that has been transported by
flowing water. Soil particles settle once the flowing water has slowed or stopped. This often occurs in culvert
inlets and outlets as well as creeks and other watercourses. Figure 5.4 shows an example of sediment
deposition in a culvert. This failure is also termed blockage and reduces the capacity of the culvert, which in
turn can increase flooding (afflux) upstream.
Figure 5.4: Sedimentation

Debris accumulation
Debris accumulation includes the accumulation of vegetation, litter and other gross pollutants in the drainage
system. This may be caused by insufficient hydraulic capacity of the drainage structure, the size of debris
entering the drainage system or lack of maintenance. Figure 5.5 shows debris accumulation via the growth of
vegetation in the outlet of a culvert.
A detailed explanation for the procedure for calculating potential blockage is outlined in Section 3.7.
Figure 5.5: Blockage by vegetation

Structural
Structural failure is the failure of a drainage structure either by separation of units making up a single
structure (e.g. the disjointing of culvert pipes or box units or the headwall separating from the barrel) or the
actual structural failure of a unit (e.g. the collapse of a concrete pipe unit due to excessive loading or the
collapse of a steel culvert due to weakening by corrosion).
5.4.3 Environmental Impacts of Failures
Drainage failures have the potential to cause environmental harm. Some common impacts include:
• disruption to vegetation (direct terrestrial and aquatic habitat loss)
• soil erosion and sedimentation
• altered stream hydrology
• altered overland flow paths causing soil moisture changes
• weed invasion.
5.4.4 Identifying Failures
As discussed, routine maintenance of the road corridor is generally carried out by either the road agency
maintenance staff or maintenance contractor. Part of the maintainer’s role is to undertake regular surveys
and inspections of the corridor to identify and prioritise maintenance works.
Significant failures, such as that shown in Figure 5.6 need to be identified quickly so that appropriate
remedial works can be determined, approved and undertaken.

Figure 5.6: Culvert headwall scouring
The inspection and reporting process of failures should form part of the maintenance activities. Any failure
reports could also be submitted as part of a regular report on the operation of the drainage network, if required.
Reports should include/detail:

• the identified drainage failure(s)
• relevant field notes/photographs
• identification of potential remediation types.
This information can then be used to assist in the development of an appropriate remediation solution.
Following the completion of the report, the maintenance staff or contractor, in consultation with the
department, should prioritise remediation works and/or report maintenance requirements.
Descriptions of remediation options are provided in the following section. Table 5.1 summarises the key
drainage failures, causes and the potential resultant impacts that may be experienced with roads.
5.4.5 Reporting of Failures
It is important that failures of drainage devices or system be identified, investigated and reported. Reports
must identify the reason or cause for the failure.
While reports are processed and subsequent remedial works undertaken, it is advantageous that copies of
reports and determined remedial action are obtained to enable a review of drainage failure/deficiencies,
which may lead to changes in design/construction methodology, and/or documents and policy.
Table 5.1: Common drainage failures, causes and impacts
Failure type Failure Cause Examples of potential impact

Erosion Scouring at • Lack of downstream energy • Sedimentation of downstream
culvert outlet dissipation/scour protection. waterways.
• High velocity through culvert. • Decrease in water quality.
• Underestimation of catchment size.


Scour of • Obstruction to flow. • Damage to bridge.
bridge piers • Shape of piers (poor design). • Scour of stream.
• Poor construction method. • Compromise of public safety.
• Concentration of floodplain flow.
• Velocities exceed threshold values.
Slips on • Cutting too steep. • Blockage of road.
cuttings • Poor drainage. • Loss of soil.
Erosion of • Skewed culverts discharging high flows • Loss of riparian habitat for
creek banks into creek bank. semi-aquatic wildlife such as
• Bridge piers constructed on creek platypus, water rat.
banks.
Erosion of • Flood overtopping road and inadequate • Weed invasion.
road batter protection. • Undermining of road surface.
embankments/ • No catch drains provided.
batters • Blockage of table drains.
• Batters too steep for revegetation.
• Lack of permanent erosion protection.
• Pavement overlay often raised and
shoulders left at lower level causing
run-off to drop onto exposed
embankment.
• Excessive mowing/slashing of road

shoulders.
Scouring of • Concentration of run-off. • Sedimentation of downstream
sodic soils • Lack of controlled drainage. waterways.
• Lack of surface protection. • Decrease in water quality.
Scouring • Run-off drains behind headwalls and • Sedimentation of downstream

around culvert causes scour. waterways.
headwalls • Lack of vegetation cover owing to weed • Decrease in water quality.
spraying.
• Insufficient culvert lengths resulting in
steep embankments above headwall.
Scouring of • Inadequate scour protection. • Loss of vegetation and fauna
channels and • Maintenance activities stripping table habitat.
table drains drains of vegetation. • Loss of vegetation for water
• Channels and drains excavated to carry quality filtering purposes.
much larger capacities.
Scouring of • Blockage of bridge waterway. • Sedimentation of downstream
bridge • Design underestimates degree of waterways.
abutments construction disturbance around • Decrease in water quality.
abutment thus resulting in exposed
areas subject to erosion.
• Abutment surfaces difficult to
revegetate.
• Lack of controlled drainage.
Erosion at cut • Poor maintenance practices such as • Changes in table drain flow
batter toe over spraying for weeds and velocity.
undercutting by mowers and slashers. • Sedimentation of downstream
waterways.
Erosion at cut • Lack of sub surface drainage. • Sedimentation of downstream
and fill waterways.
transitions


Undermining Undermining • Highly dispersive soils with minimal • Loss of drainage structure.
of culvert protection. • Further scour likely to occur
aprons • Erosion at outlet. within waterway.
• Transport of sediment to
downstream locations.
Undermining • Design of rock gabion or mattress • Loss of drainage structure.
of rock structures on highly dispersive soils. • Further scour likely to occur
gabions or • Geofabric filter not placed under rock within waterway.
mattresses mattresses. • Transport of sediment to
downstream locations.
Undercutting • Maintenance practices such as • Changes in table drain flow
of batter slashing/mowing undercutting batter. velocity.
• Sedimentation of downstream
waterways.
Sedimentation Sediment • Insufficient gradient. • Changes in soil storage
deposition in • Ponded outlet. capacity.
table drains • Vegetation growth at culverts
and channels inlet/outlet.
and culverts
Debris Debris or litter • Lack of regular maintenance. • Flooding of upslope drain.

accumulation build-up at • Vegetation growth at culvert inlet. • Road blockage from flooding
culvert inlets and hazard to pedestrians and
• Culverts or bridge spans inadequate in
or bridge motorists.
size.
waterways
• Unacceptable afflux.
• Scouring at bridge abutments
and/or road approaches.

5.5 Remediation
5.5.1 Introduction
The purpose of remediation is to restore the drainage device or system to the level of performance/capability
it was designed for.
After inspection/checks have been carried out and deficiencies and/or failures have been identified and
investigated, appropriate remedial work options need to be developed and the best solution determined.
5.5.2 Remediation Options
The remediation option may include one or a number of the following:

• one-off repair work
• augmentation of existing works
• re-design (and re-construction)
• alteration to maintenance practices.
Field inspection to review site conditions, failures and remediation options, should be undertaken to confirm
the most appropriate option/solution.
Repair
A failure may be attributed to a one-off event such as a severe or extreme storm event, vehicle accident, or
vandalism. Such instances may require repair work. General ‘wear and tear’ on the drainage system will also
require repair.
Repair work should provide for the drainage system to operate to its intended design function and capacity.
Such repair work would require that the failure does not continue.
Changes to routine maintenance activities may be required following repair works. These changes in
maintenance activities would need to be specific to the repair works undertaken. The maintenance contractor’s
routine maintenance practices should be amended as necessary to accommodate these changes.
Augmentation
Augmentation or retrofitting of existing drainage works may be required to avoid the continuation of an
existing failure.
A review of the site conditions that influence the operation of the drainage structure is required. This may
include a review of:
• flow velocity
• soil type/erosion risk rating
• catchment area
• receiving environment.
The type of augmentation works required will depend on the failure identified.

Re-design
Where simple repair or augmentation works are not likely to or will not correct the problem, a full review of
the failure and original design intent followed by the re-design process will be required to develop a suitable
solution. It is important to review the original design to identify possible deficiencies in the design (which lead
to failure) and to ensure any re-design work is compatible with the rest of the drainage system.
The focus of re-design is to ensure that the new drainage structure avoids a recurrence of the drainage
failure caused by the same factors.
Maintenance practices
Where an existing maintenance practice or activity is causing a drainage failure, it should be reviewed and
modified. New practices may also need to be devised and implemented.
Some common failures of the drainage system resulting from maintenance activities include:
• over-clearing or mowing of grassed table drains (Figure 5.7), batter toes and other areas resulting in soil
exposure and subsequent erosion
• weed spraying resulting in vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion
• clearing of vegetation from headwalls and at culvert outlets resulting in soil exposure and subsequent erosion
• machinery hitting and damaging drainage infrastructure which is hidden from view by vegetation (such as
headwalls) and so on. Damage could be structural or involve exposure of backfill material supporting the
structure (which is then subject to erosion).
Figure 5.7: Grassed table drain damage
If a failure is attributed to maintenance activities, a review of existing practices and implementation of new
practices should be undertaken. Table 5.2 and road agency guidelines should be reviewed in relation to
appropriate maintenance practices.
5.5.3 Evaluation
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance practices, and reduce the potential for future drainage
failures, information recorded during the maintenance process should be reviewed. This information can then
be used for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of future drainage systems.

Those undertaking road maintenance works are typically required to measure and record all maintenance
work undertaken. This is undertaken to provide a basis for progress payments if appropriate. This
information provides an insight into the type and frequency of failures, the frequency of maintenance works
and types of remediation.
To supplement this information, the following would also assist in evaluating maintenance activities and
remediation techniques:
• observations and records of recurring problems and failures and any resultant environmental harm
• practicable and effective remediation options to suit site-specific failures.
Review of the above information should be undertaken by road drainage planners and designers to minimise
the potential for recurring failures of the drainage system in the future.
Table 5.2: Summary of maintenance practice
Drainage
Required maintenance Best practice guidelines
failure
Erosion • Backfilling • Determine cause of erosion (e.g. concentration of
• Mulching high velocity flow).
• Revegetation • Identify actual and potential sediment sources
• Reprofiling during routine maintenance.
• Plan to protect exposed areas and sediment
sources as soon as practicable.
• Minimise the amount of disturbance to vegetated

and other sensitive (e.g. waterway) areas.
• Minimise the amount of disturbance to unstable
areas (e.g. drains, banks, batters).
• Plant only indigenous species native to the area.
Undermining • Backfilling • Minimise the amount of disturbance to unstable
• Installation of protection measures areas (e.g. drains, banks, batters).
(e.g. rock, concrete) • Simulate natural conditions where practicable.
Sedimentation • Hand removal of sediment • Remove and dispose of sediment in an area where
• Mechanical removal of sediment it is unlikely to wash into a drainage line or
• Disposal of sediment waterway (i.e. flat area as far away as practicable
from the nearest drainage line).
• De-water sediment prior to disposal to reduce the
potential for sediment-laden run-off draining from
the disposal site.
• Identify any potential for sediment to be
contaminated from industrial or other sources.
Where sediment is likely to be contaminated,
contact should be made with the local authority to
determine the most suitable disposal location and
method of transport.
• Identify opportunities for re-use of uncontaminated
sediment (e.g. top dress landscaping, use in
backfilling).
• Clean drains in a manner that does not result in soil
disturbance or exposure to erosion.
• Hand removal of debris • Ensure that any potential changes or inadequacies
• Mechanical removal of debris in hydraulic capacity of the drain, culvert inlet or
• Disposal of debris material similar are identified and managed to minimise
Debris potential environmental harm.
accumulation • Ensure access is sufficient to allow the full removal
of all debris.
• Continual debris build-up may indicate culverts or
bridge spans are of insufficient size.

• Removal of vegetation • Ensure control agents are appropriate for the

• Herbicide application purpose and that only the necessary rates of
application are used.
Weed removal • Ensure that chemical spill containment and clean-
up equipment is available when chemicals are
being used and staff is trained in the use of such
equipment.
• Joint repair • Regular inspection of pipes.
• Pipe collapse • Identify causes of pipe joint failure or pipe collapse.
Structural • Review applicability of the type of pipe joints
suitable for the location.
• Identify changes in traffic loadings and consider
placing load limits.


6. Hydrology
6.1 Introduction
An important aspect of planning and designing road infrastructure is the calculation of design flood
discharges. The calculation of design flood discharges is known as hydrology. If the design flood estimate is
not reliable then the design may be at risk.
Drainage and waterway structures can represent a significant cost of a road, so it is important robust
methodologies be adopted for their design. Underestimation can lead to failure while overestimation can
sometimes add substantially to the cost.
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR 2019) (Ball et al, 2019) provides a guide to the estimation of design
flood discharges in Australia. This section of the Guide to Road Design (GRD) has been revised to
incorporate the most recent publication of ARR2019 as relevant to road design. A large component of the
content in this guide has been taken directly from ARR2019. In addition to the hydrology component, this
section also includes a number of topics not strictly related to hydrology that have been updated significantly
since the original publication of the GRD.
The design of road drainage is a critical part of road design given its potential risks to infrastructure in terms
of damage and risk to transport connectivity. Outside of the road corridor there is also the risk of impact to
neighbouring properties. It is therefore critical that the hydrology inputs be as reliable and accurate as
possible. The hydrology design must apply the most suitable methodology supported by available local flood
history to ensure that theoretical methods are applied appropriately.
Road drainage design requires a number of considerations:

• Is safe for all users
• The design must meet the drainage design criteria
• Be economical
• Protects investment in the road asset
• Protects the environment from harm.
The environmental and climatic conditions vary significantly across Australia. So too does the hydrological
methods and inputs. This guide therefore must provide advice that can be applied throughout the country,
recognizing that there are different levels of information available for different regions and therefore the
reliability will vary depending on local information. The advice contained in this guide is aimed to provide the
best quality design for all conditions and locations from major urban freeways to minor rural roads.
6.2 Terminology
This section of the GRD provides guidance on the terminology used for describing flood risk in road
drainage. The terminology referenced in this section follows that in ARR2019 and is used to express flood
risk and probability. It is a vital aspect for the analysis and understanding of flood risk and critical for design
flood assessment.
As outlined in ARR2019, the objective of the adopted terminology is to have a clear meaning, be technically
correct and be practical and acceptable to practitioners and the general community.

The following sections are extracted from ARR2019 with attribution. It is recommended that all
documentation used in flood assessments based on this guide should use the probability terminology
provided in the table below (Table 6.1).
Use of the terms including "recurrence interval" and "return period" has been criticised as leading to
confusion in the minds of some decision-makers and members of the public. Although the terms are simple
superficially, they are misinterpreted regularly as implying that the associated event magnitude is only
exceeded at regular intervals, and that they are referring to the expected elapsed time till the next
exceedance. This misinterpretation of the terms used for expressing probabilities of flood magnitudes can be
misleading and result in poor decisions. Additionally, "recurrence interval" and "return period" are misleading
as climate change will cause these events to occur at a higher frequency so they are better expressed as a
probability.
Flood events generally are random occurrences, and the period between exceedances of a given event
magnitude usually is a random variate, the properties of which are assumed to be constant in time for a
given location and climatic environment. The adopted terminology reflects this fundamental concept and is
intended to convey a clear and precise interpretation.
In view of the frequently incorrect manner in which probability terms are often used, it was considered that
flood design practice should adopt terminology that is technically correct, as far as this is possible and in
harmony with other objectives.
The two approaches used when describing probabilities of flood events in previous editions of ARR2019
were:
• Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) - the probability of an event being equalled or exceeded within a
year.
• Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) - the average time period between occurrences equalling or
exceeding a given value.
ARR2019, and this guide, therefore, believe that the terminology should be used which, while being
technically correct, is consistent with other uses. Furthermore, the terminology adopted should be easily
understood both by the profession and by other stakeholders within the community. Terminology that meets
this criterion will be accepted by the profession and by other stakeholders.
The interaction of the profession with the community and the increased public participation in decision
making means that terminology needs to be clear not only to the profession but also to the community and
other stakeholders, other professions involved in flood management, and to the managers of flood-prone
land. This need has resulted in terminology involving annual percentage probability which best conveys the
likelihood of flooding and is less open to misinterpretation by the public.
Incorporating these considerations, ARR2019 has developed a recommended table of probability terms to be
used for expressing flood probability and this is provided in the table below. The shaded cells show the
preferred terminology and the table also shows the conversion between annual exceedance probability and
average recurrence interval if required.

Table 6.1: Australian rainfall and runoff preferred event probability terminology
Source: Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation, © Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience
Australia), 2019.

In addition to the critical recommendation concerning the use of annual exceedance probability, there is also
an important change for small and relatively frequent floods. Events more frequent than 50% AEP should be
expressed as X Exceedances per Year (EY). For example, 2 EY is equivalent to a design event with a 6-
month recurrence interval when there is no seasonality in flood occurrence. This terminology has been
adopted because for events more frequent than 50% AEP, expressing frequency in terms of annual
exceedance probability is not meaningful and is misleading, as probability is constrained to a maximum value
of 1.0 or 100%. Furthermore, where strong seasonality is experienced, a recurrence interval approach would
also be misleading. An example of strong seasonality is where the rainfall occurs predominately during the
Summer or Winter period and as a consequence flood flows are more likely to occur during that period.
Accordingly, when strong seasonality exists, calculating a design flood flow with a 3-month recurrence
interval is of limited value as the expectation of the time period between occurrences will not be consistent
throughout the year. For example, a flow with the magnitude of a 3-month recurrence interval would be
expected to occur or be exceeded 4 times a year; however, in situations where there is strong seasonality in
the rainfall, all of the occurrences are likely to occur in the dominant season.
Application of appropriate terminology is important since flood designs need to be understood by many
different stakeholders as well as specialists. The terminology described in this section is designed to be
clear for different stakeholders and consistent use will help ensure that the designs and implications of these
designs are understood and interpreted correctly by all.
6.3 Catchment Hydrology

6.3.1 Introduction
This section outlines considerations for hydrologic analysis used for the calculation of design flood flows for
road drainage and waterway design.
This section provides a description of catchments, which are a primary input to any hydrologic calculation.
Application of catchment analysis as applied to road design is discussed in detail in subsequent sections of
this guide.
6.3.2 Catchment Properties
A catchment is any area of land where rainfall collects and drains to an outlet. Catchments are delineated by
topographic features such as ridgelines that form catchment divides. In the case of road drainage and
flooding, the outlet will be a road drainage structure such as a bridge or culvert, or a diversion channel that
diverts flow along or across the road. For pavement drainage, the catchment is the area that drains to a pit or
table drain. A catchment may be made up of smaller catchments known as sub-catchments.

Breakout 6: Catchment Delineation
An example of a delineated catchment is presented in Figure 6.1 based on topographic features such as ridgelines.
An example has also been given of the possible subcatchment breakup within this catchment.
Figure 6.1: Catchment delineation

Accurately determining the catchment boundary is a key first step in hydrologic analysis. Contour maps or
LiDAR are typically used to determine catchment area. Catchment boundaries are usually relatively easy to
identify from maps or digital topographic data however, delineation is complex in some situations, especially
in flat terrain. In very flat areas, catchment delineation may require careful interpretation of topographic data
as well as site inspections and/or detailed topographic survey. In some situations, the effective catchment
area changes with event size due to activation of diversions. In complex cases, human interpretation is often
more accurate than computer programs.
The elevation of outfalls and any receiving waters within the catchment need to be identified as well as
locating any water bodies such as ponding basins or wetlands that will affect run-off characteristics.
In some cases, especially in flat terrain, catchment boundaries may also be defined by infrastructure,
particularly roads. Natural catchment boundaries are often affected by road works, railway embankments or
other earthworks, building works, underground piped stormwater networks and property fences. Where
infrastructure such as a road is perched above the surrounding land, the road network effectively divides the
catchment into a series of sub catchments that are completely different from the natural conditions. In
complex situations, catchment boundaries should be verified by site inspection and survey.
Catchment boundaries identified from aerial photographs in heavily timbered or flat country can be
misinterpreted, therefore some form of site verification should be undertaken.
Contour maps are available for Australia and New Zealand, and for most urban areas these are quite
detailed. Many areas are also covered by digital maps or web-based satellite imagery. Whichever is used,
drainage designers should seek the most current and the most detailed information.

In addition to contour maps, catchment areas can be delineated from aerial laser scanning, or Lidar, which
allows detailed and accurate topographic data to be extracted. This data is subject to some limitations as
discussed in ARR2019.
In addition to the “traditional” sources of catchment topography, catchment areas can be prepared from one
of several on-line topographic data sources, which allow detailed and accurate catchment delineation. The
following paragraphs describe two of the available sources.
The National Digital Elevation Model provides national grids of terrain information from Geoscience Australia.
These data sets use information obtained from a variety of sources inclusive of satellites. As a result, these
data sets tend to be coarse with grid sizes varying from 1 second (1 seconds in longitude and latitude is
approximately 30 m) to 9 seconds (9 seconds in longitude and latitude is approximately 250 metres). This
data is referenced in ARR2019 and can be obtained from Geoscience Australia (Geoscience Australia 2022)
with documentation.
A data source specifically focused on topography for water resources and hydrology is the Bureau of
Meteorology Geofabric, also referenced in ARR2019. Geofabric is referenced and described in the Bureau of
Meteorology on-line documentation. Data can also be downloaded from this site (Bureau of Meteorology
2022).
Geofabric is available as a national dataset based on 1:250,000 scale mapped features and the 9 second
digital elevation model (DEM) and comprises the following 6 products:
1. Geofabric Surface Cartography
Cartographic representation of surface hydrological features.

2. Geofabric Surface Network
Network representation of hydrological features.
3. Geofabric Surface Catchments
Catchment boundaries derived from the 9 second Digital Elevation Model.
4. Geofabric Groundwater Cartography
Cartographic representation of groundwater hydrology features.
5. Geofabric Hydrology Reporting Catchments
Contracted nodes, contracted catchments and node-link network.
6. Geofabric Hydrology Reporting Regions
Reporting regions based on aggregations of contracted catchments.
Catchment response
Catchment runoff is presented as plots of flood flow or discharge against time. This is known as a flood
hydrograph and may be represented as actual flood events or as design floods. Catchment response is
discussed in ARR2019, as follows.
A design flood is a probabilistic or statistical estimate, being generally based on some form of probability
analysis of flood or rainfall data. An Annual Exceedance Probability is attributed to the estimate. This applies
not only to normal routine design, but also to probable maximum estimates, where no specific probability can
be assigned but the intention is to obtain a design value with an extremely low probability of exceedance. In
the flood estimation methods based on design rainfalls, the probability relationship between design rainfall
events and design flood events is not a direct one. Occurrence of a rainfall event when the catchment is wet
might result in a very large flood, while occurrence of the same rainfall event when the catchment is dry
might result in relatively little, or even no runoff. For the design situation, the combinations of different factors
combining to produce a flood event are not known and must be assumed, often implicitly in the design values
that are adopted.

Breakout 7: Discharge Hydrograph
A visual example of design flood estimation is presented in Figure 6.2. This shows the catchment and subcatchment
delineation as well as the rainfall that may be applied to the catchment (hyetograph) and its resultant discharge
hydrograph at the outlet based on a hydrologic model.
Figure 6.2: Design flood estimation

The approach to estimating an actual (or historic) flood from a particular rainfall event is quite different in
concept and is of a deterministic nature. All causes and effects are directly related to the specific event under
consideration. The actual antecedent conditions prevailing at the time of occurrence of the rain are directly
reflected in the resulting flood and must be allowed for in its estimation. No real information on flood
probability can be gained from consideration of a single actual flood event.
Actual flood events may be quite variable from one flood to another and have a complex flow distribution
depending on the rainfall distribution as well as individual conditions during the particular event (Figure 6.3).
Design events historically had much simpler hydrographs, however now are based on observed events with
varying temporal distributions as shown in Figure 6.4 for a 1% AEP event.

Figure 6.3: Typical historical record flood hydrograph

Figure 6.4: Typical design flood hydrographs

Hydrograph shape depends on a wide range of factors with the catchment response rate an important
parameter.
A catchment with a rapid response rate produces floods that are short duration with high peaks while those
with a low response have floods that rise and fall more slowly and also have a lower flood peak because of
flood storage in the catchment. The catchment response rate is important not only because of the influence
on the flood peak, but also because it affects the duration of flooding and the amount of warning time
available, both important in the planning, design and operation of road networks.
The following two figures illustrate the effects of different response rates. Figure 6.5 has the runoff
hydrograph for January 1998 for Babinda Creek at the Boulders and Figure 6.6 is a runoff hydrograph for the
Russell River at Bucklands. Babinda Creek is a tributary of the Russell River so catchment climatic
conditions are similar. Catchment storage, that is the amount of water stored on the floodplain during the
flood, can affect the rate of outflow from the floodplain and the attenuation of the hydrograph. Babinda Creek
is a much smaller catchment (39 km2) compared with the Russell River (315 km2) and is also steeper with
less floodplain storage. For these reasons the catchment response for Babinda Creek is much faster than for
the Russell River.
Figure 6.5: Runoff hydrograph for Babinda Creek at the Boulders – January 1998
Source: Queensland Government Water Monitoring Information Portal (2022).

Figure 6.6: Runoff hydrograph for Russell River at Bucklands – January 1998
Source: Queensland Government Water Monitoring Information Portal (2022).
Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 clearly show how the smaller faster responding catchment has shorter flood
hydrographs that rise and fall quickly as well as less baseflow. These factors are important in the design of
road drainage.
Catchment area and types relevant to road drainage and flooding
Design for road drainage requires a range of considerations for catchment areas and typically two types of
catchments need to be considered for roads. Runoff from the catchment may:
• cross the road alignment, called cross drainage, or
• flow along approximately parallel to the road alignment, called longitudinal drainage.
Cross drainage is typically the more substantial component for road drainage design, and represents rivers
and streams flowing towards the alignment. These catchments convey flow that must cross the road
alignment by way of bridges, culverts or floodways. In general, the road surface and road reserve provide
only a small proportion of the total catchment area. Longitudinal drainage involves catchments that flow into
kerb and channel, gully pits and underground pipes as well as table drains or similar diversion channels that
convey flow along the road alignment and is relevant for both rural and urban catchments. In general, these
catchments are smaller than those for cross drainage and may include a significant area of the road reserve
and road surface in their catchment area. Longitudinal drainage design is integral to the geometric design of
the road, hence is usually performed by the Road Designer. Major cross drainage however requires a higher
level of hydrologic/hydraulic skill, and will typically be performed by more specialist water engineers. In each
category though, there are complex and sensitive longitudinal drainage designs that need specialist skills
and there are routine cross drainage designs in simple straightforward cases. An assessment of the
complexity and risk is needed to understand the appropriate level of expertise required for different drainage
design tasks.

The catchment type can also vary with different conditions leading to distinct runoff characteristics. These
land use conditions affect the catchment runoff and, in particular, flood peaks.
Catchment and land use conditions that affect flood runoff include:
• Catchment slope. Steep slopes mean that water flows from the catchment more rapidly than it does in
flatter catchments, so these catchments produce higher flood peaks.
• Catchment shape. Shorter and wider catchments mean that water has a shorter distance to flow to the
catchment outlet, so this can produce larger flood peaks than longer, more narrow catchments.
• Land use. Different land use types produce different runoff rates and therefore different flood peaks.
• “Artificial” catchments. The most important catchments where the land use is distinctly different from a
natural catchment is for catchments where runoff occurs from the paved road surface and other
constructed land uses. These catchments are often paved and therefore impervious, so runoff could be
expected to be higher than for a natural catchment. This can be at least partly balanced by flatter grades
that reduce the rate of runoff.
• Soils and geology. The soil type and geology affect the rate of runoff.
There are important catchment differences between rural and urban catchments, and these conditions lead
to very different flood runoff. This difference is discussed in a later section.
6.4 Probability and Risk

6.4.1 Introduction
Floods occur randomly and road design must take account of this random pattern of events. Road design
therefore needs to account for the probabilistic nature of flooding and balance the associated risk with the
cost of building.
This section discusses the concepts related to flood risk for road design and provides advice on
recommended flood risk criteria. An important part of this is also concerned with the design life of road
infrastructure, which can influence design flood probabilities.
6.4.2 Probability and Risk Concepts for Road Design
Section 6.2 of this guide provides advice on the terminology to be used for expressing flood probability and
this terminology should be used in all cases.
To demonstrate the random nature of flood occurrence, Figure 6.7 shows a plot of flood peaks for the
Warrego River at Charleville from 1904 to 2018, extracted from the Bureau of Meteorology website.

Figure 6.7: Warrego River at Charleville Highest Annual Flood Peaks

Source: Bureau of Meteorology (2020).
Figure 6.7 shows that floods are not evenly distributed with the three largest floods in the record of almost
120 years all occurring since 1990. The floods are also clustered with decades of regular flooding and
decades with no flooding. Road design must allow for the fact that there may be long periods of time
between floods, that floods can occur at any time and recent experience might not give indication of the true
probability. The probability assessment accounts for these aspects.
The design needs to review the risk of occurrence of a flood event during the design life of the road and
drainage structures and of the consequences of events that exceed the design. As floods can occur
randomly, there is a possibility that events can be closely spaced or there can be long periods of time
between events. The probability of occurrence of one or more occurrences of a defined flood event during
the design life of a structure can be approximated from the formula:
P = 1 − (1 − 𝑌)𝐿 3
where
P = probability of one or more exceedances during the design life of the infrastructure
Y = design probability of the infrastructure
L = design life of the infrastructure

This indicates that there is a probability of about 39% of experiencing one or more floods with an AEP of 1%
or rarer during a 50-year design life. There is a reasonable chance of the design flood being exceeded
during the design life of the structure. Probability of experiencing a given-sized flood in a 50, 80 and 100-
year period are shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Probability of experiencing a given-sized flood
Probability of experiencing a given-sized flood

Approximate
Annual
Average in an 50-year period in an 80-year period in an 100-year period
exceedance
Recurrence
probability (%) At least At least At least At least At least At least
Interval (Years)
once (%) twice (%) once (%) twice (%) once (%) twice (%)
20 5 100.00 99.98 100.00 99.87 100.00 100.00
10 10 99.48 96.62 99.98 99.78 100.00 99.97
5 20 92.31 72.06 98.35 91.39 99.41 96.29
2 50 63.58 26.42 80.14 47.70 86.74 96.29
1 100 39.50 8.94 55.25 19.08 63.40 26.42
0.5 200 22.17 2.61 33.04 6.11 39.42 8.98
0.05 2000 2.47 0.03 3.92 0.08 4.88 0.12
Road design should consider flood risks for a range of conditions.
The primary flood assessment is concerned with flood immunity. This is the probability that the road will be
flooded. The definition of flooding is usually defined as water above the road shoulder. This definition is
generally used because driving in flood waters is one of the largest causes of flood related deaths in
Australia. Some multilane roads are designed to keep operating on reduced lanes during floods.
Road flooding where the road is overtopped results in closure of the road and disruption to transport and
also damage to the road infrastructure. Even when the road is not overtopped, flooding can also cause
damage to the road by excessive flow velocity.
ARR2019 discusses a number of methods for the incorporation of risk in flood design and management.
These aspects, as related to road design are discussed here.
Road design relies on design flood peak discharges of a defined probability and these are calculated by
various methods as described elsewhere in this guide. There are some points related to flood probability that
are important for road design.
Firstly, it is important to be aware that rainfall of a given probability does not necessarily produce a flood
peak of the same probability. This is an important point when considering observed flood events, where the
only available information may be rainfall data. The size of the flood peak produced depends on the rainfall
and catchment conditions. Rainfall duration affects the flood peak since short duration rainfall events may
produce significant flood peaks on small catchments, while longer durations produce floods on larger
catchments. Catchment conditions, particularly the moisture condition for the catchment at the time the
rainfall event occurs, also affect flood size. A large rainfall event on a dry catchment will produce a much
smaller flood than the same rainfall event would on a wet catchment.
The distinction between an observed event and a design event is also important. A design flood is a
statistical estimate based on a statistical analysis of rainfall or streamflow data. The approach for an
observed flood is different in that the estimate needs to include the actual catchment conditions at the time
the event occurred, this is particularly important for the catchment antecedent conditions when the flood
occurs. A single event may not provide much information on the flood probability.

6.4.3 Probability Versus Risk Based Design
Many engineering calculations use probability-based design as a surrogate for risk-based design that
accounts for the probability and consequences of overtopping and failure. For many simple designs using a
standards-based probability design where culverts are designed for a certain probability and road
overtopping is designed for a certain probability is a simple and effective way to ensure roads meet
community expectations.
For large projects and where there is significant existing flood risk or a significant change in flood risk simple
probability-based design is not suitable. Given all bridges, culverts and pavements are designed to be
overtopped in events larger than the design standard it is important to assess the consequences when this
occurs. In most cases they are minor and similar to existing circumstances. In some cases the road can
significantly change the consequences. This can occur from extensive backwater, changing or concentrating
where overflow occurs, or flood water rising more rapidly than it did historically.
Probability based design can be used for most designs, but it is important to assess if there is a significant
change in consequences. Where there is only a minor change in flood behaviour this is usually self-evident.
Where flood behaviour does change a simple cursory check should be undertaken to determine if the
consequences change significantly.
Where there is a significant change in consequences a risk-based approach is typically warranted. Risk-
based design for road drainage needs to consider more than the technical material related to rainfall,
catchments and flood producing mechanisms, it must also include an understanding of the multi-disciplinary
aspects of the road and the neighbouring community, to ensure that the design accounts for risk
appropriately and the design flood probability is the most suitable value.
6.4.4 Flood Immunity for Roads
A critical part of road design is to set the flood immunity of the road, which is the risk of road closure from
flooding. The calculation of flood immunity needs to take account of the hydrologic and hydraulic features of
the catchment flowing to the road as well as the statistical analysis of the flood impact on the road.
The flood immunity of a road is generally defined as the probability of the flood event that just reaches any
portion of the trafficable lanes of the road. When the road is kerbed, the flood immunity is set at the level
where flooding reaches the top of inlet pits. This means that the road surface remains dry or is immune to a
flood corresponding to the selected probability. In some cases, an additional freeboard, described in Section
4.6, is included to provide a slightly higher road level. Freeboard is generally provided to allow for uncertainty
in the flood estimation methods or to allow for blockage of culverts or similar effects that may increase flood
levels. Freeboard can be specified for a specific project dependant on local conditions.
The design flood immunity needs to be set for each particular project by either standard guidelines defined
for each road classification, or by a project specific risk assessment.
A guide to typical standards that may be applied to preliminary design for various drainage applications for
structures and other public spaces is provided in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Suggested minimum flood immunity standards for adjacent land use
Priority Situation AEP

A Floor levels of hospitals and civil defence 0.2%
headquarters.
Floor levels of police, ambulance, fire 0.5%
stations, water and waste centres, electric
and gas supply stations, convalescent
homes and buildings designated as
emergency housing used during extreme
flooding events.
B Floor levels of residences, essential food, 1%
pharmaceutical, retail stores, department
stores, centres employing a large labour
force, community administration and
education centre, centres of rare artefacts,
venues for entertainment, dining, popular
indoor sport.
Floor levels of factories and outlets 2%
supplying non-essential items, premises of
businesses and institutions employing a
small labour force, premises of sport or
community activities infrequently used.
Town centres and intense industrial areas
including central business district.

C(1) Grounds of all units belonging to priority A, 20–10%
outdoor areas where rare artefacts are
displayed or stored.
Grounds of all units belonging to priority B. 50%–20%
Other open space areas including general 1EY–50%
parks and outdoor sport and recreation
areas (2).
1 A 10% AEP may be applicable for flat or low lying areas.
2 It should be noted that some open space areas may be designed as part of a stormwater management system to
attenuate peak discharges and as such may be inundated, or partly inundated on a more frequent basis.
Provision of flood immunity is accomplished by ensuring that drainage systems are designed to maintain
flood levels below predetermined levels for facilities in these adjacent areas (note that drainage systems may
include adjacent infrastructure that is utilised to convey run-off surcharge such as the road carriageway). The
appropriate flood levels vary depending upon the facility in question and the general terrain. Most road
designs incorporate risk through the use of design “standards”. These standards have been developed and
adopted by road authorities based on an assessment of the risk and consequences of the occurrence of
floods of various probabilities. For routine designs, the design standards should be the most appropriate
values to be used for design of new roads.
The recommended design standards are listed in

Table 6.4, reproduced from Section 4 of the GRD.


Table 6.4: Guide to selection of road flood immunity
Element Austroads road classification AEP

Cross drainage (culverts & Controlled Access Highways 1%
bridges) Includes: Motorways & Freeways
(National/State/Territory)
Arterial Roads Classes 1 & 2 2 – 1%
Includes: National/State/Territory Highways,
Urban Arterial Roads
Arterial Road Class 3 2%
Includes: State/Territory main roads
Local Roads Classes 4 & 5 10 – 5%
Urban Collector/Distributor Roads 10 – 2%
Urban Local Roads 10%
Diversion channels All roads Adopt the AEP for cross
drainage
Cross drainage (floodways) Arterial Road Class 3 5%
Local Roads Classes 4 & 5 20 – 10%
Urban Local Roads 20 - 10%
Road surface (network drainage All roads other than Local Roads 10% (4)
including kerb and channel with
Local Roads 20% (3)
inlet pit & pipe systems, bridge
decks)
Trapped flows (roads where there All roads 2%
is no escape path for water
including at a sag in cut)
Longitudinal open drainage (table All roads 10%, unless cross drainage
drains, diversion drains, catch immunity is less, then adopt
drains and banks etc.) the lesser value
1 For description of road classes, refer Guide to Road Design Part 1: Design Considerations (AGRD Part 1) Austroads
(2021).
2 Road and/or drainage authorities can change suggested AEPs based on link requirements, road importance and
inundation risk, for example:
a. For a local road connecting communities where no alternate route is readily available, an increase in cross
drainage probability from 5% to 2% AEP could be specified.
b. For an important motorway where operation during flood events is a key requirement, road surface drainage could
be specified as 5% AEP with clear traffic lanes and/or 2% AEP with no more than 1 m encroachment into outside
traffic lanes.
c. For a floodway on a local road where alternate routes are readily available, the AEP specified could be reduced to
50% AEP.
3 See the requirements of the relevant Municipality for roads under their control.
4 In South Australia urban areas, 20% AEP is used.
Source: Adapted from VicRoads (2003).
However, these values must be regarded as a guide, rather than a strict “standard”. It must be noted that
drainage works on the existing network will have a wide range of flood immunity standards that have been
adopted over many years and in many cases, these recommended standards will not be met. In particular
situations where a road upgrade is being considered, the flood immunity values can be adjusted to suit
specific circumstances. In many cases, the flood immunity of existing structures that are not part of the
current project may guide decision making in the adoption of the standard for the new works. In each case
though the alternative flood immunity level must be assessed and the decision documented to justify the
variation. These specific circumstances can be analysed as a formal risk assessment for the particular
situation.

An issue to be considered here is the level of service standards, which are generally aimed at maintaining
the serviceability during an event of a particular magnitude. For general conditions for example, the road
should be trafficable in a design flood event of a certain AEP or the waterway structure under the road
should pass the peak of a design flood event at the point where the road is no longer trafficable. Considered
in isolation, this approach assumes that the:
• Road will not impact upon flood behaviour and have adverse impact on the community.
• Impacts of flooding on the road are acceptable or can be managed by other means. For example, the
road is expected to overtop and the design allows for damage minimisation or replacement in such
events.
• Level of service provided is acceptable. For example, loss of access along the road is expected during a
flood event and this is considered in emergency management planning.
• Residual risk remaining to the community is acceptable.
However, where these conditions do not apply, the design flood immunity may be reconsidered.
Similarly, to design flood standards, the assumptions of this approach can limit its effectiveness, particularly
where it is used in isolation.
Specific circumstances where the guide may be reconsidered include:

• The flood immunity may be reduced for a road with only a small traffic count where a high flood
immunity may be difficult or expensive to meet. In this case the cost of providing the high flood immunity
should be balanced against the cost of traffic disruption caused by a lower level that may be adopted.
• The flood immunity may be reduced where there is a readily available and convenient higher level
alternative route.
• The flood immunity may need to be increased where the road is a strategic link without an easily
available alternative route.
• The flood immunity may need to be increased where critical transport link needs to be maintained, for
example access to a hospital or emergency services.
• The flood immunity may need to be increased where the road is a critical emergency evacuation route
from flood prone properties.
• The flood immunity may need to be reduced if the road cannot be constructed to a feasible cost while
considering the potential flood impact on neighbouring properties.
In each case, the cost may be an important factor, where the cost of providing a higher level of flood
immunity may be significantly greater than the cost of the disruption or damage for a lower level.
A formal approach to undertaking a risk assessment is discussed in ARR2019 Book 1 Section 5.3, though
this level of detail may not be necessary for most road projects, where the issues can be more defined.
An aspect of flood immunity that is discussed less frequently is the probability of closure, or the flood
immunity of a road link (refer to detail in Section 6.12). Where there is more than one crossing on a road
linking two or more locations, the road link is closed if any one of the crossings is closed, indicating that the
flood immunity of the link will be less than the flood immunity of each individual crossing.

6.4.5 Flood Immunity for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Shared Paths
Pedestrian, bicycle and shared paths are often the responsibility of the road authorities. Where these are
integrated into the road cross section, they will typically be similar to the road, but where they are a separate
path, there should be a recommended minimum acceptable immunity. The recommended flood immunity for
these components of the transport network are as follows. Jurisdictions may adopt a lesser immunity using
their engineering judgement where it is deemed impractical to achieve the recommended immunity and this
can be justified.
• Cycleways/shared paths – immunity to 10% AEP flood event and the time of inundation must not exceed
two hours for the 1% AEP event (including any underpass).
• Pedestrian paths - immunity 50% AEP flood event and the time of inundation must not exceed two hours
for the 10% AEP event (including any underpass).
In either case, where the local authority’s network has a higher level of flood immunity than the above
standards, then that standard should apply to all paths.
6.4.6 Example Application of Flood Immunity Considerations
It should be noted that in particular circumstances the AEP of a specific project or structure needs to be
considered in the context of flood immunity for a specific route. For example, RTA NSW (1999) notes that a
‘route approach’ should be taken in relation to flood immunity rather than specific elements of the route or of
individual structures being considered in isolation:

One factor that should be taken into account in determining the appropriate design level
for individual drainage structures is the required level of serviceability for the entire route
that the structure is situated on.
For example, the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane passes through some
15 separate major drainage catchments. Each of these basins can flood more or less
independently of the others. Statistics show that, if the floods were fully independent
and every structure on the highway was designed for the 1% AEP event, the route
would be closed, on average, once every seven years. Looking at it the other way, if it
were determined that the route should be closed only once every 100 years on average,
then each structure should be designed to take a 1 in 1500 AEP flood.
This example is simplistic as it does not take into account that small streams will be
flooded by a different storm mechanism (thunderstorms) than large rivers (prolonged
storm depressions). The issue of duration of closure is also not considered.
Nevertheless, the example demonstrates that route serviceability is not the same as the
design level of individual structures and therefore special consideration is required.
In the past most agencies or authorities have determined design capacities for the size of drainage systems
by choosing, say, 1% AEP for bridges, 5 to 2% AEP for culverts and 10% AEP for pavement run-off.
Consequently, the route would be affected more frequently by surface ponding or flooding of the smaller
crossings than by the larger streams. In some situations this may be acceptable since the smaller events
would typically close the route for a shorter duration.
Route serviceability targets should be considered for use in determining design flood standards for the
smaller structures.

6.5 Data for Drainage Design
6.5.1 Introduction
Drainage and flood design for road projects are generally carried out using design procedures as discussed
elsewhere in this guide, which can be applied as regional methods without local data or with at site data
methods. Local data can assist in ensuring that the design is as close as possible to the “real world”.
Chapter 4 of Book 1 of ARR2019 contains guidance for the application of data for hydrology designs which
outlines some important issues for a wide range of project types. Road drainage often requires a routine
analysis for minor projects where data may be very limited so the definition of data required for these
projects often needs to consider more informal data sources.
This guide has incorporated material from ARR2019 and this source is acknowledged, though the material in
this section focusses on issues related to road design.
This section of the GRD provides an outline of the types of data that can assist in road drainage and flood
studies and how they can be applied.
6.5.2 Categories of Data
The data that can assist in road drainage and flood design can be categorised in several ways.
The first subdivision is based on the source of data collection:

• Formal data collection, which is data officially collected by government agencies such as the Bureau of
Meteorology or state water agencies.
• Informal, descriptive or anecdotal data, collected by organisations or individuals, not as part of a formal
process.
The data collected by official agencies is generally of good or reasonable quality, though it does need review
and checking for consistency and reliability. However, data collected by other organisations and individuals
does require careful checking and a good understanding of the processes and means of collection. Even
though careful checking may be necessary and some data may need to be disregarded, this informal and
anecdotal data is often of great value and sometimes may be the only available data.
The next division is into the type of data, described as:

• Data collected as a general process for the design.
• Specific observations collected during site visits, consultations and inspections as part of the design
process.
The type of data can also be categorised as:

• Significant events. When a major flood occurs, data on the flood such as observed maximum flood
levels and photographs should be collected. This type of data is often collected even without any
specific project in mind, but information from major events will be of value at some future date.
• Historical events. Documentation on major historical event should be sought where available. This
information may be available in old historical records or newspapers for example and can give details for
very large events that may be outside the period of record for standard records.
• Routine events. Residents and other stakeholders can assist in descriptions of recent or other less
extreme events.

Discussion of each of these categories and how the data can be used to assist in road drainage as well as
flood planning and design is detailed in the following sections.
6.5.3 Data Management
A key part of the application of data to flood studies is the importance of making the data available for flood
studies both for the road agency as well as for other organisations such as government agencies, private
organisations, consultants or individuals who may use the data to assist in a wide range of flood
investigations.
The components of managing hydrologic data are critical and the following processes are required:
• Collection: In this component the data is sourced from the official government agencies discussed in this
section, other public or private agencies or individuals.
• Editing: An important aspect of data is knowledge of its accuracy (sometimes referred to as its
uncertainty) and original source as well as a determination of the consistency of the various data
sources. Prior to insertion into a database, it is necessary to define these parameters. Meta-data and
other descriptive information are needed as well as descriptions of the data collection processes and
estimated uncertainty.
• Storage: The storage of the data is critical. The data must be stored in an appropriate secure location
and in a format where it can be retrieved and applied when required. This storage is likely to be
computer based but this is not essential as records need to be available in the long term.
• Analysis: It is possible that some analysis of data may be required. This analysis could include statistical
analysis or reviews of rating curves for streamflow data for example, though this analysis should be
distinct from the analysis required for the flood study itself. The principal objective of this analysis is to
ensure consistency between records and with other data sources.
• Presentation and distribution: The final conceptual component is the presentation or distribution
component, where the data is made available to the practitioner who will apply the data to a specific
application.
No matter how comprehensive the data collection process may be, the data has limited value unless it can
be made available to and used by practitioners who are carrying out flood related projects. Where road
authorities collect flood data for in-house purposes, the records must be available for application to other
projects within the authority, and preferably for other agencies who may find the data useful for their own
purposes.
6.5.4 Rainfall Data
General description
Rainfall data is essential for practically all road drainage and flood design projects. The statistical design
rainfall data required for routine flood design applications is described in ARR2019 Book 2 Chapter 3, but
other rainfall data is often important for projects. This section describes rainfall data in general as well as the
types of rainfall data used in specific designs.
As discussed in ARR2019, the major government agency in Australia responsible for collection of rainfall
data is the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), but there are many other agencies which have significant records
of rainfall data. The other agencies include local authorities and water agencies, but some organisations
have particular local data programmes that may be useful in specific projects. As well rainfall data can be
collected from various sources for major historical floods. In addition to the official records, it is often valuable
to also look for unofficial rainfall gauges where data has been collected by members of the public. In rural
areas, most property owners have rainfall gauges and they are also not unusual in towns and cities.

Data endorsed by the BoM can generally be regarded as accurate, but some checks for consistency and the
reasonableness of the data should be considered. In particular, tests for missing (accumulated) data need to
be considered but it is also possible that gauge overflows mean that the larger events are not well measured.
Data from other agencies may be also of a high standard, but these agencies sometimes have poorer quality
data. More careful checks are needed on this data. Data collected at unofficial rainfall gauges operated by
members of the public may be sometimes of very poor quality, with poor exposure for example, and records
from these sources must be checked very carefully. However, the value of this data means that it is often
worth further analysis to ensure that useful data is not discarded. Data from unofficial gauges is especially
important for major events where it can be used to supplement information from official gauges. Unofficial
rainfall data often confirms if localised rainfall was higher or lower than official gauges that are further away.
Most publicly available rainfall data should be available through the Bureau of Meteorology’s AWRIS
database.
The types of available rainfall data are:

• Daily rainfall records, where the rainfall gauge is measured manually each day.
• Pluviometer records, which provide a continuous record of rainfall intensity.
In addition to the “traditional” methods of recording rainfall, the Bureau of Meteorology maintains a network of
radar stations that monitor rainfall throughout Australia. These records are available from the Bureau and
can provide valuable information on the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall for road design projects,
particularly for regions with highly variable rainfall, but they need careful assessment in application.
While rainfall data is frequently regarded as reliable and accurate, there are some issues with the accuracy
and consistency of rainfall data and these need to be considered while applying data to practical
applications. Issues often encountered are described in ARR.
Application of rainfall data to road projects
The most typical application of rainfall data to road projects is the use of the design rainfall, but specific local
rainfall data can also be used to help with particular aspects of the design. These include:
• Providing the rainfall inputs for calibration floods while developing flood models, particularly for planning
and design but also for assessing specific historical floods.
• Providing specific examples to explain flood results to stakeholders, particularly to explain performance
of projects for observed flood events.
• Understanding the performance of an established road during a major flood event.
• Providing an input to an assessment of the probability of a historical flood event, while recognising that
actual observed events are quite distinct from probabilistic design events.
6.5.5 Water Levels
Overview
Water level data is a critically important type of data required for flood estimation and is used for calibration
of hydraulic models as well as to calculate streamflow data. In the case of road drainage and flooding, these
records are also important for assessing the flood immunity and times of closure.
Formal stream gauging stations (discussed further below) record water level data, which are then used to
calculate stream discharge by the application of a rating curve, which is a stage-discharge relationship.

While many stream gauging stations convert water levels into discharges, there are some stations where the
discharge is not calculated, especially where determination of a rating curve is difficult.
Water level data may be in the form of continuous records monitored by an automatic recorder or as
manually read records. Because of the rapid response of many streams, the manually read records may not
provide the peak levels and may even totally miss short duration flood events, unless the gauge readings are
focussed only on recording the peak flood level.
Manually read records are usually a better representation of flow for large slowly responding streams and
this data can be used with confidence, but smaller catchments may be significantly in error. Manually read
records frequently show smaller flood peaks and lower discharges than automatic recorders. Data from
manually read stations may be the only available record and must be used, but careful consideration is
needed to make sure the records are interpreted correctly.
In addition to the formal water level records, informal records can also be obtained usually following a major
flood event. These records can be obtained from one of several possible stakeholders who survey flood
marks to indicate the maximum water levels reached. This data provides an indication of the variation of
water levels across the floodplain and an indication of the flow patterns. The quality of this data may
sometimes be questionable, and the records need to be carefully checked. These checks can include
checking for consistency and reasonableness as well as a review of the reliability of the agency or person
who has collected the data. When this type of data is collected, it is important that the records include careful
descriptions of the circumstances of the collection and an indication of the expected accuracy.
A common concern with this data is the level of observed debris marks, whether the water levels have been
collected at the peak level of the flood and the source of the water level, either local drainage or backwater
for example. Therefore, while very useful data can be obtained, it must be carefully reviewed otherwise the
data may lead to incorrect conclusions in the resulting analysis.
However, water levels are often only used as the source of streamflow or discharge data, as discussed
below, and while water levels are useful in many applications, streamflow data is usually of far greater value
for many water resources studies.
Continuous water level records
Continuous water level recorders measure water levels at nominated intervals and, where a rating curve
(stage-discharge relationship) exists, these can be converted to discharge. Flow is derived from stage using
a stage-discharge relationship and it is critical that the maximum gauged flow is known so that the extent of
extrapolation underlying the ‘recorded’ flow is clear. These records are very important as they will show the
complete hydrograph (i.e. the rise, peak and fall of the flood). It is important to confirm the datum for these
records, especially for old records. In the case of large events, these recorders can fail and the data needs to
be inspected for 'flat' areas, which may indicate failure of the gauge or they may rise steeply in case of
occurrence of a landslip. Typically, each stage record has an accuracy code assigned and these should be
noted before use.
Maximum height gauges
Maximum height gauges simply record the peak flood level reached during a particular event. Failure of
these gauges is difficult to detect as they are simply recording the peak level, and if the gauge fails before
the peak of an event, it may still provide a 'peak level' value, which will refer to the flood level reached prior to
the peak at the time of gauge failure. Recorders for peak levels however are generally simple mechanical
devices that are expected to be reliable.

Peak level records
If the flood event has been of a significant nature, it is likely that stakeholders or residents have been able to
collect some actual flood levels at a variety of locations. Residents often also record peak flood levels,
particularly if the flood has inundated any buildings on their property. Post event flood levels can be collected
from residents by a questionnaire and survey of reliable marks. An assessment as to the reliability of these
levels can be made after viewing the marks themselves and noting the care with which the recording has
been made and comparing the consistency of the recording with other nearby measurements.
Some points to be considered are as follows:

• Have different event dates been recorded by the resident or is the resident relying on memory to
determine one event from another?
• In areas with complex flow patterns, it is important to identify the exact flow path where the maximum
water level has been recorded. For example, levels could be recorded on tributaries on the edge of a
floodplain where levels may be inconsistent between the floodplain and the tributary.
• Has the location of the marks changed in any way since the record was made? For example, if the
marks are made near the front door, has the house been raised at any time since?
• Detailed discussions with the resident can often unearth important details otherwise unknown.
Debris marks
Debris marks are a typical means of measuring the maximum flood level and are best observed and
measured as soon as possible after the event, when the debris or scum line is still fresh. This ensures that
the mark is attributable to the event of interest and has not been subsequently degraded.
Debris marks can be inaccurate for a number of reasons. They can be influenced by dynamic hydraulic
effects such as waves, eddies, pressure surges, bores or transient effects, which may not be accounted for
in a hydraulic model. For example, if the debris mark is located within a region of fast flowing floodwater it is
possible that the floodwater has pushed the debris up against an obstacle, lodging it at a higher level than
the surrounding flood level. More common though is the fact that debris often lodges at a level lower than the
peak flood level. The reason for this is that for debris to be deposited it needs to have somewhere to lodge
and this elevation is not always at the peak flood level and may be deposited as the water level falls.
Anecdotal information
Anecdotal information is usually qualitative in nature but can be very valuable in determining flow behaviour
and subsequently verifying that the flood analysis represents these observations in the hydraulic modelling
undertaken.
Photograph and video evidence can also be beneficial in this regard and can often assist long-term residents
in recalling details of historical floods long past. The flood modeller will need to be mindful of the fact that
memories can sometimes fade or be skewed by other events that have occurred particularly when several
floods occur close together and where floods have occurred more recently. In addition, information providers
may not be able to give unbiased information due to a vested interest (e.g. pride or financial gain for
example) in the level to which an historic event reached. Again, detailed discussions with residents and
stakeholders can provide the modeller with a general feel for the reliability of all anecdotal evidence.
Inconsistent facts must be identified and discarded and discrepancies have to be studied and explained.
Application of water level data in road drainage analysis
The principal application of observed water level data in flood projects is in the calibration of hydraulic
models and to ensure that the models represent reality. In additional observed flood levels are important for
assessing flood immunity and times of closure.

A particularly valuable part of water level data used for road design is concerned with any information on
inundation of roads or bridges, including both the depth of inundation and the duration. Even incomplete data
on road inundation can be valuable in ensuring that designs are at least reasonably consistent with local
experience for example when a road first closed.
6.5.6 Streamflow Data
Overview
Streamflow data is one of the most important data requirements for individual projects and for development
of regional procedures. As noted above, streamflow data is calculated from records of water levels, usually
collected by major water authorities. The water levels are used to calculate streamflow data by the
application of a stage-discharge relationship (rating curve) developed for the station. Continuous records of
streamflow can be calculated from continuous records of water levels. The stage-discharge relationship is
often uncertain and application is one of the major sources of uncertainly in the data.
Streamflow data can be obtained on request from state water authorities and the Bureau of Meteorology and
downloaded from their websites.
Data from the Bureau of Meteorology is available on the Water Data Online website (Bureau of Meteorology
2022).
In addition to the Bureau data, streamflow data is available on-line from state water agencies. For example,
the Queensland data is available on the Water Monitoring Information Portal (Queensland Government
2022) with similar data sites for other states.
The accuracy and reliability of streamflow data must be checked as part of the application of the data to flood
investigations. There are many checks needed when analysing streamflow data. The principal check is on
the accuracy and completeness of the stage-discharge relationship. This can be checked by assessment of
the number of discharge measurements that have been taken and the maximum gauged discharge (as
compared to the maximum recorded water level). As well the variability in the stage-discharge curve
indicates that the relationship has changed over time and therefore may be less reliable for particular events.
The stage-discharge relationship may be poor for the lower flows because of regular changes in low flow
controls. As well it may also be poor at higher flows because of the lack of discharge measurements at
higher flows. At all flow levels, varying backwater conditions can affect the reliability of the discharge rates.
There are difficulties in extrapolation of the relationships, where there is a change in conditions, for example
where the river overtops the banks.
Different gauges in the same catchment can be compared to test for consistency by analysing the water
balance between gauges. As well there is a range of other checks that can be carried out, such as reviewing
the rating curve by using a hydraulic model. Having more than one gauge in a catchment though is not
particularly common.
Poor quality streamflow data may mean poor quality model calibration and also poor quality design flows
which are important for assessing flow through road drainage structures, so a high standard for checks of
data is important. However, it is noted that in many situations it is very difficult to check the accuracy of the
discharge records for a station, and poor-quality data may be accepted.

Data collected at a gauging station
There are many different approaches to collection of data at a stream gauging station and flood
investigations are not necessarily the principal objective of any particular gauging station, which may be used
for water resources assessment or river management for example. The purpose of a gauging station is to
collect data about the time history of discharge at that point in the catchment drainage network. In general,
the data collected consists of the gauge heights or the river stage. These gauge heights are used in a stage-
discharge relationship to estimate the discharge at that point in time. Reliability of the discharge record is
dependent on the accuracy and precision of the gauge-height record as well as the accuracy and precision
of the stage-discharge relationship.
Stage-discharge relationships
The conversion of a record of gauge-height to a record of discharge is through use of a stage-discharge

relationship. The physical element or combination of elements in the stream channel or floodplain that
maintains the relation is known as a control and the gauging station location should be selected where there
is a single relationship between water level and flow. The two attributes of a satisfactory control are stability
and sensitivity. If the control is stable the stage-discharge relationship will be stable. If the control is subject
to change, the stage-discharge relationship will be subject to change and frequent discharge measurements
will be required for the continual re-calibration of the stage-discharge relationship, which increases the
uncertainty of streamflow records extracted from the database.
A particular concern for the application of stream gauge records is the extrapolation of stage-discharge
relationships to high flows.
The stage-discharge relationship can be considered to consist of two zones. These zones are:
• An interpolation zone where the relationship is within the range of the stage measurements used to
develop the relationship.
• An extrapolation zone where the relationship is not defined by gauging taken to develop the relationship.
It is rare to obtain a flow velocity measurement at high discharges since access is often difficult during flood
periods. As well it is often difficult to reach the gauging station before the flood level has begun to decline or
the flood has completely finished since this may require the anticipation of a flood event so that staff can be
on site during the flood.
There are several alternative techniques for development of the extrapolation zone of the stage-discharge
relationship, with a logarithmic extrapolation being often recommended. This approach however may not be
applicable because in many cases, the extrapolation may extend from a confined channel into a floodplain.
An alternative approach is the use of a hydraulic model to develop the extrapolation zone of the stage-
discharge relationship. Similar to the application of a logarithmic technique, the suitability of this approach
needs to be confirmed prior to its application. Of particular concern is the modelling of the energy losses
associated with flow in the channel and adjacent floodplains where it is necessary to assume that the
parameter values obtained during calibration are suitable for the larger discharges being simulated in the
extrapolation zone of the stage-discharge relationship.
The important point in this discussion, however, is a recognition that the values of the data extracted from a
discharge record for fitting of a statistical model will contain values where the conversion of the recorded
level to an equivalent discharge occurred through extrapolation of the stage-discharge relationship.
Application to road drainage and flood planning and design
Formal stream gauging stations are distributed sparsely so it is uncommon for streamflow records to be
available for specific projects, however where possible this data should be sought and used.

In cases where there are stream gauges available for road design projects, which is most likely for projects
on major rivers, the recorded stream discharges can be used to improve the estimation of design flood
inflows for the project. Since the hydrology is the most important input for most road design projects, this
makes a considerable improvement to the reliability of the design.
6.5.7 Catchment Data
General
Catchment data is an essential component for estimation of design flood characteristics. There are many
alternative types and forms of catchment data relevant to estimation of design flood characteristics, such as:
• topographic and infrastructure data including culverts, bridges, and pipe networks
• channel cross sections
• land use information
• vegetation data
• soil data
Catchment data is available from different sources and with a range of accuracies. Generally, it is advisable
that practitioners seek the most suitable data in each instance and assess the required accuracy of that data
in respect of the desired accuracy of the outputs.
Examples of common forms of data types in a project is shown in Breakout 8.
Topographic and infrastructure data
Topographic data is an important component of any design flood investigation. Proper scoping of
topographic and infrastructure data collection can have a significant impact on the cost-effective delivery of
flood investigations. The scope of the required topographic and infrastructure data is driven by the nature of
flood behaviour for a given area. The desired elements of topographic and infrastructure data include:
• catchment extent
• catchment slope
• drainage topology (i.e. the drainage flow paths and network of channels)
• channel cross-sections
• waterway structures (weirs, levees, regulators, dams, culverts and bridges etc.)
• overland flow path definition
• infrastructure (bridges, culverts, pits, pipes etc.).
Topographic data can be obtained by using one or more of the following approaches.
• field survey
• airborne techniques
• available spatial mapping.

Bathymetric (underwater) techniques
Many methods for generating surface data are not applicable for collecting bathymetric data (ground data
below the water surface) in permanent or semi-permanent water bodies. Where a water body has not been
surveyed adequately, a specific survey will be required to supplement the ground surface data.
If the water body is shallow or small, then a traditional surface survey technique may be suitable. For deeper,
larger water bodies, a specialised bathymetric survey may be required. Instruments such as echo sounders,
side scan sonar systems and Acoustic Doppler Profilers may be used for this purpose.
In most cases, the bathymetric survey will need to be merged with ground surface data.
Aerial imagery
Aerial photographs are an important source of qualitative data and can be collected during an aerial survey
and geo-referenced (or ortho-rectified) aerial photos can be supplied as part of a photogrammetric survey. In
ortho-rectifying the image, the image is scaled, rotated and stretched so that various reference locations
move to their correct coordinate locations in order to remove any distortions as a result of the image
collection process.
When historical aerial photography is available, it is useful in assessing catchment development or sourcing
information on the floodplain development when historical events occurred.
Airborne laser scanning is important for providing topographic data for flood assessments and provides an
accurate and extensive coverage of ground topography.
Historical topography and infrastructure
Most data collection methods are concerned with present day catchment conditions. However, when
catchment modelling systems are used for design flood estimation, calibration to historical events is required
and the catchment and floodplain conditions at the time of the historical event need to be considered
particularly as these conditions may not be the same as present day conditions. In addition, if several
historical events are to be used for calibration, changes to catchment conditions may occur between events.
Land use information
Land use data is important for several aspects of projects, and can be obtained from land use maps, field
observations or consultation with planners, local authorities, land managers or property owners.
Land use data is used in hydrology models to determine suitable parameters to calculate runoff and is also
used in hydraulic models to assist in the determination of channel and floodplain roughness.
Vegetation data
Information on vegetation type can be used in the hydrologic model to determine runoff characteristics or in
hydraulic models to inform hydraulic roughness values (Manning's n). This data may be sourced from:
• vegetation maps
• field inspections
• inferred from aerial photographs and LiDAR.
Care needs to be taken with vegetation maps as, in general, the maps are based on limited sampling and
inferring the survey results to be representative of a larger area. Additionally, the representation of individual
species within an area designated as vegetation types may vary.

Soil data
Some hydrologic models require information on the catchment soil properties (for example, information on
the A and B horizon depths and their water holding capacity, or the soil type) to estimate losses from the
rainfall.
While it is possible to estimate land subject to inundation by floods through consideration of the soils and
geomorphology, this does not provide any guidance on the likelihood of the flood hazard and therefore can
be misleading. Furthermore, there is a need to ensure that the soil and geomorphic data is obtained at a fine
scale to ensure spatial variations over short distances are adequately recognised when using soil information
to assess potential flood hazard.
Soil data also assists in the assessment of the risk of erosion or scour associated with drainage structures
and is essential for the structural design of structures.
Property data
In order to assess the magnitude of the flood hazard to people and property, property data (including building
type, condition and floor level) typically are required, including:
• street address
• representative ground level
• habitable floor levels

• building construction type (e.g. brick veneer, timber, slab on ground, on piers)
• building age
• single/double storey
• house size.
Commercial and industrial properties require similar information, but also require information on the type of
business undertaken at the site as this can have a significant bearing on the value of flood damages from
business to business.
When considering road drainage, property data is needed to assess the risk from increases in flood level
caused by the project.
Existing infrastructure
Development of road infrastructure will often have flood impacts that interact with neighbouring infrastructure
and may also affect the performance of this infrastructure. Therefore, data on this infrastructure will be also
be required so that these interactions can be assessed and mitigated where necessary.
Infrastructure that needs to be assessed will include:

• Buildings and residences that may be affected by flooding patterns changed by the road.
• Culverts and bridges, both on the road and also on any neighbouring construction including railways for
example.
• Infrastructure associated with communications and utilities such as gas, water supply, sewerage.
• Irrigation infrastructure.
• Existing underground and overland stormwater drainage networks need to be captured especially in
urban areas, but also in rural regions where this infrastructure affects flood flow patterns.

Neighbouring infrastructure may affect the road design by providing constraints on the allowable flood level
impacts, as well as to flow diversions and obstructions.
Application to road drainage and flood design
Catchment data is essential in practically all road planning and design projects and is needed for the
establishment and application of hydrology and hydraulic models as well as for assessment of flood impacts
and road performance.
Breakout 8: Data use
A flood assessment was being undertaken for a major river crossing. High resolution LiDAR was available, and
bathymetric survey points were undertaken recently. The survey was tinned within the river and then tied into the
LiDAR ensuring that there was a realistic merge along the edges of the two data sets. Detailed survey of a levee on
the left-hand bank and cross sections on small tributary creeks were also available. Culvert inverts and dimensions
were also available in the surrounding area, along with detailed design files for the proposed bridge and road
embankment. Common forms of topographic data encountered on an infrastructure project are shown in Figure 6.8.
As the proposed alignment occurred in a portion of the river that is subject to higher velocities, new bathymetry was
adopted along a 2km section around the alignment. This was stamped over the existing bathymetry, with the new
survey tied in smoothly to the existing survey.
The hydraulic assessment was undertaken in TUFLOW with a small 5m grid cell size. At that resolution, it was
appropriate for smaller drains to be burnt in with survey of the invert undertaken at points indicated with the red line in
the figure below.
On the banks nearby is a levee protecting a town. Levee crest survey was applied to the model over the LiDAR,
indicated with a black line. If the LiDAR is considerably more recent compared to the date of survey for structures
such as levees, it is up to the engineer to consider what is a more appropriate representation of levee heights. If not
maintained consistently, levees may settle over time which can change the overtopping location.

Breakout 8: Data use
Figure 6.8: Data type examples

6.5.8 Project Data
Many road projects are brownfield developments either upgrading or replacing existing infrastructure so any
information on the performance and flood concerns for the existing infrastructure will be valuable. Similarly,
few locations are sufficiently remote that there are no developments located in the general vicinity that can
provide some indication of flood performance. These may be roads operated by other agencies or railways
for example.
Historical data on performance as well as the original design and any upgrades or maintenance should be
sourced. Inspection reports prepared following major events will also be useful. This type of data helps in
understanding risks that may occur during the design life of the infrastructure.
6.5.9 Environmental Data
Roads cross water courses which are frequently locations with environmental value particularly for riparian
vegetation and fauna. In addition, the concentration of flow can result in environmental impacts related to
scour risk. There is also a risk of creating a drainage shadow. This is the effect of having the road prevent
water from inundating a portion of the floodplain downstream of the road, where that floodplain is wet in
natural conditions, but dry after construction of the road. Drainage shadows are particularly important in arid
or agricultural regions and in areas of flat topography. Data on the environmental concerns related to the
drainage design should be collected to ensure the drainage design incorporates consideration of these
issues.

In some coastal regions, acid sulphate soils may be a concern and data on the actual and potential risk of
acid sulphate soils should be assessed. Road construction and the associated disturbance to the soil can
result in severe environmental impacts.
Key data aspects related to the environment that will be a concern for drainage and flood design are as
follows:
• Riparian vegetation that may be affect by the infrastructure or the changes on flooding resulting from
construction. Particularly if the road cuts a riparian corridor or habitat of a particular species.
• Riparian fauna that may be affected such as platypus.
• Fish, where the stream crossings may affect the movement of fish species.
• Scour risk through bridges or at culvert outlets.
• Acid sulphate soils.
Early identification of environmental data can identify key constraints and reduce project costs and avoid
expensive remediation. Many problems can be avoided and designed around when identified early.
6.5.10 Field Investigations and Site Inspections
In addition to the general data sources discussed here, an important (perhaps crucial is some occasions)
part of any drainage or flood investigation is a site inspection. While site inspections may be regarded as an
additional (and perhaps unnecessary) part of the design because of the time and cost involved, this task
often provides valuable insights into the local conditions and thereby an improvement in the design.
Experience has shown that the time and cost of these investigations is worthwhile and many problems, can
be avoided with a good understanding of local conditions.
Site inspections are recommended early in the design process, but after some preliminary analysis has been
completed and some understanding of the issues have been developed and the site details can be better
understood. Local conditions and constraints, which may not be immediately obvious from the data available
in the office, can be identified.
Site inspections carried out by road designers specialising in the flood and drainage aspects are best carried
out with other specialists, since road drainage needs to be a multi-disciplinary undertaking. Others who may
assist in the inspection are local stakeholders such as residents as well as designers associated with the
environment, civil or structural engineering, geology or surveying for example.
During the inspection, all aspects of the project should be considered as they affect the flood and drainage
design and detailed photographs and notes should be prepared for future reference. It is important that the
inspection should include the flow paths upstream and downstream of the road alignment and not just
consider the immediate vicinity of the road.
• Issues that should be considered include the following:
• Waterway conditions, especially considering scour risk.
• Any potential stream diversions or alternative flow paths.
• Local soil conditions, again considering scour risk.
• Channel and bank conditions as well as channel uniformity.
• Assess Manning’s n values.
• Flow patterns, direction and velocity.
• Observed flood debris or other evidence of previous floods.

• Adjacent land use.

• Adjacent infrastructure, particularly any that may be sensitive to flood impacts or any that may provide a
constriction or obstruction to flow.
• Identify any existing scour or other environmental damage caused by the existing infrastructure.
• Check the design and performance of table drains and diversion channels.
In addition to providing useful data to help in the designs, field investigations, including consultation with
local stakeholders and residents, is important to help local residents to understand the process and results of
the design and therefore accept the conclusions and results.
6.5.11 Sources of Data in Australia
While it is not practical to write a list of all data sources, Table 6.5 provides a tabulated list as good starting
point.
Table 6.5: Data sources
Data Primary Secondary

Rainfall BoM Water agencies
Streamflow Water Agencies BoM
Terrain Elvis Geoscience Australia Local Authorities and State

Agencies
Catchment State Water Authorities BoM Geofabric
Existing Flood Studies Local Authorities and catchment State Agencies
managers
6.6 Hydrology Methods for Road Drainage and Flood Design
6.6.1 Introduction
This section of the guide is a description of the methods that are recommended for application to routine
flood and drainage applications for road design.
The hydrology input to road drainage is a critical component of the design as this defines the amount of
water to be managed by the infrastructure being designed.
There are many different methods available for calculating design floods required for road design and this
guide describes the most commonly applied methods that are used for the more routine projects. Specialist
methods are briefly introduced but are not covered in any detail here.
It is noted that this section provides advice on the hydrology component of the design, that is the calculation
of design flood flows and hydrographs. The hydraulic component, which calculates flood levels and flow
velocities as well as sizing for road waterway structures is included in Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels,
Culverts and Floodways. The hydraulic component of bridge design can be found in the Austroads
publication Guide to Bridge Technology Part 8: Hydraulic Design of Waterway Structures (2019).

6.6.2 Overview of Methods
Introduction
The methods for calculating the design flood runoff to roads should be reliable and consistent and suitable
for the range of applications needed. These applications cover:
• To provide a flood immunity appropriate for the acceptable risk of closure
• Assess the risk of damage from scour or other concerns
• Provide design input for cross drainage structures
• Provide design input for longitudinal drainage and other “minor” drainage systems.
The flood probabilities to be considered for road drainage and flooding include a wide range from floods that
are more minor than those usually required for flood management and other similar applications up to
extreme events in some situations.
Many road design applications only require peak flood discharge so that the conveyance of the drainage
structures can be assessed. Other applications require a complete flood hydrograph for designs where
floodplain storage is an issue. Different analysis procedures are needed for these two types of projects and
these are discussed in this guide.
Many road projects are located remote from urban or developed areas and there is often a large number of
similar designs, for example culverts on road sections. This means that many road design projects have
limited data for calibration so any procedures for road design hydrology should be robust for ungauged
catchments and should provide consistent results for neighbouring catchments. Due to the large number of
design floods needed in many projects, the flood estimation procedures for road design should be able to be
completed as a simple routine procedure, though complex and significant projects require detailed and high
quality analysis.
Design floods represent floods of a defined probability and therefore are “theoretical” and distinct from actual
“historical” floods. Most applications for road design need to consider design events but similar methods of
analysis are needed for both. Historical floods represent an actual combination of catchment and
hydrological conditions that have occurred. Historical floods are important in road design to ensure that the
design is consistent with experience. Design events need to consider the possible conditions and ensure that
the conditions represented result in the appropriate probability.
Important issues to consider when analysing the hydrology for a road design are:
• The selected method should be suitable to calculate either flood peaks only or complete hydrographs,
whichever is needed.
• Where there are multiple catchments in the same project, the method should result in consistent results.
• Many road projects have limited local recorded data, so the method should be suitable for ungauged
catchments.
Design flood estimation methods
The general approaches to flood estimation are described in ARR2019 Chapter 3 of Book 1.
The methods can be categorised into flood and rainfall data-based methods and these can be applied to
road design projects with the detailed approach varying depending on the project requirements and the
available data.

Flood data-based methods analyse recorded flood data to directly calculate flood peak discharges and
typically include methods such as at-site flood frequency analysis. This approach calculates flood peaks only
and does not provide flood hydrographs. Table 6.6, sourced from ARR2019, summarises the procedures
used to directly analyse flood data to estimate design flood peak discharges.
Table 6.6: Summary of common procedures used to directly analyse flood data
Frequency Frequency At-Site/Regional Regional Flood

Analysis of Analysis of Rare Flood Frequency Frequency Estimation
Frequent Floods Floods Analysis
Inputs Peak-over- Annual Maxima Gauged flood maxima Catchment
Threshold series Series at single site at multiple sites with characteristics and
of interest similar flood behaviour flood quantiles (or
parameters) derived
from frequency
analyses
Analysis Selected probability Selected probability Information from Regression on model
model is fitted to model is fitted to multiple catchments is parameters or flood
flood maxima (e.g. flood maxima (e.g. used to improve fit of quantiles (e.g. RFFE
exponential Log Pearson III/GEV probability model (e.g. method), or local
distribution fitted by distributions fitted by regional L-moments or scaling functions based
L-moments) L-moments) Bayesian inference) on catchment
characteristics
Outputs Flood quantiles for Flood quantiles for Improved flood Flood quantiles at
AEPs > 10% at a AEPs < 10% at a quantiles at multiple ungauged sites
gauged site gauged site sites of interest
The application of these flood data-based methods to road drainage design is summarised in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Flood data-based design methods
Method Application to road drainage design

Frequency Analysis of Frequent Floods • Infrequent application because of lack of gauged
catchments
• Improve reliability of rainfall-based methods.
• Analysis of frequent floods
• Flood immunity of low flood immunity roads.
• Time of closure analysis
• Design of temporary works
Frequency Analysis of Rare Floods • Infrequent application because of lack of gauged
catchments
• Improve reliability of rainfall-based methods
• Analysis of rare floods
• Flood immunity of roads
• Time of closure analysis
At-Site/Regional Flood Frequency Analysis • Flood immunity of roads.
Regional Flood Frequency Estimation • Flood immunity of roads.
• Design of culverts and minor drainage.

Rainfall-based methods use design rainfall data as the primary input to calculate design floods. Rainfall-
based methods can be more widely used since rainfall data is more widely dispersed and is easier to transfer
spatially, while flood-based methods generally require stream gauging stations. Rainfall data-based methods
can be transferred easily since rainfall varies more smoothly spatially than flood data.
Rainfall data-based procedures are summarised in Table 6.8, taken from ARR2019 Book 1 Chapter 3.
Further details of these methods are described in later sections.
Table 6.8: Summary of recommended rainfall-based procedures
Simple Design Ensemble Event Monte Carlo Event Continuous

Event Simulation
Hydrologic Inputs Design rainfalls (i.e. rainfall depth for given burst duration and Annual Observed (or
Exceedance Probability) synthetic) time series
of rainfall and
evaporation.
Hydrologic Fixed patterns of Ensemble of N Ensemble (or As represented in the
variability rainfall and other temporal patterns distribution) of time series of inputs
inputs temporal patterns, – if not in time series
losses, and other then not represented
factors.
Model Event-based model based on routing rainfall excess through Model of catchment
catchment storage processes influencing
runoff generation
Framework Single simulation for N simulations for Stochastic sampling Continuous
each combination of each combination of of input distributions simulation at time
rainfall depth and rainfall depth and using continuous or step for N years
AEP AEP (N >10) stratified domain
(potentially
thousands of
simulations)
Flood AEP Assumed same as input rainfall Statistical analysis of Computed from
joint probabilities frequency analysis of
Flood magnitude Single estimate Simple average (or
(e.g. frequency N annual maxima
derived from each median) of N
analysis of maxima
set of inputs simulations
or Total Probability
Theorem)
Note: Table sourced from ARR2019 Table 1.3.2
The major division in the rainfall data-based methods is between event type analysis and continuous
simulation. Practically all flood design work for road projects relies on event type analysis, with continuous
simulation used rarely for specialist applications. Event type analysis provides either a flood peak discharge
or a hydrograph for a single flood event of a defined probability, while continuous simulation analyses large
and small floods as well as the low flow periods between flood events.
Either flood data based or rainfall data-based methods can be used for road design projects, however
rainfall-based methods are more likely due to data availability.
Areas of applicability for different methods
Figure 6.9 illustrates the different areas of applicability for the flood estimation procedures that can be used
for road design as well as for other types of flood projects. It illustrates where the different rainfall and flood
data-based procedures can be applied. The zones where flood and rainfall data-based procedures can be
used are identified, though the decision on which method is most applicable is not shown in the figure.

The flood data-based methods are found in the top left hand corner of the figure, while the rainfall data
based methods can apply for all probabilities.
Figure 6.9: Illustration of relative efficacy of different approaches for the estimation of design floods
Source: ARR2019 Figure 1.3.2
The major advantage of rainfall-based approaches is to take advantage of the extensive availability of rainfall
data. Rainfall characteristics vary across space in a more predictable and generally more uniform fashion
than floods. This feature, along with the greater length and density of rainfall records, allows the derivation of
probabilistic estimates of rainfalls that are much rarer and more easily transposed than flood characteristics.
As well they provide the means to derive flood hydrographs. The derivation of a full hydrograph rather than a
single attribute (such as flood peak) allows the design loading condition to be assessed in terms of both peak
and volume, which is of prime importance when considering the mitigating influence of flood storage.
However, these significant advantages are offset by the need to transform rainfalls into floods using some
kind of design event transfer function or simulation model, and the application of these approaches is
described in this section. The important issue is to ensure that the probability of design floods calculated
from design rainfall match and there is no bias.

In contrast, flood frequency analysis provides a direct estimate of flood exceedance probabilities based on
gauged data. Peak flood records represent the integrated response of a catchment to storm events and thus
are not subject to the potential for bias that can affect rainfall-based procedures. However, this approach
provides only flood peak discharges and does not provide any indication of flood volumes, hydrograph shape
or timing. In addition, the method is limited to locations where there are sufficient flood records to allow
statistical analysis since transposition of design flood records is difficult.
In practice road design projects should review all data available and determine the most suitable method.
Generally, flood data-based methods should be considered wherever there is suitable and adequate data,
but a combination of rainfall and flood data-based methods, where two different methods can be compared is
usually the most suitable approach.
Event-based methods are commonly used for all types of road design projects. However, the continuous
simulation methods are only applied for specific specialist applications such as water quality and times of
closure and to assess long-term flood performance of road links which include many stream crossings
In most road drainage design projects, as in general flood estimation applications, a decision must be made
on the most appropriate method for flood estimation to be used. This choice will depend on a range of
criteria, as follows.
• Type of project. Is the project a cross drainage design, a longitudinal drainage requirement or one of a
number of specialist designs? This decision will influence the type of model to be used, especially
whether a complete hydrograph is needed or only a flood peak discharge. It also influences whether
design floods are needed at a single catchment outlet or for multiple locations along a water course or
within a catchment.
• Availability of data. Many road projects are sited in locations with limited hydrologic data, but where data
is available, it should be used in the design to the maximum extent possible, to improve confidence in
the results. In particular where streamflow data is available, this data should be at least investigated
either to provide a direct input to the design or to confirm results from rainfall data-based methods. In all
other locations, anecdotal data should be used and the extent of this data availability should assist in the
selection and application of the flood estimation procedure.
• Significance and risk of the design. Significant projects and those where there is a high level of design
risk, either to the project infrastructure or the eternal environment, demand a higher quality or more
advanced analysis procedure. Simple methods are appropriate for more routine projects, but the risk for
any type of project should be considered.
• Type of catchment. The catchment type will influence the flood estimation method to be applied. A major
decision is whether the catchment is rural or urban since there are fundamentally different catchment
behaviours between these two catchment types and quite different methods are applied. While this may
be the most significant catchment type that influences selection of analysis method, other catchment
types also need to be considered, such as “artificial” catchments including for example road pavements,
where specific flood estimation procedures and parameters may be essential.
Introduction to methods for road design
A basic guide to the suggested methods for flood estimation for different road design applications are
summarised as follows, with detailed descriptions of the methods in following sections.

• Simple rural catchment cross drainage. In this application, the peak discharge alone may be sufficient
for the design, but a complete hydrograph may sometimes be needed, and frequently the design may be
routine often with a large number of similar catchments crossing the road in a project. Data of any type
is often lacking for these projects so methods suitable for ungauged catchments must be used. There
are two methods that are generally recommended for this type of project. These are the Regional Flood
Frequency Estimation (RFFE) and a runoff routing model approach. The RFFE does not require any
calibration data but only provides flood peak discharges, and not flood hydrographs. Runoff routing
methods can be applied with regional parameter estimates and therefore can be used without calibration
data. Local calibration can significantly improve their reliability. This method allows calculation of flood
hydrographs as well as flood estimates for locations inside the main catchment, so does allow a better
flood design. Both are relatively easy to apply.
• Complex rural catchments cross drainage. The more complex rural catchments include catchments with
diversions between sub-catchments, catchments with significant floodplain storage and catchments
where the road crosses the catchment in multiple locations. The complex flood patterns often require an
assessment of the timing of flooding for different sub-catchments. This category also includes major
projects where significant cross drainage infrastructure is needed. For these types of projects, the flood
peak alone is usually insufficient for the complex flood patterns. While the analysis is not fundamentally
different from that for simple rural catchments, the RFFE is not usually recommended for these complex
catchments. The principal method of analysis is with a runoff routing model but direct rainfall analysis is
also suggested.
• Longitudinal drainage. Longitudinal drainage refers to any flow along the road alignment such as in table
drains or diversions along the road embankment between catchments. An important part of the analysis
of longitudinal drainage is concerned with hydraulics, but this section of the guide is concerned only with
the hydrology component and therefore hydraulics is not considered. Depending on the specific
application one of several methods are applicable for longitudinal drainage, with similar methods
applicable for urban and rural catchments. For diversions along the road alignment where the catchment
is mainly external to the road reserve, similar methods to those applied to cross drainage are required.
Many longitudinal drainage applications are reasonably simple and routine and the Rational Method can
be used in these circumstances as a part of the road geometrical design. However, since timing, flood
storage and flood volumes are sometimes important, runoff routing or direct rainfall are applicable in
these situations since the complete flood hydrographs are needed. A special case occurs where much
of the catchment is “artificial” and is composed of the road pavement and is small. These types of
catchment analyses are used for analysis of flow in table drains or for surface runoff on the road
pavement for assessment of local drainage or aquaplaning. In this special (and limited) application, the
Rational Method can be applied, though runoff routing or direct rainfall methods can also be used.
• Urban catchment cross drainage. Urban catchments are fundamentally different from rural catchments
since urbanisation increases the impervious area of a catchment and also increases the flow
conveyance of catchments. Both of these factors increase flooding in urban areas compared to an
equivalent sized rural catchment. ARR2019 provides a detailed approach to urban catchment hydrology
in Book 9, and provides the general outline of differences between urban and rural flood runoff as
follows:
– increased volumes of stormwater runoff
– increased frequency of high flow events
– increased magnitude of high flow events
– increased rates of change (both rising and falling limb of hydrographs)
– increased catchment responsiveness to rainfall – more runoff events
– increased speed of catchment response
– reduced seasonality of high flows – high flow events occur year-round rather than being mainly
concentrated in a wet season
– greater variation in daily flows

– increased frequency of surface runoff to streams

– reduced infiltration of rainfall
All of these factors influence design flood analysis for urban catchments. Assessment of urban hydrology is
much less reliable than the equivalent approach for rural catchments because of the limited amount of
hydrologic data available for the urban environment. The recommended approaches for urban hydrology
analysis are with runoff routing methods or direct rainfall, though with different model establishment and
parameters than for rural catchments.
6.6.3 Description and Application of Recommended Methods
The section above has outlined recommended methods for calculating design flood discharges for road
design applications. These are complex analyses should be undertaken by experienced hydrologists and
water resources engineers.
Details of each of the methods are provided below.
At-site Flood Frequency Analysis
Flood frequency analysis is an important means of calculating design flood peak discharges. This approach
has the advantage of directly considering all the factors that contribute to the floods at the catchment outlet,
without needing to be concerned with the joint probability that must be considered in rainfall-based methods.
At-site flood frequency analysis is described in detail in ARR2019 Book 3 Chapter 2.
While at-site flood frequency analysis is a direct and well-established method for calculating design flood
quantiles, there are some issues with the usefulness of the method, as follows:
• It is unlikely that there will be a stream gauge located at the particular project site.
• A long period of record is needed to provide confidence in the calculated statistics.
• Accurate streamflow records are needed especially for high flows.
• Flood peak discharges only are calculated, which means that alternative methods must also be used if
flood hydrographs are also required.
• Design flood discharges are calculated for only a single point, namely at the stream gauge location, so
these results must be transferred to other points in the catchment in most cases.
However, despite these limitations, at-site flood frequency analysis is recommended for any project where
there is a stream gauge either within the project catchment or in a similar neighbouring catchment. While the
results may not be directly applicable to a particular project, analysis of appropriate gauge records can
provide more confidence in the actual project design floods.
For a short record the use of prior information informs the skew and standard deviation for the Log Pearson
III (LP3) distribution. When using prior information you should not use prior information from a 1000km2
catchment with a small catchment e.g.1km2. A check should also be done to make sure the prior information
is coming from a gauge with a longer record. Prior information should come from a nearby gauge with a long
record that has a similar flood mechanism. Table 6.9 below provides guidance on the use of gauged records
for at site Flood Frequency Analysis.

Table 6.9: Rating of data sources
Length of at site record Additional information Comment Ranking (stars)
200 years No additional Best 5

100 years No additional Good. Can be improved by 3.5
adding early large events
If a large earlier flood is 4.5

known then there are 2 ways
to enter into FLIKE:
• Add the large event with
known flow to the 100
events to get 101 events
plus x < z
• Enter 1 to 3 events > z 4
and x < z
Where x is the number of
years within the threshold (in
this case lower than the
threshold) and z is a
threshold flow
50 years No Additional 3
Prior from nearby gauge Only use Prior if it comes 3.5

from an adjacent catchment
and has more than 100
years of record
25 years No additional 2
With prior Use prior pretty much all 2.5

the time especially if the
record is biased to a dry
period
5-10 years With prior Use prior to improve curve 1.5
shape. A 5-10 year record
tells you about the mean
but not skew
Less than 5 years Don’t use at site FFA. 1
RFFE is better.
Note: Table sourced from WMAwater 2017.
The basis of flood frequency analysis is a series of maximum flood peak discharges. There are two major
series types that can be used, Annual Maximum Series (AMS) and Peak over Threshold Series (PoT). The
AMS series selects the largest flood in each year. In this case, some large floods may not be included in the
analysis when more than one large flood occurs in a year. The PoT series selects all independent floods
larger than a defined threshold, so more than one flood could occur in a particular year. Depending on the
specific climatic conditions at any particular site, the annual series may be extracted using “water years”
rather than calendar years. The water year varies for regions and in Queensland for example the water year
is generally taken from October to September, since floods are less likely to occur in September or October
than they are in December or January. As illustrated in Figure 6.9, PoT series is most appropriate for the
smaller more frequent floods while AMS is more suited to the larger less frequency events. Figure 6.10 and
Figure 6.11 illustrate the differences between these two series types.

Figure 6.10: Annual maxima series example
Figure 6.11: Peak-over-threshold series example

While at-site flood frequency analysis may be directly applicable in very few road flood and drainage designs,
where data is available, use of this additional information is strongly recommended to improve the design
performance, by cross checking with the primary rainfall-based methods.
Please see Section 6.6.4 for a comparison analysis of methods.

Breakout 9: At site Flood Frequency Analysis Process
A Where a good long term flood record exists an at site flood frequency analysis can be undertaken. This is the most
reliable form of flood estimation. An example of the steps required to undertake a n at-site flood frequency analysis is:
1. Select stream gauging station for analysis. The station should have an acceptable record length, with a minimum
of 20 years of record suggested. Care should be taken with short records.
2. Review the data, especially considering completeness of records, quality of rating curve and homogeneity of
records.
3. Extract either the annual maximum series or the peak over threshold series from the record, with the choice
of series depending on the flood probability required.
4. Fit a probability distribution to this series. In Australia, the software FLIKE (TUFLOW, 2019) is recommended
but there are also other options.
5. FLIKE can analyse flood series where there is information on historical flood events that may have occurred
before the beginning of the formal historical records.
6. Potentially influential low flows can be censored from the record to improve the analysis results.
7. Extract the design flood quantiles and statistical parameters from the FLIKE output.
8. An example of the flood probability plot from FLIKE is plotted as Figure 6.12.
Figure 6.12: Flood probability plot example

Runoff routing methods
Runoff routing models are well developed in Australia for calculation of design flood hydrographs general
flood estimation projects as well as for road design applications. Runoff routing models are mathematical
representations of catchment storage and route rainfall excess through a model of the catchment to the
catchment outlet.
There are many different runoff routing models that can be applied to flood estimation and the general
process as well as the details of individual models is described in ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 2.
However most standard applications of runoff routing models used for routine flood estimation in Australia,
including many commercially available models, are classified as semi-distributed node-link type models.
Commonly applied runoff routing models that are used in Australia include the categories listed in
Table 6.10.
Table 6.10: Runoff routing models and the basis of the model
Routing method Model

Simple lag, Lag and route RORB (Option)
SWMM (Option)
XPRAFTS (Option)
Muskingum-Cunge Method (linear) XPRAFTS

Concentrated non-linear storages ILSAX in DRAINS
RORB
WBNM
Nonlinear Muskingum SWMM
URBS
Kinematic wave routing HEC-HMS (Option)
ILSAX in DRAINS
XPRAFTS (Option)
Dynamic wave routing SWMM
XPRAFTS (Option)
Advice on preferred software for road design hydrology is provided in Section 6.8, but the runoff routing
models most commonly used for Australian road design calculations are RORB (Laurenson et al, 2010),
WBNM (Boyd et al, 2002), XPRAFTS (Innovyze, 2020) and URBS (Carroll, 2012).
The representation of the catchment runoff process using one of these models is illustrated in Figure 6.13.

Figure 6.13: Conceptual representation of the runoff routing process in a node-link type model

Runoff routing models are runoff and streamflow routing programs used to calculate flood hydrographs from
rainfall and other channel inputs. They subtract losses from rainfall to produce rainfall-excess and then route
this through catchment storage to produce the hydrograph. They can represent natural or constructed
storages in the catchment. Models are generally spatially distributed, nonlinear, and applicable to both urban
and rural catchments and make provision for temporal and areal variation of rainfall and losses and can
model flows at any number of defined locations within the catchment.
As shown above in Figure 6.13, the catchment representation needs the geographic catchment layout,
specifically the channel and storage distribution and rainfall inputs, which are distributed spatially and
temporally. Since the model routes rainfall excess, losses must be estimated, again spatially distributed, and
since it produces only surface runoff, baseflow must be considered, where appropriate.
Losses and baseflow should be analysed when applying runoff routing models, with different inputs for rural
and urban catchments. Loss estimates are discussed below in Section 6.7.7 and baseflow in Section 6.7.8,
since these two inputs are used for both runoff routing models and other flood estimation procedures.
ARR2019 Book 7 has a detailed description of the establishment, parameter setting and application of runoff
routing models. The user manuals for the various software packages referenced in this section should be
referred to during model establishment.
Runoff routing models require parameters for establishment and for calculation of design flows. Two of these
are losses and baseflow, which are described further in this section in Section 6.7.7 and 6.7.8. In addition,
the runoff routing models require estimates of routing parameters. The major parameters are the catchment
non-linearity and routing delay times, though some models require other more detailed inputs. These
parameters need to be estimated for any particular application by a calibration process, to ensure that the
model is established reliably for any catchment or project.
Since the hydrology models provide inflow discharges, the calibration needs to provide flows rather than
levels, though levels can assist in determining the flows.
The four primary categories of calibration data are:

a. No data – This is the lower limit to data availability and having no data at all is probably not a common
situation. In this situation, regional methods of some type are required. In addition to formal regional
methods, parameters can be determined from experience with applications on similar systems or
where the physical characteristics are similar. Sensitivity tests for key parameters may be helpful in
these circumstances. Regional parameter estimation methods for runoff routing models are available
for most regions of Australia and relationships between model parameters and catchment
characteristics are described in detail in ARR2019 in Book 7 Chapter 6.
b. Very limited data – The limited data may be some anecdotal records. An example for the design of
drainage structures on a road would be reports on the frequency of closure by flooding. In this case, it
is possible to develop parameters that mean that the model is at least consistent with local
observations. It may also be the case that the limited data is apparently inaccurate or inconsistent,
though the exact source of this inaccuracy may be difficult to detect. In any case, efforts should be
made to incorporate any information available in accordance with its assessed accuracy and reliability,
no matter how limited this may be. In this situation, the regional parameter estimation methods must
still be used, though they can be refined by considering the limited available data.
c. Some data – In this case there may be a streamflow gauge with a very short period of record, records
of flood levels for a single flood event or there may be records for a very frequent flood event. Records
from a neighbouring or similar catchment can also assist. Some rainfall gauge information may be
available. In this case, there will be a greater degree of confidence in the calibration, but the limited
data means that there will still be uncertainty in the model performance, especially when the model is
used for extrapolation to larger design events outside the range of the limited data or applied to
alternative development scenarios. In this case, the use of local data should predominate, though the
regional parameter estimates should still be a significant input.

d. Extensive data – In this case, there is extensive data throughout the floodplain and catchment of
interest. Data is available for a range of flood magnitudes and conditions and the flood data is
accurate, reliable and consistent. In this case, the model calibration will be reliable and the model can
be confidently used for design flood investigations. Model calibration using local available data is
described in ARR2019 Book 7 Chapter 5.
These four categories blend together and there will be a gradation from one to the other. Projects where data
is totally lacking are not common and projects with extensive data are also unusual, especially for road
drainage projects. The objective is to consider all available data and to make the best use of all available
information.
In the case of road drainage design, calibration data is likely to be limited so the approach in points (a) and
(b) above are likely to be most appropriate.
However, where there is suitable streamflow data, the runoff routing model should be calibrated to help
ensure that the adopted parameters are suited to the required catchment. Calibration is a complex process
and prescriptive methods cannot be defined because of the wide variety of conditions that may be
encountered. Detailed advice on calibration is included in the appropriate user manuals and more generic
advice is provided in ARR2019 Book 7 Chapter 5 as well as ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 6.
Runoff routing models allow the calculation of design flood hydrographs from design rainfalls so a critical
concern is to ensure that the probability for the floods matches that for the rainfall. This issue is a concern
with this approach and any other rainfall data-based method, ever since they were introduced to practice.
Application of runoff routing models to estimate design flood discharges for all flood designs including road
design projects has been revised significantly in the 2019 edition of ARR2019 and this has aimed at
improving the match between flood probability and the rainfall probability.
The “traditional” approach to application of a runoff routing model to flood estimation following the approach
listed here.
• Establish model following guidance in the software user manual.
• Either calibrate the model using available data to estimate suitable local parameters or determine
appropriate regional parameter estimates.
• Determine rainfall inputs, including rainfall depths, temporal patterns, spatial patterns and pre-burst
rainfalls for the required probabilities.
• Determine losses based on regional estimates or any local or neighbouring information.
• Determine baseflow (if necessary) based on regional information or any local observations.
• The losses and rainfall inputs are estimated to the best “probability neutral” estimate, that is the best
“average” estimate to ensure that the rainfall of the defined probability can be transferred to the flood of
the same probability.
This approach can still be applied for routine and simple projects or those where the probability neutral
assumption can be accepted with reasonable confidence.
However, the recommended method for applying runoff routing models is to use an approach where the
probability neutral assumption is more likely. The methods for using runoff routing methods use either an
ensemble of temporal patterns or a Monte Carlo method.
The general approaches for the three methods including the simple previously adopted method are
illustrated in Figure 6.14.

Figure 6.14: Approaches to runoff routing model application

Since the temporal patterns (described in more detail in Section 6.7.5) have the greatest influence on the
application of runoff routing models, most road design applications are recommended to use the ensemble
method. The user manuals for appropriate runoff routing models provide the suitable methods for using this
approach.
Breakout 10: Runoff Routing
While inputs to a runoff routing model may vary slightly depending on the software selected, all models will typically
include the following:
• Subcatchment layout: This is a subcatchment delineation typically generated in a GIS program that illustrates the
connectivity, or flood vector through the whole catchment and size of each subcatchment. In road projects, it is
good practice to split subcatchments at the road.
• Area: This can be extracted from the GIS layer for the subcatchments.
• Stream length: Not used in all models.
• Lag: Indicates the level of attenuation of the flood hydrograph as it travels down the catchment.
• Rainfall: The rainfall inputs include the following
– Design rainfall depths (IFD)* or historical rainfall
– Areal reduction factor
– Losses (subject to local guidance)*
– Temporal Pattern*

Breakout 10: Runoff Routing

– Spatial Pattern (where relevant).
* Indicates inputs that are available of the ARR datahub or through the BoM.
Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) model
As part of the revision of ARR, a Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) method has been developed
and made available for application to flood estimation for any location in Australia. It is referenced as
Rahman et al (2015) and is also described in ARR2019 Book 3 Chapter 3.
The RFFE model was developed to provide an improved regional method for calculating design floods for
small to medium ungauged catchments throughout Australia. The development of the RFFE included the
following steps.
• All catchments in Australia smaller than 1,000 km2 with more than 20 years of streamflow record and
reasonable quality data were selected for analysis. Some checks were carried out to confirm that there
was no reason to exclude the stations because of data quality.
• A flood frequency analysis was carried out for each station and flood quantiles up to 1% AEP as well as
the LP3 distribution parameters were calculated.
• A set of measurable catchment characteristics, which could also be used for ungauged catchments, was
prepared for each catchment.

• Australia was divided into regions with fringe zones between regions. These were based on broad
geographic regions and did not delineate state boundaries. The boundary between the humid coastal
zones and the arid/semi-arid zones was selected as the 500 mm/year mean annual rainfall isohyet. The
regions adopted for the RFFE are shown in Figure 6.15.
• Parameters in the humid coastal regions were regionalised using a Region of Influence procedure,
which allows a smooth variation in model parameters throughout the region based on geographical
proximity.
• The parameters in the two arid/semi-arid regions were regionalised with an index flood method.
• The parameters in the fringe zones were regionalised using a smooth variation between the
neighbouring regions.
• The RFFE model was then implemented on the ARR website to allow easy calculation of design flood
quantiles for any location in Australia. The method cannot be applied by manual calculations since the
flood estimation parameters vary smoothly geographically.

Figure 6.15: Adopted regions for RFFE

Source: ARR2019 Figure 3.3.2. Release Version of the Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model for the 4th edition of
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (2022).

Breakout 11: RFFE software
A The RFFE is a great tool for estimating flows in catchments that don’t have gauges particularly for road crossings of
small tributaries. It can be found at the Australian Rainfall and Runoff Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model
website (ARR RFFE 2022). After opening the ARR RFFE website, data input is to be completed in the opening page
as shown in Figure 6.16.
Figure 6.16: Data input for the RFFE software

Source: Australian Rainfall and Runoff Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model (2022).
The results from application of the RFFE provide design flood quantiles as well as statistical results and data on
neighbouring gauged catchments to allow review of the results for the required ungauged catchment. Example output
results are shown in Figure 6.18.
In addition to having the ability to print the RFFE output to PDF, the raw outputs can be exported to TXT or JSON file
outputs as shown in Figure 6.18. Additionally, the nearby gauges used to produce the RFFE outputs can also be
exported as a comma separated values (csv) output.

Breakout 11: RFFE software
Figure 6.17: RFFE output example

• The RFFE should not be used for catchments with the following characteristics:
• Urban catchments (more than 10% of the catchment affected by residential or urban development) since
the procedure was developed using only rural catchments.
• Catchments where the construction of a dam or weir has significantly altered the natural rainfall-runoff
behaviour, which can change the flood behaviour and construction during the period of record means
that the record is not homogeneous. Determination of the extent of impact of a dam is difficult so the
situations where a dam is large enough to have an impact on the performance of the RFFE cannot be
defined exactly, and some judgement is needed. However, review of the dam size and operation can
help in this determination. For example, if the dam has a large storage volume and a small spillway
therefore providing a significant degree of flood attenuation, the RFFE could not be used. Similarly, a
dam in the upper reaches of the catchment will affect only a small portion of the catchment so should not
have a major effect.

• Catchments where large scale land clearing has taken place, which may affect the flood response. This
case is hard to define, but clearing does affect catchment runoff and flood response. RFFE will be less
accurate where for example, the catchment of concern is cleared while most of the region in the vicinity
is still forested will affect performance. If only a small proportion of the catchment, say less than 10%,
has been affected, the RFFE could still be applied.
• Catchments which have been significantly affected by agricultural activities, construction of drainage or
irrigation infrastructure, soil conservation works or mining activities, which may affect the flood response.
RFFE cannot be applied where most of the catchment, say more than 50%, has been modified. Soil
conservation works and farm dams may significantly change catchment response, this is in fact what
they are designed for, so these catchments are distinct from the “natural” catchments that have been
used in the development of RFFE. Mining works generally provide intense water management
measures, to limit runoff from disturbed areas by detention basins, or divert flow around working areas.
These effects are greatest in small catchments. Mining or agriculture in larger catchments must cover a
larger area to affect a significant proportion of the catchment.
In addition, the RFFE is expected to have a lower level of reliability in catchments as follows:
• Catchments with an area less than 0.5 km2 or greater than 1,000 km2, there is only a limited number of
small gauged catchments, and large catchments were excluded, to provide a method only for small and
medium sized catchments. While the RFFE has been developed using data for larger catchments, it
can be used for catchments less than 0.5 km2 but this lower level of confidence must be recognised.
• Catchments located further away than 300 km from the nearest gauged catchment location used to
develop the RFFE technique. In this case there is no gauged catchment close to the target catchment
meaning that the regional relationship may be less reliable.
• Catchments in the arid areas since the RFFE technique for the arid areas is based on a very small
number of gauged catchments spanning a vast area of Australia. Estimation of design floods in the arid
zone is difficult because of a range of factors, including the lack of reliable streamflow data and the wide
range of conditions experienced in the region. While the RFFE is less reliable in the arid zone,
alternative methods are also based on the same little or no data and also have a low level of reliability.
The RFFE for the arid zone can provide results but efforts should be made to use any alternative
method and even limited anecdotal data to attempt to improve reliability. Experience with similar road
infrastructure in the local region can help to confirm the design performance. Continuing refinements to
the arid zone RFFE are expected to improve performance, but the inherent limitations will always leave
some level of uncertainty in any designs.
• Catchments with atypical characteristics, where specific consideration is necessary, since the RFFE has
been developed using data for a wide range of catchment types.
– However specific projects may be required for atypical catchments, such as very flat catchments or
those with extensive floodplain storage.
– In such situations hydrological judgment must be exercised to assess if any adjustment of the regional
flood frequency estimate is required (based on comparison of relevant catchment characteristics).
– To support such an assessment, the RFFE Model output describes the set of gauged catchments
used in developing the RFFE Model, which are located closest to the ungauged catchment of interest.
– In this case it is possible to examine the flood records of a gauged catchment with similar catchment
attributes as a basis for adjustments to the flood estimates produced by the RFFE Model.

While the RFFE method is founded on extensive data and allows reasonably reliable flood estimation results,
it has a significant amount of uncertainty as well as limitations. It is recognised that, while the method has
been developed using the best available data, the density of stream gauges is very low and there is a large
geographical variability. The RFFE has been developed using data for a wide range of catchment types.
However specific projects may be required for atypical catchments, such as very flat catchments or those
with extensive floodplain storage. In such situations hydrological judgment must be exercised to assess if
any adjustment of the regional flood frequency estimate is required (based on comparison of relevant
catchment characteristics) or the RFFE results can be modified using a hydrological model. To support such
an assessment, the RFFE Model output describes the set of gauged catchments used in developing the
RFFE Model, which are located closest to the ungauged catchment of interest. In this case it is possible to
examine the flood records of a gauged catchment with similar catchment attributes as a basis for
adjustments to the flood estimates produced by the RFFE Model.
Specific comments are as follows:

• It must be recognised that the RFFE is not a “perfect” and totally accurate method.
• It has used available data and appropriate analysis methods.
• Limits to accuracy depend on several aspects of the method and its development.
• RFFE results should not be adopted without some review.
• When applying RFFE, the result should be carefully reviewed and checked for “reasonableness”.
• RFFE should be used as well an alternative method such as a runoff routing model to provide two
“independent” estimates.
The RFFE method is a useful method for a range of road design applications. In particular it is a suitable
method for rural catchments smaller than 1,000 km2, for routine analysis on ungauged catchments. However,
with the uncertainty in the results, the results should be cross checked with an alternative method where
possible particularly for more significant projects. It cannot be used for urban catchments or for catchments
with significant artificial areas, such as road pavements.
A particular issue is that the RFFE provides only the flood peak so there is no indication of flood volume,
timing or the hydrograph shape so the method can only be used reliably for applications where flood volume,
floodplain storage or a combination or catchments are not an issue.
The RFFE method has been significantly upgraded as part of this update to the GRD from the version that
was released with ARR. Whilst the applicability of the method and its reliability have been substantially
improved, the limitations noted above still apply.
Direct rainfall (rainfall-on-grid)
Direct rainfall or rainfall-on-grid analysis has become more widely used in recent years as advanced 2D
hydraulic models have become more accepted in the industry. This type of hydrologic modelling has
advantages, though there are cautions in its application. However, it can be used successfully for road
drainage design. In road drainage projects, the approach is most frequently used for flat areas where flow
may be diverted along a road embankment or across catchment boundaries and urban catchments, though
there are no reasons why the method cannot be applied for many routine projects. It is important to note
though that direct rainfall analysis has not been widely tested and there are concerns with some applications
so it must be applied using well founded procedures.
Direct rainfall analysis is described in ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 6.5 and in ARR Project 15 (Babister M.,
Barton C., 2016).

This approach is quite different from the traditional hydrologic modelling methods such as runoff routing.
Traditional flood modelling involves two distinct phases.

• Hydrologic modelling, where a hydrologic model, runoff routing for example, is used to calculate flood
hydrographs.
• Hydraulic modelling, where the hydrologic inflows are analysed through channels, floodplains and other
areas.
Direct rainfall applies rainfall directly to the hydraulic model grid so therefore combines the hydrology and
hydraulic components of traditional analysis.
It provides excellent mapping results that are valuable for presentation to clients and the public, with an
example illustrated in Figure 6.18.
Figure 6.18: Illustrative example of direct rainfall model output


The rainfall-on-grid approaches do not require the specification of a node-link type representation of the
catchment and its drainage network as is required for runoff routing. Instead they use information from a
digital elevation model and hydraulic modelling to define the drainage paths used by floodwaters on their
way towards the catchment outlet. In the flatter parts of a catchment the drainage paths may therefore
change adaptively during a flood event.
The catchment is represented by a large number of grid cells, each with its individual rainfall input and runoff
output – in other words, the cells act as the equivalent to subareas in node-link type models. However, the
different scales of these basic catchment elements have important implications for the modelling of flood
runoff, as they require different representations of the typical properties of the catchment elements. The non-
linear nature of runoff generation means that the average response from many different small-scale
catchment elements cannot be expected to correspond to the lumped response of a subarea with average
properties (e.g. a hillslope in a kinematic wave model).
The rainfall-on-grid approaches can be applied as either representing the whole catchment by a 2D grid, or a
‘hybrid approach’, where only the flatter parts of the catchment with more complex floodplain topography are
represented by a 2D grid where they receive inflow hydrographs from the rest of the catchment produced by
a traditional runoff routing approach. The generation of runoff from a grid cell is illustrated in Figure 6.19.
Figure 6.19: Conceptualisation of generating a runoff hydrograph from a grid cell

Similar to traditional runoff routing models, runoff from a grid cell depends on the following factors:
• area of the grid cell
• rainfall depth
• losses
• storage volume of runoff in the cell.
However, the amount and direction of outflow from the cell here also depends on additional factors:
• hydraulic roughness of the cell
• slope between neighbouring grid cells.
• water level in neighbouring cells
• inflows from other cells.

In principle the model can accept a detailed space-time distribution of the rainfall inputs but in practice limited
data availability means that more discretised rainfall inputs need to be used.
The traditional loss models described in Section 6.7.7 can be used but the way these losses are applied may
vary in different models, and the traditional design loss values may thus not be directly applicable. The
losses therefore need to be reviewed in detail to confirm that the model is representing the correct amount of
flood runoff.
The topographic information included in the model means that the model can include relatively large
depression storage areas which interact with losses. A process of ‘pre-wetting’ these storage areas (priming
the model with an artificial rainfall burst to fill depression storages) may have to be used to prevent low bias
in modelled flood hydrographs.
The model outputs are quite sensitive to the selection of the hydraulic roughness parameters. Because of the
differences in conceptualisation and scale, these grid cell roughness parameters will generally be different
from the values used in traditional channel hydraulics. Use of depth varying roughness parameters rather
than constant ones may be necessary to reflect the changing hydraulic characteristics of catchment surfaces
with flow depth.
The modelling of urban areas requires consideration of the impacts of a mix of different catchment surfaces,
buildings, drainage systems and other infrastructure. The model resolution will generally not allow these
features to be represented in detail, thus representative cell characteristics need to be adopted, using some
form of averaging of the detailed urban area characteristics. Details of some specific issues for urban areas
is described in Project 15: Two Dimensional Simulations in Urban Areas Representation of Buildings in 2D
Numerical Flood Models (Smith & Wasko 2012).
The direct rainfall method of flood estimation has advantages for estimating design floods for road projects
as follows:
• The 2D model can cover the whole catchment, so a separate hydrological model is not needed, thus
reducing overall model setup time.
• Assumptions on catchment outlet locations are not required.
• Assumptions on catchment delineation are not required since flow movement is determined by 2D
model topography and hydraulic principles.
• Cross catchment flow is facilitated in the model. In flat catchments, flow can cross a catchment
boundary during higher rainfall events, which can be difficult to represent in a traditional hydrological
model.
• Overland flow is incorporated directly.
• Specifically for road design, the road design geometry can be incorporated into the flood model easily
and accurately.
However, to balance the advantages, there are serious disadvantages and cautions. In particular direct
rainfall analysis is a relatively new technique, with limited calibration or verification to gauged data so caution
and detailed checking is needed in the application of this approach. As well, issues include:
• Potential significant increase in hydraulic model run times since large 2D hydraulic modelling is needed.
• Requires digital terrain information over the whole catchment, which may or may not be a problem.
• Insufficient resolution of smaller flow paths (with a uniform grid size), especially in the upper catchment,
which may impact upon flow representation and timing.
• The shallow flows generated in the direct rainfall approach may be outside the typical range where
Manning’s ‘n’ roughness parameters are utilised.

There are several issues that need to be considered in applying direct rainfall analysis.
The hydraulic model roughness parameters used in normal hydraulic model applications have been
developed and applied for conditions quite different from the generally shallow flow that occurs in direct
rainfall applications. In particular roughness will vary with depth and impacts and means of representing this
are difficult to determine.
Losses are generally incorporated in the hydrology component of traditional flood modelling and this is
difficult to incorporate into direct rainfall applications. Losses can be represented as:
• Rainfall loss models
• 2D loss models
• Integrated groundwater models.
There are concerns with all of these and very limited data for calibration so losses are therefore an important
issue for direct rainfall analysis.
Grid size is an important parameter for 2D modelling. Because the whole catchment needs to be analysed,
this means there is a large number of cells which adds to the computational times and cell size is especially
important for the upper reaches. Therefore, grid size must be considered in detail, to reach a balance
between the detail and flow representation in results and computational times.
Direct rainfall models are difficult to calibrate but efforts are essential since experience with regional
parameter estimates is limited. Parameters are:
• Roughness values throughout the catchment
• Losses
• Grid/mesh resolution.
With limited “real” calibration data available, the model can be “verified” using:
• Comparison with alternative models
• Indirect calibration
• Volume checks.
Volume checking is an important part of the representation for direct rainfall, since the volume of runoff in
direct rainfall models can be poorly represented.
Volume checks are described in the ARR Project 15 Report (Babister and Barton 2016) as an important
check for direct rainfall analysis. Equation 11-1 from this report is:
Volume Balance. VO = Vi + VB + VR – VL – VS + E
4
where
VO = Volume at the outlet
Vi = Initial volume specified in model (such as lake or initial depth in channel)
VB = Volume applied through external boundaries
VR = Volume of rainfall

VL = Volume of losses (rainfall losses or 2D grid/mesh losses)
VS = Volume in storages
E = Error
It is expected that the error in Vo should be less than 2%.
If the error is higher than expected, the results should be checked with a number of checks as follows:
• The first check should be to review the schematisation of the model, to ensure that this is not causing
model instabilities or volume errors.
• Each modelling package has different numerical parameters that can be adjusted to potentially reduce
volume errors.
• Similarly, some modelling packages can potentially encounter problems with wetting and drying.
• For very shallow flows, some models assume that overland flow is not activated until the water depth
exceeds a certain depth, which may result in a loss of volume.
• Volume errors may also become more pronounced over longer duration storms so volume checks
should be undertaken across the full range of durations for a study area.
•
If the volume errors remain high following these checks, it might be that the model is not appropriate for
the direct rainfall approach.
A common and useful check of results from direct rainfall modelling is to compare results to those from a
conventional traditional hydrologic model. If there are significant differences between the two results, these
should be investigated. While this is not a true calibration, traditional hydrologic models have been well
accepted for many years so performance is well understood and this is an “independent” assessment.
Direct rainfall (rainfall-on-grid) is becoming increasingly important for road drainage and flood design in a
range of applications. While this approach can be applied in almost all drainage studies, most value is for
designs for both cross and longitudinal drainage for flat terrain and catchments, especially where flow is
poorly defined and flow is diverted across catchment boundaries and for urban catchments.
Breakout 12: Direct Rainfall (Rainfall on Grid) Model Setup
Rainfall on grid is sometimes used in road design on flat terrain where flow is poorly defined and passes through
several drainage structures on a single flow path.
There are several approaches to developing a direct rainfall model. This is an example of the application of the direct
rainfall method, taken from Ward et al, 2018. The Woolloomooloo Catchment is situated in Sydney’s inner-city
suburbs. The catchment area is approximately 1.6 km 2 and has been heavily urbanised. The Woolloomooloo
catchment has few open spaces or pervious areas. In addition to this, the catchment is characterised by undulating
terrain and contains known depression storage. The catchment drains to the harbour through a pit and pipe network,
with the streets acting as overland flow paths. This makes it a complicated system to assess with direct rainfall
methods which generally rely on the digital elevation model to clearly define the flow path.

Figure 6.20: Direct rainfall example 1 – catchment

The hydrologic inputs were developed in DRAINS (O’Loughlin and Stack 2014) using the ARR2019 recommended
techniques. The Woolloomooloo hydraulic model uses the TUFLOW software and was first developed for the
Woolloomooloo Flood Study (WMAwater 2012) and has since been updated for the Woolloomooloo Floodplain Risk
Management Study (WMAwater 2014).
In order to assess the impact of rainfall configuration on flood simulations, two different rainfall inputs were assessed:


• Concentrated Direct Rainfall, where rain was applied with varying losses for different surfaces – separated by
their perviousness and whether they were directly connected or indirectly connected, and
• Direct Rainfall on Grid where rainfall is applied to every active grid cell.
For both methods of applying direct rainfall; concentrated direct rainfall and TUFLOW routed direct rainfall, three initial
conditions scenarios were assessed.
That is:
1. No accounting for rainfall lost to depression storage
2. Accounting for depression storage loss by reducing the Initial Loss
3. Accounting for depression storage using a restart file, which reapplied the conditions from the last time step to
the model.
The run configurations used in the volume assessment are listed in Table 6.11.
Table 6.11: Example 1 – Model configuration
Hydrologic Model Direct Rainfall Direct Rainfall (standard)

Routed (DRAINS) (Concentrated Losses)
Input Scale Block Scale Site Grid Cell - 4m²

Direct Rainfall Applied Direct Rainfall Applied
Direct Rainfall with Initial Direct Rainfall with Initial
Loss, less the average depth Loss, less the average depth
Inflows from hydrologic on grid on grid
Runs
model
Direct Rainfall applied with Direct Rainfall applied with
the initial conditions adopted the initial conditions adopted
from the final time step of the from the final time step of the
initial run initial run
The hydrograph outputs of these runs are shown in Figure 6.20. It is clear that overland flow is significantly
underrepresented in the direct rainfall models when compared directly to the DRAINS hydrologic model.

Figure 6.21: TUFLOW routed direct rainfall hydrograph comparison

Rational Method
The Rational Method has been previously recommended for analysis of design floods throughout Australia
for many years. It is a simple formula that calculates design flood peak discharges from design rainfall.
Where Rational Method parameters have been related to measurable catchment characteristics, it is a
regional flood frequency method.
This guide does not endorse the use of the Rational Method except for limited applications on very small
“artificial” type catchments such as road pavement areas and developed areas in the road corridor used for
assessment of minor table drains for example. The applications where the method has been used in the past
have included rural and urban catchments contributing to cross drainage structures. This guide therefore
now recommends either the RFFE or runoff routing methods or more complex advanced methods for these
applications.
Road Designers should seek advice from an experienced hydrologist regarding other appropriate methods
for the specific project where the Rational Method is seen as an appropriate method.
This guide therefore does not provide advice on the application of the Rational Method for any applications
except for the limited scope noted here.

The Rational Method Formula is:
𝑄𝑦 = 𝑘 × 𝐶𝑦 × 𝐼𝑡𝑐,𝑦 × 𝐴
5
where
Qy = Peak flow rate (m3/s) for AEP
Scaling factor which is 0.278 when catchment area (A) is km2 and is 0.00287 when
k =
catchment area (A) is hectares
Cy = Runoff coefficient for Y% AEP
Itc,y = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for duration tc (h) and Y% AEP
tc = Time of concentration (h)
A = Area of catchment in km2 or hectares
There are two parameters that must be estimated to apply the Rational Method, these are the runoff
coefficient and the time of concentration. Catchment area is estimated from maps or digital topographic data.
The time of concentration tc for a catchment is defined as the time taken for water to flow from the most
remote point on the catchment to the outlet, which is the same as the time taken from the start of rainfall until
all of the catchment is simultaneously contributing to flow at the outlet. An upper limit of 15 minutes for the tc
is recommended Rational Method applications.
For the limited application of surface runoff on road pavements and small neighbouring artificial catchments
the time of concentration can be calculated using the kinematic wave equation.
There are many different ways of calculating the time of concentration, which use a range of different
empirical or partly physically based formulas. In many cases, these formulas are applied in design packages
such as 12D for example. In some cases, the methods in these design packages are based on considerable
experience, though often limited hydrologic data. The methods included in the design packages can be used
in cases where the Rational Method is assessed as being appropriate to apply.
However many of the limited Rational Method applications that are suggested for this guide are for very
small catchments with simple geometry. In these cases, the kinematic wave equation is an appropriate
method, though it is not the only possibility.
The kinematic wave equation for overland travel time, as described in QUDM (IPWEAQ, 2017) may be used.
However, it should only be applied to planes of sheet flow that are homogenous in slope and roughness
such as road pavements. Thus, travel times need to be determined separately for areas of different slope or
roughness.
6.94 (𝐿. 𝑛∗ )0.6

𝑡= 6
𝐼 0.4 × 𝑆 0.3
where
t = Overland travel time (min)

L = Overland sheet flow path length (m)
n* = Surface roughness/retardance coefficient
I = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
S = Slope of surface (m/m)
Typical values for n* are presented in Table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Surface roughness values n* for use in kinematic wave equation
Surface type Horton’s roughness coefficient n*

Concrete or Asphalt 0.010 – 0.013
Bare Sand 0.010 – 0.016
Gravelled Surface 0.012 – 0.030
Bare Clay-Loam Soil (eroded) 0.012 - 0.033
Sparse Vegetation 0.053 – 0.130
Short Grass Paddock 0.100 – 0.200
Lawns 0.170 – 0.480
Note: Table sourced from QUDM Table 4.6.5. The surface roughness/retardance coefficient n* is similar to but not
identical to Manning’s ‘n’ for surface roughness.
It is recommended that the runoff coefficient should be in the range 0.9 to 1.0 for the particular applications
referenced here, since these are all small catchments generally with high runoff characteristics.
As noted above this guide recommends the use of the Rational Method be limited to small developed
catchments in the road corridor, typically used for assessment kerb flow or minor table drains. Appendix D
provides, for information only, more detailed material on the Rational Method and its application as
presented in previous versions of this guide – this material is superseded.
Detailed examples of the Rational Method can also be found in both QUDM and in ARR 1987. It should be
noted that although the Rational Method was developed using the 1987 IFD it is recommended that the
method be applied using the latest IFD grids (BoM 2016).
6.6.4 Recommended Methods Comparisons
Comparisons between the different methods discussed in Section 6.6 are shown in the worked examples
below. It is good practice to compare two different methods and see if they are similar as in the plot shown
Breakout 13. Where a divergence in solutions exists, logical reasons for this should be considered.

Breakout 13: At site Flood Frequency Analysis vs Runoff Routed
A comparison example showing an at-site Flood Frequency Analysis, hydrologic model and RFFE results for a
gauged location are presented in Figure 6.22. In this example the rainfall record for the catchment used in the IFD is
significantly shorter than the flow record. A mismatch was found between the standard design inputs and the FFA
design quantile estimates. The 90% pre-burst depth and a temporal pattern was added to the burst temporal pattern
to form a complete storm. This resulted in the flows which show a good correlation to the FFA. The RFFE method has
a similar slope to the FFA however the mean flow is higher possibly due to known issues with the rating curves in this
region that may not have been accounted for in the RFFE method.
Figure 6.22: Method Comparison


Breakout 14: Runoff Routed vs Direct Rainfall
A This example shows a comparison between the direct rainfall and lumped inflow methodologies. To check the
robustness of a direct rainfall model set up on a catchment, a traditional runoff routing model can be established of a
catchment. Figure 6.23 below compares the two approaches at a point of interest in the catchment. From the figure it
can be seen that the traditional runoff routing model produces a higher flow than the direct rainfall model. This is
typically caused by rainfall being “stuck on the grid” of the direct rainfall model and not running off. This can be clearly
seen that the rainfall runoff model produces more runoff with the same losses.
Figure 6.23: Lumped Inflow vs. Direct Rainfall


Breakout 15: Direct Rainfall Volume Analysis
This example shows a comparison between the total design rainfall depth applied to a direct rainfall model and how
this is distributed across different facets of the hydraulic model.
Direct rainfall models are prone to water being “trapped” on the grid. The volume of water left on the grid at the end of
the simulation was calculated. Figure 6.24 is a simple graph of the volume/area results. The volumes on the
catchment have been divided by the area to present a cumulative depth curve. This is directly comparable to the IFD
depth, the depth of the losses applied, and the depth of water remaining on the grid in this particular case. An average
depth of 15mm is left on the grid. This indicates that a significant volume of the rainfall is being left on the grid.
Methods such as pre-wetting the catchment should be considered.
Figure 6.24: Direct rainfall volume analysis

6.7 Design Inputs
6.7.1 Introduction
Design rainfalls are needed in practically every road drainage and flood application and accurate estimates
of this critical design component are essential to ensure that the results are as robust as possible.
This Guide describes the use of ARR2019 and this reference is acknowledged.
Actual rainfall occurrence is complex and highly variable. The representation of rainfall as a probabilistic
input to flood analyses must extract relevant information for the analysis. Ideally, the space-time variation of
rainfall over a catchment would be represented as a moving space-time field of rainfall at the appropriate
spatial and temporal resolution.

Rainfall related design inputs to flood estimates must represent four main characteristics, as follows:
• Rainfall depth or intensity for a point or regionally across a catchment, outlined in Section 6.7.3.
• Duration of the rainfall event, with the critical storm duration estimated using the runoff routing models
discussed in Section 6.6.3 following guidance in the appropriate manual.
• Temporal pattern(or distribution in time) of the rainfall event, outlined in Section 6.7.5.
• Spatial pattern (or distribution across the catchment) of the rainfall event. Most road design projects will
apply a uniform spatial distribution of rainfall, though the rainfall may vary spatially for complex or large
catchments. In these cases, runoff routing models can analyse spatially variable rainfall, and guidance is
provided for models discussed in Section 6.6.3.
The approach to applying these characteristics to rainfall data used in flood estimation must simplify the
complex characteristics of actual rainfall events to extract the parameters that can be applied to reliably
estimate design floods.
The design inputs relating to rainfall can be extracted from:

• Australian Rainfall and Runoff (Ball et al, 2019)
• Bureau of Meteorology website
• ARR project reports
•
Australian Rainfall and Runoff data hub (2022b).
The approach to estimating the rainfall related design inputs is described in this section while the means of
using these inputs to calculate design floods is covered in Section 6.6.
6.7.2 ARR Data Hub
While ARR2019 provides the methods for calculating and applying design rainfall data for road drainage and
flood analysis, the most convenient method of extracting the data is using the Australian Rainfall and Runoff
Data Hub (ARR Data Hub 2022b), which has been developed with the objective of allowing a simple
approach to obtaining the rainfall data and making it available for input to the design process. This approach
also minimizes human errors and is readily reproducible. It is recommended that a printout of the ARR Data
Hub values used be included as an appendix to the study.
It is noted that the ARR Data Hub provides a range of other design inputs for flood estimation as well as
design rainfall.

Breakout 16: ARR Data Hub
Design inputs (other than the IFD) are available from the ARR Data Hub. In this example, information for a catchment
in Millers Point in Sydney has been extracted from the ARR Data Hub. Figure 6.25 shows the initial landing page
where the catchment centroid is input. Figure 6.25 shows the results page.
Figure 6.25: ARR Data Hub – data extraction window

6.7.3 Design Rainfall
The development and implementation of design rainfalls are described in ARR2019 Book 2 Chapter 3.
Design rainfalls are a probabilistic or statistically based estimate of the likelihood of a specific rainfall depth
being recorded at a particular location within a defined duration. This is generally classified by an Annual
Exceedance Probability (AEP) or Exceedances per Year (EY).

It is also noted that ARR2019 presents design rainfall as depths and not as intensity. This is consistent with
the methods recommended for estimating design floods from rainfall, which generally apply rainfall depth
rather than intensity.
There are five classes of design rainfall that are used on road drainage and flood design and these are listed
in Table 6.13. It should be noted that the design rainfalls use a different frequency descriptor to the rest of
ARR2019.
Table 6.13: Classes of design rainfall
Design rainfall class Frequency Probability range Application to road design

Very frequent design Very frequent 12 EY to 1 EY • Low priority roads
rainfalls • Temporary works
• Time of closure
• Water quality
Standard probability Frequent 1 EY to 10% AEP • Low priority roads
• Time of closure
• Longitudinal drainage
• Flood impacts
Infrequent 10% to 1% AEP • Standard road flood
immunity
• Time of closure
• Flood impacts
Rare design rainfalls Rare 1 in 100 AEP to 1 in 2000 • Major roads
AEP • Bridge design
• Flood impacts
Probable Maximum Extreme Rarer than 1 in 2000 AEP • Rarely used for flood
Precipitation impact assessment
• Tunnel portals
The design rainfall data provided in ARR was developed by the Bureau of Meteorology.
The analysis used all available suitable rainfall stations with more than 30 years of record for daily read
stations and more than 8 years for continuous recording stations. There were more than 8,000 daily read
stations and more than 2,000 continuous recording stations spread throughout Australia, which were
analysed, and the results included in the regional presentation.
Frequency analysis was carried out for each of these stations and the data was gridded and mapped to
provide rainfall frequency results for all locations in Australia. The data is gridded with a resolution of 0.025
degrees.
Design rainfalls are presented in ARR and by the Bureau of Meteorology for three ranges as follows:
• Very frequent: 12 EY to 0.2 EY
• Frequent and infrequent: 1 EY to 1% AEP
• Rare: 1 in 100 AEP to 1 in 2,000 AEP.
A number of regions have developed their own design rainfalls using a similar approach.

Breakout 17: Design Rainfall Extraction
An example of the output from the Bureau of Meteorology website is shown below. The website allows for design
rainfall to be downloaded for up to 50 catchments at a time via the use of a csv. Both rainfall depths (mm) and
intensities (mm/h) can be downloaded from the results page as shown in Figure 6.26. The results can also be
displayed in chart format as shown in Figure 6.27.
A number of regions have developed their own design rainfalls using a similar approach.
Figure 6.26: Bureau of Meteorology design rainfall output (table)

Source: Bureau of Meteorology Design Rainfall Data System (2016).

Figure 6.27: Bureau of Meteorology design rainfall output (chart)


6.7.4 Areal Reduction Factors
The design rainfall depths described above in Section 6.7.3 are provided for specific points in a catchment
rather than for the whole catchment. Most flood related projects though require rainfall estimates for a whole
catchment area and the design rainfalls at a point may not be representative of the whole catchment. The
ratio between the design values of areal catchment average rainfall and point rainfall, computed for the same
duration and Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), is called the Areal Reduction Factor (ARF). This allows
for the fact that larger catchments are less likely than smaller catchments to experience high intensity storms
simultaneously over the whole of the catchment area.
The areal reduction factor provides a correction between the catchment rainfall and the point rainfall for a
given AEP and duration and therefore helps to ensure a probability neutral transformation of design rainfall
into a design flood peak. In the case of flood estimation for road design, ARFs need to be applied to the
calculated design point rainfalls to reduce the rainfall to the depth expected for the total catchment area,
which will be less than the point rainfall. Larger catchments will have a smaller ARF, meaning that the point
rainfall is reduced by a greater amount. Where there are multiple point of interest the ARF should be applied
to each crossing.
As described in ARR2019, the ARF estimates provided have been derived from analysis of rainfall data
throughout Australia for locations where the density of rainfall stations is sufficient to allow reliable estimates
of the ARF.
ARR2019 has formulae for a range of combinations of catchment area, duration, AEP and location in
Australia. These formulae are complex but can be applied in design situations. However, the ARR Data Hub
allows calculation of ARF values for any location in Australia. Figure 6.29 shows the screen output for the
calculation of ARFs. Areal reduction factors should apply for any catchment larger than 1 km 2, but the value
is effectively close to 1.0 for all small catchments.
Different Areal Reduction Factors apply for different regions of Australia, with the regions shown in
Figure 6.28.

Figure 6.28: Areal Reduction Factor regions


Figure 6.29: Areal Reduction Factor results from the ARR Data Hub

Breakout 18: Areal Reduction Factors
It is important to note that areal reduction factors are calculated to the point of interest. One catchment in each state
and territory of Australia is provided as a worked example. The catchments are of various sizes and located within
different ARF regions. Figure 6.30 shows the locations of the catchments used in the example. Figure 6.30 provides
the catchment details, the durations selected for the example calculations and the method for assessment. The
calculation of ARF is dependent on both duration and area, with different equations applicable for different areas and
durations. Typically this calculation is done by the software package.
Figure 6.30: Example catchments selected for the worked example overlain on the ARF regions
Table 6.14: Catchment details
Catchment ID Basin name Catchment Selected Selected Method and region

area (km2) Duration AEP (%)
(h)
A McArthur 19,607 12 1 Equations not applicable
River, NT
B Brisbane 13,572 18 1 Interpolate between short and
River, long duration ARFs – East
QLD Coast North
C Hawkesbury 21,961 48 1 Long duration ARF equation –
River, South East Coast
NSW
D Port Creek, 7 12 1 Compute ARF(10km2) then
TAS interpolate ARF for area


E Yarra River, 4,110 18 1 Interpolate between short and
VIC long duration ARFs – Southern
Temperate
F Mambray 5,953 48 1 Long duration ARF equation –
Coast, SA for Southern Semi-arid and
Inland Arid
G Avon River, 117,705 - 1 Equations not applicable, do
WA joint probability
model/frequency analysis
Catchment A
For a catchment area between 1000 and 30,000 km 2, ARR2019 methodology states the generalised equations are not
applicable for short durations up to 12 hours.
Catchment G
As the catchment area is greater than 30,000 km2, ARR2019 suggests that partial area storms should be explicitly
modelled using Monte Carlo simulation or another joint probability approach. This is because the largest catchments
used to estimate ARF were 30,000 km2 which sets the upper limit of the applicability of the ARF equations. As the
catchment area increases beyond 30,000 km 2 it becomes increasingly likely that a storm band would only influence
part of the overall catchment area.
Catchment B
For a catchment area between 1000 and 30,000 km 2 and a duration between 12 and 24 hours, ARR2019
methodology is:
a. Compute ARF(24h) using the long duration ARF equation and ARF coefficients for durations
between 24 and 168 hours:
1 − 𝑎(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑏 − 𝑐 log10 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛). 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛–𝑑

𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 1, + 𝑒𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑓 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑔 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
{ [ + ℎ10𝑖𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 1440 (0.3 + log (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
10 ]}
The ARF coefficients for the East Coast North region are:
𝑎 = 0.327, 𝑏 = 0.241, 𝑐 = 0.448, 𝑑 = 0.36, 𝑒 = 0.00096, 𝑓 = 0.48, 𝑔 =– 0.21, ℎ = 0.012, 𝑖 =– 0.0013
1 − 0.327(135720.241 − 0.448 log10 1440). 1440–0.36

0.48 × 1440–0.21 (0.3 + log (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [+ 0.00096 × 13572 10 ]}
1440
+ 0.012 × 10–0.0013×135721440 (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.763} = 0.763

b. Compute ARF(12h) using the short duration ARF equation:
1 − 0.287(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.265 − 0.439 log10 (𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)). 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 –0.36
+ 2.26 × 10–3 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 0.226 × 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛0.125 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 1,
(𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛−180)2
(–0.021 )
1440
{ [+ 0.0141 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 0.213 × 10 × (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))]}

1 − 0.287(135720.265 − 0.439 log10 (720)). 720–0.36

𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [ + 2.26 × 10–3 × 135720.226 × 7200.125 (0.3 + log10 (0.01)) ]}
(720−180)2
(–0.021 )
+ 0.0141 × 135720.213 × 10 1440 × (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.624} = 0.624

c. Interpolate ARF using the equation for durations between 12 and 24 hours:
(𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 720)
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ + (𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ − 𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ )
720
(1080 − 720)
𝐴𝑅𝐹18ℎ = 0.624 + (0.763 − 0.624) = 0.694
720
Catchment C
For a catchment area between 1000 and 30,000 km 2 and a duration of 24 hours or more, ARR2019 methodology is to
apply the long duration ARF equation:

𝑓 𝑔
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [ + 𝑒𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃)) ]}
+ ℎ10𝑖𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 1440 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
The ARF coefficients for the South East Coast region are:
𝑎 = 0.06, 𝑏 = 0.361, 𝑐 = 0, 𝑑 = 0.317, 𝑒 = 0.0000811, 𝑓 = 0.651, 𝑔 = 0, ℎ = 0, 𝑖 = 0
1 − 0.06(219610.361 − 0 log10 2880). 2880–0.317

0.651 28800 (0.3 + log (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹48ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [+ 0.0000811 × 21961 10 ]}
2880
+ 0 × 100×219611440 (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹48ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.730} = 0.73
Catchment D
For a catchment area between 1 and 10 km2 and a duration of up to 12 hours, ARR2019 methodology is:
a. Compute ARF(10km2) using the short duration ARF equation:
1 − 0.287(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.265 − 0.439 log10 (𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)). 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛–0.36

𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [ + 2.26 × 10–3 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.226 × 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛0.125 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃)) ]}
(–0.021 )
+ 0.0141 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.213 × 10 1440 × (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
1 − 0.287(100.265 − 0.439 log10 (720)). 720–0.36
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [ + 2.26 × 10–3 × 100.226 × 7200.125 (0.3 + log10 (0.01)) ]}
(720−180)2
(–0.021 )
+ 0.0141 × 100.213 × 10 1440 × (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.969} = 0.969
b. Interpolate ARF for catchment area and selected duration using ARF equation for areas between 1 and
10 km2:


𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 1 − 0.6614(1 − 𝐴𝑅𝐹10𝑘𝑚2 )(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.4 − 1)
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 1 − 0.6614(1 − 0.97)(90.4 − 1) = 0.976
Catchment E
For a catchment area between 1000 and 30,000 km2 and a duration between 12 and 24 hours, ARR2019
methodology is:
a. Compute ARF(24h) using the long duration ARF equation and ARF coefficients for durations between 24
and 168 hours:
𝑓 𝑔
+ ℎ10𝑖𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 1440 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
The ARF coefficients for the Southern Temperate region are:

𝑎 = 0.158, 𝑏 = 0.276, 𝑐 = 0.372, 𝑑 = 0.315, 𝑒 = 0.000141, 𝑓 = 0.41, 𝑔 = 0.15, ℎ = 0.01, 𝑖 =– 0.0027
1 − 0.158(41100.276 − 0.372 log10 1440). 1440–0.315

0.41 × 14400.15 (0.3 + log (0.01))

𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [+ 0.000141 × 4110 10 ]}
1440
+ 0.01 × 10–0.0027×41101440 (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.838} = 0.838
b. Compute ARF(12h) using the short duration ARF equation:

1 − 0.287(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎0.265 − 0.439 log10 (𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)). 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 –0.36
+ 2.26 × 10–3 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 0.226 × 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛0.125 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 1,
(–0.021 )
0.213 1440
{ [+ 0.0141 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 10 × (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))]}
1 − 0.287(41100.265 − 0.439 log10 (720)). 720–0.36

𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [ + 2.26 × 10–3 × 41100.226 × 7200.125 (0.3 + log10 (0.01)) ]}
(720−180)2
0.213 (–0.021 )
+ 0.0141 × 4110 × 10 1440 × (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.733} = 0.733
c. Interpolate ARF using the equation for durations between 12 and 24 hours:
(𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 720)
𝐴𝑅𝐹 = 𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ + (𝐴𝑅𝐹24ℎ − 𝐴𝑅𝐹12ℎ )
720
(1080 − 720)
𝐴𝑅𝐹18ℎ = 0.733 + (0.838 − 0.733) = 0.786
720
Catchment F
As catchment F lies within two ARF regions (see Figure 6.31), the ARF should be calculated for the region that has
the largest overlap with the boundary of the catchment. As such, the ARF for catchment F is calculated for the
Southern Semi-arid region.

Figure 6.31: Catchment F covers two ARF regions

For a catchment area between 1000 and 30,000 km 2 and a duration of greater than 24 hours, ARR2019 methodology
is to apply the long duration ARF equation:

𝑓 𝑔
+ ℎ10𝑖𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 1440 (0.3 + log10 (𝐴𝐸𝑃))
The ARF coefficients for the Southern Semi-arid region are:

𝑎 = 0.254, 𝑏 = 0.247, 𝑐 = 0.403, 𝑑 = 0.351, 𝑒 = 0.0013, 𝑓 = 0.302, 𝑔 = 0.058, ℎ = 0, 𝑖 = 0
1 − 0.254(59530.247 − 0.403 log10 2880). 2880–0.351

0.302 × 28800.058 (0.3 + log (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹48ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 {1, [+ 0.0013 × 5953 10 ]}
2880
+ 0 × 100×59531440 (0.3 + log10 (0.01))
𝐴𝑅𝐹48ℎ = 𝑀𝑖𝑛{1, 0.840} = 0.84

6.7.5 Temporal Patterns
The distribution of rainfall in time is the temporal pattern. The design rainfall depths as described above
provide the total amount of rainfall and the temporal pattern provides the distribution of this rainfall in time
over the duration of the total rainfall. This is relevant for runoff routing and direct rainfall methods.
In the past, many flood estimation methods simply required the rainfall depth or intensity, but most currently
accepted procedures also need the distribution of rainfall in time since these currently adopted models also
calculate the complete flood hydrograph as well as the peak. The distribution of rainfall in time is needed to
provide this more detailed result. The temporal patterns are needed for application of runoff routing models
or rainfall on grid analyses for example, which are commonly used for road drainage designs.
The development of temporal patterns to apply for any location throughout Australia is described in
ARR2019 Book 2 Chapter 5.
The distribution of rainfall is complex and every storm is unique. The objective of developing and applying
temporal patterns is to ensure that the rainfall used as an input to the hydrology analysis can convert design
rainfall into an appropriate design flood. The simple methods that have been applied in the past have not
been sufficiently robust to carry out this conversion reliably. The methods adopted in ARR2019 therefore
have been developed with more complete procedures based on extensive recorded data to improve this
analysis result.
The previous means of including temporal patterns into hydrologic modelling was by applying an “average”
temporal pattern designed to transfer rainfall of a defined AEP to a flood peak of the same AEP. The
average temporal pattern was developed from analysis of recorded rainfall data. However, this approach had
been found to perform poorly in many applications so an alternative approach is now recommended.
The current method of applying temporal patterns is based on recorded or actual rainfall distribution patterns.
The temporal patterns recommended in ARR2019 have been extracted from all pluviograph stations in
Australia with good quality records and a long period of record. The analysis of these records allowed the
complete storms to be categorized into the main storm burst as well as the rainfall occurring before this
burst, the “pre-burst” and the rainfall after the end of the main rainfall burst. This categorisation is illustrated
for a typical storm in Figure 6.32, taken from ARR2019.

Figure 6.32: Typical storm components

For any particular rainfall station, the recorded storms show a wide range of different patterns and these
different patterns can result in a wide range of flood hydrograph peaks and shapes. Since any of these
rainfall distributions may be possible, and have actually been recorded at the pluviograph stations, it is
difficult to decide on the most appropriate pattern to apply in design cases. The previously adopted average
pattern was an attempt to provide this average but was not particularly effective or consistent.
The recommended temporal patterns to be applied has suggested the analysis of an ensemble of temporal
patterns or consideration of historical patterns.
Australia is divided into regions and temporal patterns have been prepared for each region with data
extracted from the available pluviograph stations. The regions used for temporal patterns are based on the
natural resource management sub-regions defined by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. The map of
the regions is given as Figure 6.33.

Figure 6.33: Temporal pattern regions

ARR2019 has published a sample of the historical temporal patterns which can be analysed as an ensemble
of patterns to allow a better representation of the possible flood peaks and hydrograph shapes that may be
possible for a particular catchment.
The temporal patterns for any location in Australia can be sourced from the ARR Data Hub, where a sample
of temporal patterns can be downloaded for any region.
The standard temporal patterns are published for a point location. However, the distribution of rainfall during
a storm over a catchment area has been found to be different from the point estimate. ARR2019 therefore
also has published areal rainfall temporal patterns which provide patterns that can be applied to catchments
larger than 75 km2.
In addition to the temporal patterns for a point, pre-burst rainfalls and areal averaged temporal patterns can
also be downloaded.
Breakout 19: Temporal Pattern Selection
ARR2019 provides an ensemble of 10 temporal patterns for each duration of storm burst that are unique to the
temporal pattern regions (see Figure 6.33). These examples provide some guidance for how to select a critical
duration and temporal pattern based on either the hydrologic model or the hydraulic model. They have been adapted
from the ARR 2016 Case Study Rural and Urban reports undertaken by WMAwater for OEH, (WMAwater, 2018a,
WMAwater, 2018b).

Critical duration and temporal pattern selection in the hydrologic model
Areal temporal patterns for the 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hour durations were run through the hydrological model. The
critical duration was identified using a box plot of the peak flow from the ensembles of all durations for the 10% and
1% AEP event (as recommended in ARR2019 Book 2 Chapter 5 Section 5.9.2, Reference 3).
The area of interest for this example is Newry Island. Box plots of the ensemble events for the 1% AEP event and
10% AEP event for this location are presented below (Figure 6.34). The 24 hour duration is critical in both AEPs.
Figure 6.34: 1% AEP and 10% AEP boxplots for Newry Island

Figure 6.35 shows the 10 (ten) temporal pattern hydrographs and the ARR 1987 temporal pattern using the 2016 IFD
(to show sensitivity to the changing pattern). Temporal pattern 3 was chosen as the representative mean pattern to
run in the hydraulic model. Temporal pattern 3 is relatively slow rising. Due to the long run time of the hydraulic model
(approximately 15 hours), only the selected mean temporal pattern was run in the hydraulic model.
Figure 6.35: Temporal pattern hydrographs for the 1% AEP 24 hour critical duration at Newry Island
2500
2000
1500
Flow (m3/s)
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (hours)
TP 1 TP 2 TP 3 TP 4
TP 5 TP 6 TP 7 TP 8
TP 9 TP 10 TP ARR 1987 (2016 IFD) mean peak
Critical duration and temporal pattern in the hydraulic model
Critical duration can also be assessed based on level obtained in results from the hydraulic model. This example uses
the same catchment as is used in Breakout 12, however paired with a rainfall-runoff model.
The gridded results out of a 2D model allow critical duration to be assessed spatially.
A spatial grid of the critical duration was developed for Figure 6.36. This grid was developed using the following steps:
1. Create a mean grid for each duration using a grid calculation tool (this can be done in commonly used GIS
programs.

2. Envelope the mean duration grids to create one grid showing where the different durations are critical (Figure
6.36).
In urban areas, this step could also be carried out after filtering has taken place as small depths are not as critical.
Based on this assessment, and the known 4 hotspots of flooding, the 60 min critical duration would be selected.

Figure 6.36: Critical duration grid

Selection of a mean temporal pattern
A representative mean temporal pattern was selected based on flood levels across the catchment by comparing the
peak flood levels of each temporal pattern to the average (mean) peak flood levels. This can be evaluated from point
levels at the locations of interest and selecting the pattern just above the mean. However, this was also investigated
spatially by taking the level grid of each temporal pattern in the 60min ensemble and doing a gridded difference
calculation, e.g.

Although it is just under the mean level, temporal pattern 7 provides the best fit across the catchment. Figure 6.37
below shows the level difference between the ensemble pattern and the mean level of the ensemble.
Figure 6.37: Peak flood level difference between the chosen temporal pattern (TP 7) and the mean grid

Peak flood levels in urban environments are usually a better indicator of flooding behaviour than the overland or
drainage flow. However, in this catchment, as the trunk drainage has a significant role in the flooding behaviour, the
selected mean temporal pattern for the trunk drainage system was also examined and found to be consistent with the
remainder of the catchment (Figure 6.38).
Figure 6.38: 1% AEP 60 minute duration Trunk Drainage Hydrographs – Fourth Avenue Trunk Drainage

Breakout 20: Critical Event Selection in Road Drainage Design
A schematic of a catchment with a main road which is to be upgraded traverses a river as shown below. The
catchment is located within the East Coast North temporal pattern region. Subcatchments to the cross-drainage
structures beneath the road likely to be upgraded are shown. An assessment was completed to determine the
appropriate sizing of these structures in order to give the road flood immunity in a 1% AEP event, and to ensure
flooding impacts caused by upgrades to the existing structures are mitigated to acceptable levels as nominated by the
local Council and state government body and do not worsen the existing condition.
Figure 6.39: Schematic of four cross-drainage structures assessed to mitigate flooding impacts
Each crossing was assessed to determine the local sub-catchment critical flows and levels; however, the system was
also assessed as a whole (i.e. to the catchment outlet). The critical duration and temporal pattern at each of the
structure locations (subcatchment outlets) and for the total catchment was determined using boxplots of the hydrologic
model. The results for the 1% AEP event are shown in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15: 1% AEP critical duration and temporal patterns at the points of interest
Structure Critical Event (from Area (km2) ARF (1% AEP)

hydrology)
1 3-hour, Temporal Pattern 7 20 0.886
2 60-minute, Temporal Pattern 3 0.962
3 10
2-hour, Temporal Pattern 8 14 0.894
4 2-hour, Temporal Pattern 3 12 0.899
Total catchment 9-hour, Temporal Pattern 6 160 0.894
For each of the critical event scenarios above, it is advised to run one duration above and one duration below the
duration deemed to be critical in the hydraulic model, in particular for cases where storage is important (such as in this
case, where water is attenuated upstream of the raised road embankment). The total number of combinations to run
through the hydraulic model to evaluate each point of interest equates to 15 runs. The purpose of this exercise is to
determine that the hydrologic model predictions translate well to the hydraulic model as the hydrologic model cannot
account for storage and attenuation the same extent as a hydraulic model.
Rationalising the selected events
Once run through the hydraulic model, it was found that the critical duration for subcatchment 3 was the longer 3-hour
TP2 event rather than 2-hour TP8 event as originally estimated by the hydrologic model.

Breakout 20: Critical Event Selection in Road Drainage Design
The peak flows generated by each of the ten temporal patterns can be ranked in ascending order as shown in Figure
6.40. This output comes from the hydrologic model.
Figure 6.40: Hydrologic model output – ranked peak flows and corresponding temporal patterns
To minimise the number of runs to complete within a hydraulic model, it is often possible to rationalise the temporal
pattern selection. This can be done in a few ways. In this example, it is possible to rationalise the selection of the
temporal pattern for the two subcatchments experiencing a 3-hour critical duration, these being locations 1 and 3.
Analysis of the ranked temporal pattern results shows that although TP7 was selected as being the critical temporal
pattern at location 1, peak flow results at both locations 1 and 3 show TP9 as being very close to the peak flows for
the selected critical temporal patterns. Therefore, TP9 was adopted at both locations 1 and 3. This reduced the total
amount of future runs to complete in the hydraulic model.
6.7.6 Specialist Analysis
This guide provides guidance for generally routine road flood and drainage design. However, in some larger
and specialist applications, more complex and detailed analysis of rainfall data may be useful. These are not
covered here but advice on spatial rainfall distributions and continuous rainfall analysis is provided in Book 2
of ARR2019.
6.7.7 Design Loss
General
Design losses are needed for runoff routing model analysis, with different values for rural and urban
catchments and also with varying values for different parts of Australia.
As described in ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 3, loss is defined as the precipitation that does not appear as
direct runoff, and is attributed to the following key processes:
• Interception by vegetation.

• Infiltration into the soil.

• Retention on the surface (depression storage).
• Transmission loss through the stream bed and banks.
• Detention basins.
For the routine application of runoff routing models to road drainage design, the initial loss – continuing loss
approach is recommended, as illustrated in Figure 6.41.
Figure 6.41: Initial loss – continuing loss model

For some specific specialist applications, alternative loss models may be more appropriate, and these are
described in ARR. Some states have developed their own approaches based on the ARR work.
Rural catchments
ARR has developed regional loss estimates for rural catchments which are discussed in ARR2019 Book 5
Chapter 3 where regional parameter estimation method was developed and recommended for application
with runoff routing models. ARR2019 provides equations for estimating initial and continuing losses and also
illustrates these with maps which are reproduced here as Figure 6.42 and Figure 6.43.

Figure 6.42: Recommended median initial loss (mm)

Figure 6.43: Recommended median continuing loss (mm/h)

However, the easiest method for calculating the regional estimates of design losses is with the ARR Data
Hub, where losses are calculated using the method recommended in ARR.
It is noted that these regional estimates of design losses are based on the regionalisation of a very limited
amount of gauged data so the results are uncertain. In particular NSW loss estimates from ARR2019 have
been found to be higher than expected, with uncertainties also present in other regions of Australia.
Therefore, wherever possible local streamflow data should be sought to refine these estimates and improve
this design input in conjunction with the regional estimate from ARR. No values are available for the arid
region.
Urban catchments
Losses for urban catchments are uncertain since there is limited available data. However, ARR2019 Book 5
Chapter 3 also provides advice on losses for urban catchments that can be applied with runoff routing
models.
In urban areas, losses are especially complex with quite different loss conditions for impervious areas such
as roads and roof areas and pervious areas such as gardens and parks. The connection between these
different areas and the stream channel system is also complex. Losses in urban areas therefore need to be
considered for each individual catchment. However, ARR2019 provides guidance on this design input and
this guide provides advice on application of this to road design.
Urban catchments often include underground drainage systems, so the loss calculations need to ensure that
these systems are incorporated into the drainage system. Underground drainage is usually directly
connected to the main drainage systems.
The process for estimating losses for urban catchments involves the division of the catchment into the
components that affect losses and then estimating the appropriate losses for each component. These
components are:
• Directly Connected Areas, which consist of:
– impervious areas (e.g. roofs and paved areas) which are directly connected to the drainage system –
referred to as Direct Connected Impervious Areas (DCIA).
• Indirectly Connected Areas, which consist of:
– impervious areas which are not directly connected, runoff from which flows over pervious surfaces
before reaching the drainage system (e.g. a roof that discharges onto a lawn) – referred to as
Indirectly Connected Impervious Areas (ICIA).
– Pervious areas that interact with Indirectly Connected Impervious Areas, such as nature strips, garden
areas next to paved patios, etc.
• Pervious areas consisting of parklands and bushland that do not interact with impervious areas.
• Detention basins.
The loss models used in flood estimation generally divide the catchment into the pervious area and the
effective impervious area (EIA). The EIA is the impervious area that is “effectively” directly connected to the
waterway. It is calculated from the total impervious area (TIA) which can be measured from aerial
photographs or from design plans.
The process used for estimating the EIA and pervious area is to measure the TIA and then calculate the EIA
using the formula.
EIA = 𝑓 × 𝑇𝐼𝐴
7

where
EIA = Effective Impervious Area
f = Factor usually in the range of 0.5 to 0.7, depending on the catchment conditions
TIA = Total Impervious Area
The recommended losses for cross drainage catchments in urban areas is presented in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16: Urban catchment recommended losses
Area Type Recommended Initial Loss Recommended Continuing Loss

Effective Impervious Area Adopt an initial storm loss between 1 Assumed to be 0mm/hr
to 2 mm
Indirectly Connected Area A median ILs of 60 to 80% of the Continuing losses for south-eastern
recommended rural catchment ILs be Australia should be a typical value of
adopted 2.5mm/h, with a range of 1 to 3 mm/h,
with the value adjusted based on
engineering judgement and reviewing
the catchment characteristics such as
soil types, interaction of indirectly
connected impervious areas with

pervious areas etc and a range of 1 to
4 mm/h for all other areas of Australia
Urban pervious areas Use the same values as for rural catchments, referenced in section above
The advice here is provided for standard urban catchments generally required for road cross drainage
design. ARR2019 has more detailed advice for specialist applications.
Recommendations for road drainage design applications
An accurate assessment of losses is essential for all road design applications that use methods such as
runoff routing or direct rainfall.
6.7.8 Baseflow
General
Runoff in a stream consists of two major components, the surface runoff, which represents the rapid runoff
from rainfall after the loss has been satisfied and baseflow, which responds more slowly and represents
groundwater discharge. The design issues for baseflow in flood runoff is described in ARR2019 Book 5
Chapter 4.
Baseflow was poorly analysed in Australia before the publication of ARR2019. Many design flood studies
either neglect baseflow or incorporate it following the calculation of surface runoff.
Methods such as at-site flood frequency analysis or the RFFE include baseflow in their analysis results. The
principal methods where baseflow may need to be included are runoff routing and direct rainfall. Baseflow is
often a small component of the flow in urban catchments because of the rapid response. Baseflow is a
relatively minor component of most floods, including those required for road drainage design.
Baseflow characteristics are illustrated in Figure 6.44.

Figure 6.44: Baseflow characteristics in a flood hydrograph

ARR2019 includes a detailed discussion of baseflow and how it should be incorporated into design floods.
ARR2019 incorporates three parameters to characterise baseflow contributions to floods, as follows.
1. Baseflow Peak Factor: This factor is applied to the estimated surface runoff peak flow to give the value
of peak baseflow for a 10% AEP event.
2. Baseflow Volume Factor: This factor is applied to the estimated surface runoff volume to give the
volume of the baseflow for a 10% AEP event.
3. Baseflow Under Peak Factor: This factor is applied to the estimated surface runoff peak flow to give
the baseflow at the time of the peak surface runoff and can be determined from the Baseflow Peak
Factor, such that the Baseflow Under Peak Factor = 0.7 x Baseflow Peak Factor.
Figure 6.45 taken from ARR2019 has a decision tree approach for assessing the significance of baseflow in
flood design.

Figure 6.45: Decision tree for decision on baseflow

Where baseflow is expected to be a small component compared to the surface runoff, the design flood peak
can be adjusted up to approximately 5% to make an allowance for baseflow. This reflects approximately 30%
of the catchments mapped in Australia as shown in Figure 6.46.
While baseflow is a very large component of the event (a contribution of more than approximately 30% is
suggested, reflected by a Baseflow Peak Factor greater than 0.3), specific analysis of baseflow is needed.
Approximately 5% of Australian catchments, generally the areas of tropical north Australia, south-west
Western Australia and the south-east coastline of South Australia, fall into this category. The specific
approach of relevance will depend on local conditions and the practitioner is guided to the above references
to determine the most appropriate baseflow estimation technique.

Where baseflow is between approximately 5% and 30% of the surface runoff (Baseflow Peak Factor
between 0.05 and 0.3), a method as described in ARR should be used. It should be noted that baseflow
factors are calculated to the catchment outlet.
The significance of baseflow is mapped on-line for the ARR analysis with the general outline plotted in
Figure 6.46.
Figure 6.46: Preliminary assessment of baseflow peak factor for a 10% AEP event
The detailed analysis of baseflow is often neglected in design flood estimation for road drainage projects,
though it must be remembered that this could underestimate flood peaks and flood duration, especially for
smaller events.
The detailed analysis procedure is provided in ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 4 and is not included here.
Recommendations for road drainage design applications
While many applications for road drainage design can neglect the influence of baseflow, baseflow should be
considered in road drainage design for some specific applications including:
• Designs in regions where baseflow is identified as a significant influence on floods, as illustrated in
Figure 6.46.
• Analysis for times of closure, where complete hydrographs are needed and where low flows become
important, especially for roads with a low flood immunity. This is discussed more in Section 4.8.4 of this
guide.

• Designs for frequent floods.
6.7.9 Recommended Methods for Specific Road Design Applications
This section of the guide has described the recommended methods for completing flood and drainage design
for road projects. These descriptions are now consolidated to indicate the types of methods that need to be
considered for each component of flood and drainage design for road design.
It is noted that this section is concerned with hydrology, that is the calculation of flood discharges. The
calculation of flood levels, flow velocity and bridge and culvert sizing is the hydraulic component of the
design and is covered in Part 5B: Drainage – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways.
In addition to this part of the Guide to Road Design, the Austroads publication Guide to Bridge Technology
Part 8: Hydraulic Design of Waterway Structures (2019) includes hydraulic issues for bridge design, and this
guide can also be consulted for bridges and other major drainage works.
Simple rural catchments – cross drainage
This category is the most common drainage requirement for road planning and design. It provides the inflows
to cross drainage structures including bridges, culverts and floodways. This category includes relatively small
catchments where the flow is reasonably contained and there is no diversion to neighbouring catchments. In
many cases, floodplain storage may be insignificant and the peak discharge alone is sufficient for the design.
A flood hydrograph that considers flood volume is needed where there is a significant floodplain storage. If
the peak discharge is used without consideration of floodplain storage where there is a storage concern, the
design will result in larger structures than are necessary, and therefore the design should be adequate.
Calculation of peak discharge is relatively simple, but straightforward runoff routing models can be
prepared with regional parameters reasonably easily allowing flood hydrographs to be obtained.
It is not common to have recorded flood data or even anecdotal data for routine projects on small
catchments. In these cases, the method to be applied must be based on regionalised parameters. Formal or
anecdotal data should be sought in all cases however, and even minor amounts of data can improve the
reliability of the results, sometimes significantly.
Where a peak discharge only is adequate and there is no data available, the RFFE is recommended for
calculating design flood peak discharges. Where a flood hydrograph is also required, a runoff routing model,
using regional parameter estimates is recommended. It is good practice, especially for larger projects, to
consider using the two semi-independent methods together to add some confidence to the results.
While not completely necessary, direct rainfall methods can also be used for these types of catchments, but
the alternative better-established methods are recommended.
Complex rural catchments and floodplains – cross drainage
The previous category of simple rural catchments grades into the more complex category. The differences
here are that the complex category includes:
• Larger catchments
• Catchments with extensive floodplains and floodplain storage.
• catchments with several tributaries providing inflows and
• Catchments where flow timing is important.
• Catchments where flow may divert into neighbouring catchments, and

• Catchments with multiple outlets where flow from the catchment may cross the road with more than one
outlet point.
In this application, flood hydrographs are essential. The timing and volumes of floods flowing into the
floodplain need to be considered. The hydrology analysis for these catchments often provides the input to
sometimes complex hydraulic models.
These projects can include major streams so it is more likely to have local stream gauges, perhaps even at
the road crossing site itself. Therefore, methods should be capable of calibration, and at-site food
frequency analysis may be possible. Where possible at-site flood frequency analysis is recommended as a
check on the rainfall based methods that will be the basis of the hydrology inputs.
Runoff routing methods are well suited to this type of analysis and are generally recommended. These
methods can be applied for ungauged catchments with regional parameter estimates or they can be
calibrated to local recorded rainfall and flood data.
While runoff routing models have traditionally been the most commonly adopted method for these types of
catchments and are well suited to them, direct rainfall or rainfall-on-grid is also well suited to the problem.
Direct rainfall is well suited to the analysis of runoff in catchments where flow distribution is poorly defined
and where flow may be diverted across catchment boundaries.
Urban catchments – cross drainage

Urban catchments behave differently from rural catchments. In addition, cross drainage for urban catchments
is important since roads in urban areas often have more traffic and any impacts from flooding are more
sensitive because of the higher development density. Urban catchments generally have fewer stream
gauging stations measuring flow, but there may be more anecdotal information on flood levels.
There is no equivalent to the RFFE for urban catchments, so the general method recommended for cross
drainage for urban catchments is a runoff routing method. With the limited calibration data available for
urban regions, the models generally must be established with regional parameter estimates.
Direct rainfall methods are also well suited to urban catchments, though the cautions in the use of this
approach should be noted.
Longitudinal drainage
Longitudinal drainage includes table drains as well as some diversions along the road embankment towards
regional cross drainage structures.
In many situations, longitudinal drainage is a simple and routine design problem. These routine situations
occur if the volume of runoff in the longitudinal drainage system is low and where there is low risk of damage
to the road, or of runoff encroaching onto the road. In these situations, routine methods using the Rational
Method will be appropriate. However in more complex situations, where these conditions do not apply, and
where inflows need to be calculated for longitudinal drainage, runoff routing methods are generally
recommended since timing and flood volumes are important for this type of flow. Direct rainfall analysis is
also a useful approach for this type of catchment since the flow patterns may be complex and difficult to
determine from the basic topography.

Road corridor and pavement drainage
Runoff from the road surface and locally in the developed area of the road corridor generally involves only
small catchment areas which are difficult to analyse since there is almost no stream gauging that has ever
been carried out for these catchment types. While timing and flood volumes may be relevant for some
applications, in many cases, the catchment area and the volumes of flow are so small, design using only the
flood peak discharge may be sufficient.
In this case, the Rational Method can be applied to allow a simple and easily calculated flood. For larger or
more complex catchments, either runoff routing or direct rainfall methods can be applicable.
6.8 Design Software
6.8.1 Introduction
This section outlines software types that can be used for flood estimation projects. This guide is not focussed
on software packages but provides a description of methodology and procedures which may be implemented
by software packages.
Austroads and this guide do not endorse any particular software package but do provide information to assist
flood practitioners in selection of appropriate packages and some assistance on implementation.
There are two major categories of software discussed and each has a suitable range of applications. The
categories discussed here are the routine methods, though some specialist applications that are outside the
scope of this manual are suitable for particular applications. These categories are:
• Hydrology – calculation of flood discharges:
– Regional Flood Frequency Estimation (RFFE) – This is the standard ARR regional method for
calculating design flood peaks for small to medium ungauged catchments.
– Rainfall runoff (runoff-routing) models – These are the runoff-routing applications, which are a
common approach to estimating flood discharge hydrographs, and can be used for all sizes of
catchment, both rural and urban.
– Direct rainfall (rainfall on grid) methods – This application is where a two-dimensional hydraulic model
is used to calculate design flood inflows.
– At-site flood frequency analysis – This is the method of applying a statistical analysis to recorded
streamflow data to calculate design floods.
• Hydraulics – calculation of flood levels and flow velocities
– One-dimensional – This is used for calculation of flooding in simple channels.
– Two-dimensional – This approach is used where flood flow patterns are more complex and where
these flood patterns are not confined to simple channels or flow paths. Most 2D packages allow for 1D
links for bridges, culverts and confined channels.
• Design – software for road design
– Software packages used for road design can be used to carry out simple hydrology and hydraulic
analyses.

6.8.2 Hydrology
RFFE
This method is described in Section 6.6.3 of this guide and is a method developed as part of ARR2019.
Suitable documentation for the RFFE is provided in this guide and also in Book 3 Chapter 3 of ARR2019.
It is accessed using the Australian Rainfall and Runoff Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model (2022).
This method is a replacement for the rural rational methods that were used in many states.
Runoff-routing
The concepts and processes of runoff-routing models are described in Section 6.6.3 of this guide, where the
approach of representing the catchment are a conceptual model of catchment storage is discussed.
There are several packages implementing runoff-routing analyses that can be applied, and all have been
developed in Australia and are suitable for application to hydrology analysis for rural and urban catchments
throughout Australia.
The different packages are all developed from development work carried out in the 1960s by Laurenson
(1962, 1964).
Runoff-routing models can be applied to gauged or ungauged catchments and are very flexible in
application. Where software packages are required for hydrology calculations, runoff-routing models will be
the most appropriate applications.
RORB
RORB is a well-established Australian software package originally released by Monash University in 1975,
which has continued to be further developed through a number of versions since Laurenson et al (2010).
RORB can be downloaded for free from the website of Hydrology and Risk Consulting (HARC). The
download includes a comprehensive user manual.
Additional guidance on the application of RORB can be obtained from a website maintained by Tony Ladson:
https://tonyladson.wordpress.com/rorb/
XP-RAFTS
XP-RAFTS is another well-established runoff routing model also originally based on the methods developed
by Laurenson.
It is distributed by Innovyze and is also available in their ICM modelling suite, from the following website:
http://innovyze.com/products/xprafts/.
It is a robust runoff routing model that is used extensively throughout Australia and the Asia Pacific region for
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of storm water drainage and conveyance systems. XP-RAFTS uses the
Laurenson non-linear runoff routing procedure to develop a sub-area stormwater runoff hydrograph from
either an actual event (recorded rainfall time series) or design storms. A technical description of the software
can be found on the following website: http://innovyze.com/products/xprafts/xprafts-tech-desc.pdf.

WBNM
The Watershed Bounded Network Model (WBNM) was originally developed as part of a research at the
University of New South Wales by Dr Michael Boyd in the early 1970s, and continuing development has
been carried out since. The reference is Boyd et al (2002).
Details of the model can be found on the website http://wbnm.com.au/.
WBNM can be downloaded from the WBNM website: http://wbnm.com.au/index.php/downloads/.
URBS
URBS is the Unified River Basin Simulator and was developed from a basis on the RORB software in the
early 1990s (Carroll, 2012).
It is another implementation of the runoff routing principles developed by Laurenson and can be applied to a
range of urban or rural flood estimation projects.
Details on the software and contact for downloads can be found on the following website:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~doncarroll/contact.htm.
Storm Injector (Catchment SIM)

Storm Injector is a software product that can be used to assist in the application of a range of runoff routing
models and to produce results compatible with ARR2019, so it is a means of implementing the above runoff
routing models.
Software and download details are provided here: http://csse.com.au/csim_online_help/storm-injector.html.
Direct rainfall methods
Direct rainfall analysis is described in Section 6.6.3 of this guide and also in ARR2019 Book 5 Chapter 6.5
and also in an ARR Project Report Revision Project 15: Two-dimensional modelling of urban and rural
floodplains by Babister and Barton (Editors, 2016).
This analysis is implemented using a two-dimensional hydraulic model (described in Section 6.8.3).
At-site flood frequency analysis
Flood frequency analysis relies on the analysis of recorded flood records. This approach will only be possible
for limited application for road drainage design because of the limited availability of stream gauging records
on the catchments generally required for road design. Flood frequency analysis was applied however in the
development of the RFFE methodology.
Details of the analysis procedures are included in ARR2019 Book 3 Chapter 2.
There is one software package that implements modern flood frequency analysis procedures at the time of
writing. Other packages may be released in the future.
This package is called FLIKE and it is an extreme value analysis package that calculates the probability of
flood events based on historical records. It and was developed by Professor George Kuczera from the
School of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle, Australia.

The software offers:

• A range of probability models including Log-Normal, LPIII, Gumbel, Generalized Extreme Value (GEV)
and Generalised Pareto distributions
• Higher order L-moments for parameter estimation
• Bayesian inference methodology for estimation of distribution parameters which allows:
– the use of historic data outside of the gauged record
– ability to safely censor data
– incorporation of the multiple Grubbs-Beck test for low outliers
– ability to incorporate regional information as prior knowledge.
FLIKE is distributed by BMT WBM TUFLOW with details in the following website:
https://flike.tuflow.com/about/.
While FLIKE was refined as part of the ARR revision process and therefore implements the recommended
ARR procedures, there are other software packages that can also be used for at-site flood frequency
analysis.
6.8.3 Hydraulics
One-dimensional hydraulic modelling
One-dimensional hydraulic modelling is required to calculate flood levels, flow velocities and other flood
characteristics in applications where the flow is “one-dimensional”, that is flow is contained in a defined
channel and the water level is approximately horizontal across the channel.
This approach to hydraulic modelling is described in Book 6 Chapter 4 of ARR2019.
The most widely used software package for one-dimensional hydraulic modelling in HEC-RAS. The
Hydrologic Engineering Centre is part of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and HEC-RAS has
been developed and used by the Corps of Engineers and many other organisations internationally for many
years.
HEC-RAS is very well suited to analysis and design of cross drainage and has excellent algorithms for
analysis of bridge and culvert hydraulics.
While HEC-RAS has extensive one- and two-dimensional capability it is generally used for standalone
structures and to validate two-dimensional models of major structures.
The one-dimensional analysis can be run as steady state or unsteady flows and is well recognised for
reliable flood modelling of bridges, culverts and other hydraulic structures. HEC-RAS is generally used for
analysis of the reach of a water course immediately upstream and downstream of a road crossing. It can
therefore calculate tailwater levels, flow velocity through the structure and afflux immediately upstream. The
software can be downloaded freely from the HEC website: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/.
This website also includes extensive documentation, case studies and guidance on applications.
HEC-RAS has a module to calculate scour depth at bridges, which is an important application for road
design.

While HEC-RAS is the most widely used one-dimensional hydraulic modelling package, MIKE-11, which is
not as widely used currently as in the past, can also be applied to these problems and has useful features for
road design applications. MIKE-11 can be accessed at https://www.mikepoweredbydhi.com/products/mike-
11.
In addition to the general hydraulic modelling analyses, there are many different packages designed for
culvert hydraulic analysis. A well developed and well documented package is HY-8 Culvert Hydraulic
Analysis Program released by the US Department of Transport Federal Highways Administration. This
software can be downloaded from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/software/hy8/.
Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling
Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling is a specialist application that is used for specific flood investigations
and there are several widely applied two-dimensional hydraulic models that can be used in flood studies.
This approach to hydraulic modelling is also described in Book 6 Chapter 4 of ARR2019 as well as the ARR
Project Report Revision Project 15: Two-dimensional modelling of urban and rural floodplains by Babister
and Barton (Editors, 2016).
Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling is used in a wide variety of applications including road design.
However, it has most value for flat floodplains where flow paths are poorly defined. It has particular value for
assessing flow across road embankments where water is diverted from one structure to another and where
longitudinal flow occurs as well as cross drainage.
Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling is also the basis of direct rainfall combined hydrology-hydraulic
analysis.
The principal two-dimensional hydraulic modelling packages used widely in Australia are as follows:
• TUFLOW https://www.tuflow.com/
• MIKE-FLOOD https://www.mikepoweredbydhi.com/products/mike-flood.
Each of these two packages is well suited to road drainage design.
Hydraulic model comparison
One-dimensional and two-dimensional modelling, when undertaken with sufficient detail should result in
reasonable similarity between the methods. As such, it is possible to validate aspects of a two-dimensional
model with a one-dimensional model. This approach can be used to validate the head-loss for a complex
hydraulic structure such as a bridge.
Breakout 21: Comparison of a One-Dimensional Model to a Two-Dimensional Model
Often when modelling a bridge for an infrastructure project a check on the head loss through the structure is required.
This is typically done by comparing the two-dimensional model established for the project with a one-dimensional
model in the vicinity of the project.
Figure 6.47 shows a comparison between HEC-RAS one-dimensional model and a two-dimensional TUFLOW model,
where the HEC-RAS model was used to validate the head-loss within the TUFLOW model. In this example there is a
good match between the two.

Breakout 21: Comparison of a One-Dimensional Model to a Two-Dimensional Model
Figure 6.47: 1D vs 2D Model Comparison
6.8.4 Design
12D
The 12D software is a powerful road design and modelling package that includes basic road drainage design
capability and links to a range of hydrologic and hydraulic models. This allows for an interactive road design
where waterway and drainage sizings can be exported to industry standard models. Key results can be
reimported back to the software for visualisations. The 12D package can also be used to design the
pavement drainage.
Bentley's OpenRoads
OpenRoads Designer is an extremely versatile civil design application that is used for all types and sizes of
civil projects including road design. The application addresses a wide variety of complex tasks such as
interchange design, roundabout design, earthworks, surveying, sewer and stormwater network design,
subsurface utilities, and can include utility conflict detection/resolution in 3d. Stormwater design is fully
integrated via the design engines StormCAD (conventional peak flow design) or CivilStorm (dynamic
analysis).
AutoDesk's CIVIL3D
Autodesk Civil 3D software is a civil engineering design and documentation solution that supports Building
Information Modelling (BIM) workflows on a variety of civil infrastructure project types, including roads and
highways, land development, rail, airports, and water.
Autodesk Civil 3D includes additional software applications that allow the user to perform a variety of storm
water management tasks, including stormwater/drainage design, watershed analysis, detention pond
modelling, and culvert, channel, and inlet analysis.
It should be noted that while some of the simple pavement runoff methods in the above software are not
completely consistent with ARR2019 they are appropriate for localised pavement drainage design. In
addition to the above integrated road/civil design packages, there are a number of drainage design tools
including (but not limited to) DRAINS and PC Drain, plus culvert analysis tools such as HY-8.

Breakout 22: Modelling Scenarios
The different modelling scenarios which are typically modelled in hydrologic, hydraulic or design software are explored
below.
Modelling scenarios – hydrology
• Natural: this case defines the natural state of the catchment prior to any development occurring within the
catchment. This case can be compared against RFFE method results.
• Existing development: this is typically used as a base case for comparing to the design where subcatchments and
other model parameters are defined based on the current level of development, current land uses, structures or
other existing features. For example, although an area may be zoned as medium density residential within the
region’s land use planning information, upon inspection of current aerial imagery the current development in the
area may comprise of fields and vegetated areas.
• Design: hydrologic sub catchments should be split at the proposed road.

• Ultimate development: this scenario is used to represent the ‘maximum’ level of development that is predicted to
occur within a catchment. This may be defined by a Council’s land use planning information, future population
planning information and future development schemes.
Modelling scenarios – hydraulics
• Natural: it is not always possible to model the true natural state of a catchment which has experienced
development due to lack of data (i.e. topographic surfaces, bathymetry, survey, detailed aerial imagery) having
been recorded at the time of pre-development. Typically, the existing case is adopted as the base case in a
hydraulic assessment.
• Existing: this represents the base case assessed within a model, where any features such as land uses/materials,
the level of development, flowpaths, structures and other parameters are modelled ‘as is’. The existing case may
be either a greenfield site where the existing conditions are relatively unchanged from the catchment’s natural
state, or a brownfield site where previous development has occurred in the catchment. It is possible that some
projects may require the assessment of multiple existing case scenarios. For example, existing conditions as at
2010 and existing conditions as at 2014, if there has been significant recent development in the area of concern,
or if significant development has occurred after project inception.
• Design: this is the proposed case assessed within a model, where all changes to the existing case, the ‘design
features’, must be incorporated into the model. This may include upgrades to cross drainage structures, a new
road design and tin (surface), rezoning of land use and Manning’s roughness layers. A design scenario will often
require assessment of impacts caused by the proposed design as well as assessment to ensure the proposed
design is causing no worsening to the existing conditions.
6.9 Very Rare and Extreme Events
6.9.1 Introduction
Most flood and drainage design analyses for road projects consider floods up to and including the 1% AEP
event. While floods larger than the 1% AEP are very rare, they do occur. Rarer floods are used for certain
aspects of bridge design and tunnel portals. It is also important to consider the impact of a road on larger
floods. For this reason, it is common practice to check there are not substantial change in flood
consequences in a larger flood event. ARR2019 has a detailed coverage of very rare to extreme flood
analysis in Book 8, though the main focus of this book of ARR2019 is on design of dams. Less rigorous
approaches are often used for floodplain management and road design. This section of the GRD outlines the
issues related to road design for these large floods as well as recommended methods for analysis and how
to incorporate the findings into the design.

6.9.2 Issues for Road Design
Floods larger than 1% AEP should be considered for road design projects for several applications,
summarised as follows.
Flood resilience
Floods larger than the design flood may occur, so there should be at least some consideration of what may
happen during such events. While the road drainage network cannot be expected to perform well during a
very rare event with parts of it being completely under water, a resilient design should not suffer total failure
or extreme damage of large sections in these events.
Part of this criterion is to consider if changes to flow patterns for an extreme flood could have unexpected
consequences that are not apparent for smaller floods. Where there is a possibility that the road construction
for a flood much larger than the design flood may result is a particularly adverse outcome, such as a major
diversion for example, floods larger than the design flood may need to be considered to test if this result
does occur.
Road geometry
This situation is commonly encountered when an existing road is upgraded, by an overlay, road raising to
improve flood immunity or by the construction of noise or safety barriers. It is also a possible issue when the
drainage structure is under a location where the road geometry depends on factors other than flood
immunity, such as an overpass.
The important issue for this risk is where there is a significant difference between the magnitude of the
design flood conveyed by the drainage structure and the flood that overtops the road crest. If a flood only
slightly larger than the design flood overtops the road, the larger flood will not have a significant impact.
Where this situation occurs, the water above the level of the design flood will flow over the road, and the
effects of this flow can be managed by the road design.
The analysis needed to test this condition should consider floods larger than the design flood up to the level
where the road is overtopped, which may be a very large event. Careful consideration needs to be given to
safety and noise barriers and whether they would collapse from the hydraulic load.
Bridge design
The third place where larger floods are needed is as part of bridge design where the Australian Standards
relevant to the hydraulic design of bridges have adopted a limit state approach. For the Ultimate Limit State
Floods, it is necessary to assess flood loading up to and including the 1 in 2000 AEP event.
The analysis for bridges should consider design floods between 1% AEP and up to the 1 in 2,000 AEP
event.
Tunnel portals
Drainage design for tunnel portals is described in Section 6.10.2 of this guide where it is noted that floods
larger than the usual road design levels may be needed because of the specific high risk for the public. The
design probability is selected for tunnel portals depending on the results of a risk assessment, and this may
be a larger flood than the 1% AEP event.

6.9.3 Definition of Very Rare and Extreme Events
ARR2019 has classified the range of flood and rainfall probabilities that form the topic of this section, with the
classification shown in Figure 6.48, extracted from ARR2019.
Figure 6.48: Design characteristics of Notional Event Classes

The analysis procedures in the GRD generally cover the “rare” range in this figure. The events that are
generally of relevance to road design are classified in the “very rare” class of this figure. Occasionally road
design may need to consider even larger events in the “extreme” range as classified by ARR2019.
In most road design projects, floods up to the 1 in 2,000 AEP event are sufficient.
6.9.4 Analysis Methods
Book 8 of ARR2019 provides detailed guidance for analysis of very rare to extreme floods, mainly focusing
on dam design and other major projects. This guide extracts the relevant methods from ARR2019 to be
applied to road design projects.
For the purposes of this guide, it is assumed that design floods up to 1 in 2,000 AEP will be adequate for
most applications, that is the very rare events. The rare events up to the 1% AEP are covered elsewhere in
this guide and the extreme events are not discussed. In the occasional application were floods larger than 1
in 2,000 AEP are required, specialist analysis using ARR2019 is recommended.
The practical limit for flood frequency estimates in the locations with the longest records in Australia is 0.5 %
AEP. Therefore most very rare design flood estimates are based on rainfall simulation methods which are
described in Section 7 of this guide and ARR2019 Book 3. Flood frequency records can be used with
specialist paleo information. This is described in ARR2019 Book 8.
In general, this level of analysis is not usually necessary for road design projects.

The basic input for the rainfall based method recommended for determination of the these floods covers the
range up to 1 in 2,000 AEP, and this rainfall data can be extracted from the Bureau of Meteorology website.
Details of this process are covered in Section 6.7 of this guide.
Breakout 23: Rare Design Rainfall
Rare rainfall can be extracted from the BoM website using either a coordinate reference or GIS region file of the
location of interest. Design rainfalls can be extracted in either table or chart format. An example of the design rainfall
results using the Bureau of Meteorology website is shown in Figure 6.49.
Figure 6.49: Example of design rainfall results for rare rainfall events
Source: Bureau of Meteorology Design Rainfall Data System (2016).

Table 6.17 shows the procedures to calculate design rainfalls for the rare and very rare rainfall inputs (up to
1 in 2,000 AEP).
Table 6.17: Summary of rainfall inputs for rare and very rare flood events
Rare Very Rare

Point Design Rainfall Depths up to Generalised information on design rainfall bursts, as described in Section 6.7
the PMP of this guide.
Areal Design Rainfall Depths up to Derived from point design rainfalls by application of Areal Reduction Factors
the PMP (ARFs), selected as a function of storm area, duration, and AEP as
referenced in Section 0 of this guide.
Temporal Patterns Areal patterns (for bursts and • GSAM & GTSM-R areal patterns for
complete storms) as referenced all long durations3
in Section 0 of this guide. • GSDM point patterns for short
durations2
• Both GSDM and GSAM/GTSM-R
patterns for intermediate durations2
Spatial Patterns Regional information on design Use either GSDM, GSAM, or GTSMR
rainfall spatial patterns as spatial patterns as appropriate for the
referenced in ARR2019 Book 2 location and duration.2
Chapter 4, though frequently not
necessary for road design

projects.
Once the design rainfalls have been estimated, the design floods for the very rare events can be calculated,
with the methodology summarised in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18: Summary of methods to calculate design flood for rare and very rare flood events
Rare Very Rare

Towards 1 in 100 AEP Beyond 1 in 100 AEP to 1 in
2000 AEP
Losses Use “complete storm” initial and continuing losses for all durations and
• For complete design storms all AEPs.
Hydrograph model • Non-linear storage-routing models (or equivalent)

• Selection and configuration • Calibration to range of flood magnitudes, including reconciliation
• Calibration with design flood estimates derived from at-site/regional flood
frequency and paleohydrological procedures
• For Rare to Extreme events non-linearity in S = kQm relation
generally assumed to be in range 0.8 to 0.9 (depending on
catchment characteristics).
Baseflow Adopt baseflow recommendations as discussed in Section 0.
Design flood frequency curve Derive rainfall-based estimates for range of design rainfall durations
and AEPs, and adopt highest of the mean peak discharges from the
range of durations for each AEP.
3 Nathan & Weinmann, 2019, Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation, Book 8.

6.10 Specific Design Issues
This section has some important detailed road design advice that is not included in other sections of the
GRD.
6.10.1 Flood Impact Criteria
An important concern with the design of road infrastructure is the impact that the infrastructure may have on
floods. Roads cross water courses and floodplains and the construction can affect water flow and potentially
produce adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or the environment.
Impact refers to the change in flood characteristics between two scenarios, typically referring to flood levels.
Afflux refers to the more specific case of the “rise of water level above normal level (i.e. natural flood level)
on the upstream side of a culvert or of an obstruction in a channel” (Chanson, 2004). The term afflux is
frequently used in the context of impacts related to infrastructure although not preferred. The impacts from
roads can be a serious constraint on the design and can be a significant community concern. The design
criteria for road projects must provide an agreed upon set of acceptable flood impacts. This section of the
guide provides an overview of the issues that may be a concern and outlines guidance for acceptable
impacts. However, it must be noted that every project is distinct and an impact that may be acceptable for
one project or location may not be applicable elsewhere. This guidance therefore must be regarded as
advice and not prescriptive limits. Each project must be analysed individually, and specific limits defined for
each particular project. The acceptable flood impacts should also be developed in consultation with relevant
stakeholders and local residents and property owners. This consultation is frequently an important part of
setting the acceptable flood impact criteria.
The process and determination of acceptable flood impact criteria has not been published widely since every
project is individual and provision of appropriate values has been difficult. In many cases, road authorities
have internal documentation and often these criteria are established for each individual project and are
changed as the consultation for the project proceeds. One of the few published papers on the topic is by
Retallick and Babister (2018) which has drawn on experience on a wide range of projects particularly in New
South Wales, but it is expected that similar conditions apply elsewhere in Australia.
The issue with setting flood impact criteria is to prevent “adverse impacts”, that is impacts that cause
damage, disruption or inconvenience.
While assessment and consideration of flood impact criteria is a critical component of the road planning and
design process for the road authority and designers, flood impact criteria are sometimes determined by other
government agencies. These are agencies who are involved with planning and the environment and include
state agencies with these responsibilities as well as local authorities. In Victoria, Catchment Management
Authorities may provide flood impact criteria.
Types of flood impacts
Road construction can have several impacts on flooding, by the construction of roads across water courses.
In this case the bridge or culvert will constrict the waterway area and thereby tend to increase flood levels
upstream or will reduce the volume of floodplain storage. However, there are other effects such as an
increase in flow velocity as water flows through a constricted waterway with a risk of scour at culvert outlets
or through bridges. The road embankment may also decrease the floodplain storage and thereby again
increase flood levels by reducing the natural “flood mitigation” effects of a floodplain.
These changes in flooding are typically concerned with the effects on property and the community, but there
are also potential effects on the environment, which also need to be mitigated.

While it may be difficult to manage some impacts from road projects, the objective for road design is to
determine an acceptable level of impact and then provide a design that meets the impact limits while meeting
all other design objectives.
The general impacts are detailed in the following sections.
Change in peak flood levels
While an increase in flood level is the major concern, a decrease may also be an issue in some
circumstances. An increase in flood level is a particular concern where flooding is increased for properties in
the floodplain, particularly those where there is above-floor flooding. For road design projects, this aspect is
generally referred to as the “flood impact” and is often a significant constraint to the design. An increase in
flood level affects many different features of the floodplain, including residential houses, sheds, commercial
property, public or private infrastructure such as electricity facilities or pump stations, roads or railways. In
addition, an increase in water level may have adverse impacts on some agricultural production.
Increases in flood level are frequently a consequence of the constriction of flow as the water course passes
through structures. Increases in water level can also occur when floodplain storage is reduced by floodplain
fill as a part of the road embankment or where a portion of the floodplain is cut off by an embankment and
this loss of storage increases flood levels.
The objective for changes in flood level is an allowable limit on changes, especially increases, which can be
set at a defined value.
Diversion of flow
A road embankment crossing a floodplain is often designed with multiple drainage structures spaced along it
to convey floodwaters downstream. These tend to divert water along the embankment and thereby
concentrate flow into selected flow paths. This means that flow may be diverted from one part of the
floodplain to another. The impact of this diversion on urban and rural land must be considered. These
impacts can include additional flow in some places and reduced flow in others which may be an adverse
impact depending on the particular situation. A particularly extreme concern is with “drainage shadows”
where the road embankment results in an area of land that is no longer inundated. This is more likely to
occur in very flat land and where flow is shallow, particularly in arid regions.
While flow diversion is an important issue for agricultural land but there are also environmental impacts, and
occasionally impacts on urban properties and private development. In some cases, the flow may divert water
away from existing farm dams, which is a serious concern.
Setting a quantifiable acceptable limit on flow diversion is difficult but appropriate guidance can be provided
based on local conditions.
Change in velocity
Drainage structures on road projects, especially cross drainage structures can increase flow velocities and
these increases can result in scour at culvert outlets through bridges and along table drains. The increase in
velocity results from the constriction of flow and sometimes from an increase in flow rate caused by flow
diversions.
While an increase in flow velocity is more likely to be a concern in road design because of the risk of scour,
reduction in velocity caused by ponding for example can result in deposition of sediment and possible
blockage of drainage structures.

Setting an upper limit on flow velocity generally considers the velocity that can cause erosion in the particular
soil and geologic conditions. A lower limit can be defined by assessing the lowest velocity that can convey
the local sediment through structures and prevent deposition of sediment in structures or channels.
Change in duration of flooding
Where water ponds upstream of a road embankment, the duration of inundation upstream of the road may
be increased as can the period of time the flow continues through the drainage structures. This increase in
duration is a particular concern for agriculture but can also affect drainage in urban areas, where ponded
water can be a nuisance to local residents and can contribute to mosquito numbers for example.
Setting an acceptable value for a change in the duration of flooding needs to consider local issues.
Consultation
In addition to the “technical” issues noted above, an important part of determining appropriate acceptable
flood impacts is consultation with stakeholders and local residents. These people and organisations can
understand the specific impact that they may suffer and can advise on whether these can be accepted. This
process is especially important where there may be a blanket criterion but specific circumstances mean that
the criterion can be relaxed for a specific location.
Examples of these may be where there is an increase in flood level on land that does not suffer any adverse
consequences from inundation, locations where the impact is totally contained within the road reserve and
this can be managed by the road authority or where the property owner has an advantage from a flow
diversion greater than would normally be accepted.
Consultation should take place with appropriate people or organisations and any impacts and issues should
be clearly explained. In all cases, any conclusions from the consultation should be taken as guidance and
should be considered in the context of any other issues and concerns.
All conclusions from the consultation especially where a flood impact criterion is relaxed should be clearly
documented and the documentation should be circulated to all stakeholders.
Consultation on acceptable flood impacts is always recommended and helps to ensure acceptance of the
design by stakeholders.
Acceptable flood impacts
This guide provides guidance for acceptable flood impacts related to road design and these can be applied
where there are no clear alternatives and where these are accepted by key stakeholders.
An early question is what probability flood should be considered. For small projects generally the 1% AEP
flood is the primary event to be considered. However as discussed elsewhere in this guide, good practice
usually requires that events of other probabilities should also be considered, particularly smaller events but
occasionally larger events are a concern.

Buildings
For buildings, both in urban areas and for more isolated buildings in rural regions, the 1% AEP flood is often
sufficient since this is a standard probability analysed for floodplain management and an acceptable flood
impact should be determined for this flood event. Frequently impacts for this event will be representative of
other probabilities. However, in some urban areas, there may be properties with a lower flood immunity and
the presence of these properties indicates that more frequent events should also be considered. Buildings do
not just include residential buildings, but sheds and commercial buildings should also be considered. A
special case is where habitable floor areas are above the design flood level even allowing for an afflux so
there is an argument that the allowable flood impact could be relaxed for these buildings.
The acceptable flood impact for the 1% AEP flood recommended for buildings is 25 mm. Particular
assessment should be considered for houses subject to significant flood risk, hospitals, schools and critical
infrastructure, where a flood level impact of 0 - 10 mm may be appropriate, as small increases can cause
significant damage However, this may not be achievable with 10mm typically at the limit of accuracy of two
dimensional models. This criterion could be reviewed for specific conditions if a relaxation of the criterion is
likely to have acceptable impacts. In some cases, government planning and environmental departments
may have specific criteria for critical infrastructure and these conditions should be taken into account.
The duration of inundation is usually not as critical as the increase in depth, but the objective should be to
minimize any change in duration. Consultation may provide some guidance on an acceptable change in
duration of inundation. A specific criterion is not provided in this guide.
Agricultural land
The criteria for acceptable flood impacts on agricultural land is often difficult to specify because of the wide
range of agricultural activities that may be possible. High value intensive crops such as horticulture or cotton
for example may be very sensitive to flood inundation so the maximum acceptable change in depth and
duration will be small. Sugar cane may be less sensitive to an increase in water depth but an increase in
duration of inundation may not be desirable. Other crops may be quite insensitive to changes.
A range of flood probabilities up to and including the 1% AEP should be considered, with smaller floods often
more significant for this land use than it is for buildings. Typical events are the 20% AEP, 5% AEP and 1%
AEP. In particularly sensitive situations, smaller floods may also be important. In each situation, specific
local conditions must be part of the design considerations.
Every case should be considered individually and an acceptable impact can be determined from consultation
and an assessment of the agricultural activities in the impacted area.
Guidance for agricultural land is suggested as follows, though these values must be reviewed with
consideration of local specific conditions.
• High value sensitive crops – 200 mm increase in level
• Less sensitive crops – 400 mm increase in level
It is noted though that road drainage projects rarely have a significant effect on the duration of flooding if
designed correctly. Longer duration times of inundation in the design case are usually an indication that local
flow paths have been blocked.
Grazing land
Impacts on grazing land are less sensitive than for agricultural land, so larger impacts can be permitted. An
increase in water level of up to 200 mm is suggested. Many pasture types suffer significant die off after a
certain duration of inundation. In many places in Australia inundation in the cooler months can lead to
extended drainage times with pasture regrowth delayed until the warmer months. It is noted though that road
drainage projects rarely have a significant effect on the duration of flooding if designed correctly.

Open space or forest
This land use is much less sensitive than other more developed land uses so there is more flexibility in the
acceptable impacts. However, a limit for increase in flood level of 400 mm is suggested.
Flow velocity
An increase in flow velocity is often evident at culvert outlets, through bridges, in table drains and for any
location where the road design has concentrated flow. Scour damage can occur in these locations. The
design of the constructed drainage structures should ensure that the increase in flow velocity should not take
the velocity in any vulnerable location beyond the allowable scour velocity. Determination of this velocity is
difficult. Review of any existing similar drainage structures in the vicinity or with similar soil properties can
give some guidance on the risk. Section 3.6 of this guide and specifically Table 3.10 has a table of maximum
allowable flow velocities in culverts and channels and the design should ensure that the flow velocity does
not increase to beyond these limits. While the velocity figures in this table are a guide, each individual
location should be reviewed in as much detail as possible to assess whether these values are acceptable.
Geotechnical advice can also be sought to inform allowable flow velocities for a specific site.
Change in velocity, flow distribution and inundation times
In the absence of specific local criteria, some suggested criteria can be summarised as follows.
• Change in velocity, flow distribution and inundation times should be kept to a minimum by placing
waterway structures where existing flow paths are present. Poorly placed or undersized structures can
change the flow distribution, increase velocity downstream and increase inundation upstream.
• Flow distribution – No more than 10% change in the volume of flow proportioned to each flow path.
• Velocities – Velocity increases to keep velocities less than 1m/s or if existing >1m/s then no more than
10% change.
Impacts within the project corridor
Within the project corridor any impact is generally acceptable as long as it doesn’t compromise the roads
serviceability and structural stability. It is also easy to treat impacts such as high velocities within the road
corridor. A good design can often keep impacts within the road corridor and it is normal practice to include
model cells that intersect the road corridor as within the road corridor unless they interact with buildings on
adjoining properties.
Conclusion
A summary of acceptable flood impacts has been provided in Table 6.19. It should be noted that this section
has general guidance for the issues to be considered when completing flood designs for roads and the
values given here are for guidance only. Every project is distinct and the potential impacts need to be
considered in each case and these should be confirmed through consultation with stakeholders and local
residents and property owners.

Table 6.19: Acceptable impacts for major transport infrastructure
Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Non Agricultural Open

buildings yards (mm) and and habitable (mm)** Space/
(mm)* Commercial commercial structures Forest
buildings yard (mm) (sheds) (mm)***
(mm)
Flood 25 (general) 50 50 100 100 200- 400
Levels 10-20 400
(sensitive
receivers
including
hospitals,
schools and
critical
infrastructure)
Change in No more than the larger of 10% of the existing duration of inundation or 1hr whichever is largest for
duration of durations over 2hrs
inundation
Flow No more than 10% change
distribution
Velocities Velocity increases to keep velocities less than 1m/s or if existing >1m/s than no more than 10% change
Events to be 5% AEP and 1% AEP as a minimum

considered 20% AEP or smaller for agricultural land
The 0.05% or PMF should be used to check for extreme changes in flood behaviour but not for acceptable
impacts
Tunnel portal events to be considered depends on design criteria
* if impacts less than or equal to 10mm can be achieved by the project then this is recommended as the acceptable
impact. This is the practical limit to which models can predict impact.
** dependent on the type of agriculture and its tolerance. Other criteria may be more important than peak level for
example time of inundation.
*** conditional on no ecologically sensitive communities where flooding is an issue.
Breakout 24: Flood Impacts
A crossing was proposed downstream of a major town. Flood impacts of the project are assessed for change in flood
level for discrete flood events. However, this process does not consider that nearly every house in a floodplain will
likely experience a change in flood risk as well as level. This project analysed the distribution of finished floor levels
within the town and the increase in flood level due to the proposed bridge works across the suite of AEP events using
probability plots.
As shown in Figure 6.50, both options initially investigated caused an additional 20-50 houses to be inundated in a
flood larger than a 5% AEP event. Using traditional methods of assessment, this change in flood risk would not have
been captured.
A common mistake is that often only discrete events are assessed but a considerable change of risk may occur just
after say the 1 in 50 AEP but well before the 1 in 100 AEP. Plots such as those shown in Figure 6.50 can illustrate
where there may be many additional houses impacted clustered around the 1 in 75 AEP (for example) and not
captured in the 2% and 1% AEP results.

Breakout 24: Flood Impacts
Figure 6.50: Increase in flood hazard for project options 1 and 2

6.10.2 Flooding for Tunnel Portals
There is an increasing use of road tunnels in major urban areas in Australia and drainage in and around
these structures creates unique problems. The previous edition of Part 5A of the GRD included only a brief
mention of tunnel drainage.
Austroads however has published guidance on tunnel planning, design and operation, which has some
details of tunnel design for drainage (Austroads, 2021b) and relevant sections of this that relate to flooding
have been interpreted for this guide.
Drainage in road tunnels is an important issue related to safety of road users as well as damage to the
infrastructure and disruption to transport.
Water and other liquids may enter a tunnel from various sources such as:
• Groundwater seepage and infiltration.
• Rainfall run-off from portal areas.
• Rainwater carried in by vehicles.
• Floodwater that overtops the tunnel portal crest level (whether from rainfall or ocean levels)

• Wastewater effluent from wash-down activities.

• Accidental spillage of fuel from damaged vehicles and the wash-down of such products.
• Operation of fire suppression systems.
• Accidental rupture of pumped drainage, fire main or hydrant.
The only two of these that are relevant to this section of the guide are the flooding related aspects of rainfall-
runoff from the tunnel portals and floodwater that overtops the tunnel portal.
Flood issues for tunnels are in two categories.

• Floodwater entering the tunnel from either local runoff or from nearby water courses and large
catchments. This water needs to be excluded or managed.
• Impact on neighbouring properties from flood levels from the flow path obstructions near the tunnel
entrance.
The second of these issues is the same as for any other aspect of road construction and the impacts need to
be managed following the impact objectives discussed in the section above.
The first of these aspects though is a unique and challenging design issue specifically for tunnels.
If flood water enters the tunnel, there may be significant damage to tunnel systems and the tunnel may be
closed not only for the period of actual inundation but also for possibly a long period of time afterwards while
damage is repaired. This period of time could be significant and will almost certainly be longer than the time
taken for repair of other components of road closure. There is also a safety risk since people or vehicles may
be trapped in the tunnel as the water rises. The tunnel could be completely filled with water.
Determination of an appropriate level of flood immunity for design of tunnel flooding is a difficult decision and
the more typical decisions used for other road components cannot be used. Existing tunnels have been
designed with a wide range of flood immunity levels up to the Probable Maximum Flood. The use of the
Probable Maximum Flood is generally overly conservative. In some cases protecting a portal from the
Probable Maximum Flood results in water being diverted to other parts of the road network which can
increase the overall risk to the travelling public. The objective should be to provide an adequate level of flood
immunity without having an over-conservative result or increases in risk on other parts of the road network
The approach should be to consider a risk assessment. ARR2019 Book 1 Chapter 5 provides a detailed
approach to risk assessment in flooding projects, though not specifically for this application, and this provides
guidance for the considerations needed for analysis in this complex road infrastructure application.
Each tunnel project should be assessed individually for its specific issues. Key issues include:
• The length of the tunnel
• If there are trapped low points in the tunnel
• Whether the driver can see the outlet and assess risks before entry
• Whether the volume of water entering the tunnel will fill the tunnel to a substantial depth or just cause
nuisance
• Warning time ahead of a flood
• Ability to close the tunnel to traffic.
Where a separated tunnel has been proposed for each traffic direction and there are no trapped low points,
flow ingress at the inlet is less critical than the outlet. As a general rule tunnel entrances should have an
immunity of at least 1% AEP and significantly rarer (such as the 0.01% AEP) where there is a risk of drivers
being trapped. Recommended minimum immunities are summarized in Table 6.20.

Table 6.20: Recommended minimum immunity
Situation Minimum Immunity (AEP)

Short low risk tunnels 1%
Most tunnels 0.05%
High risk tunnels 0.01%
Flood water may enter the tunnel portal from:

• Overtopping portal wall structures.
• Surface runoff through connecting roads.
• Through ventilation openings.
The preferred method to limit ingress of flood water is by physical levees or geometrical design approaches.
Mechanical devices such as floodgates have a higher risk because of the possibility of failure.
Where a relatively low level of flood immunity is adopted, allowance should be made to accommodate the
expected volume of stormwater which could enter the tunnel. In this case, the tunnel should be capable of
conveying the runoff rate to the tunnel low point and the sump and pump system should be designed to
operate during major inundation.
Tunnels provide unique flood design issues and careful design is necessary. Extremely high levels of flood
immunity may not be necessary but a detailed assessment of risk is essential because of the potentially high
level of damage and risk to life and property.
6.11 Safety in Design
6.11.1 Introduction
Drainage is an aspect of road design where there are risks to safety. The design of roads for flooding and
drainage must take account of safety issues as well as the general technical and engineering issues.
Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the GRD has detailed discussion of safety relevant to safety in design, so this section
provides details only of some aspects that have been revised and updated following the revision of
ARR2019.
The material in this section has been sourced from two publications, namely ARR2019 and Queensland
Urban Drainage Manual (IPWEA, 2017) and have been adapted to specific issues of road drainage design.
Australian Rainfall and Runoff Book 6 Chapter 7 (Ball et al, 2019), has updated material on safety criteria for
vehicles and pedestrians on flooded roads. Chapter 2 of QUDM includes material that relates to safety on
roads. Material from these sources have been included and were not previously included in earlier editions of
the GRD.
6.11.2 Safety on Flooded Roads
Flooding in Australia is dangerous and can often result in injury or deaths. A major cause of these deaths is
from flooding on roads affecting both people in vehicles and pedestrians.
There are several criteria for defining pedestrian safety and trafficability of flooded roads for vehicles. Safety
on flooded roads is dependent on the depth and velocity criteria of flood waters. These two properties have
been developed and tested over time, with these criteria adopted by Austroads, road authorities and other
agencies.

The safety criterion for flooded roads is concerned with the trafficability of the road when inundated. The
flood immunity of the road is defined as the point where inundation reaches the edge of the traffic lane.
However a road may be considered trafficable when there is some inundation constrained by considerations
of depth and velocity.
Vehicles
The typical models of vehicle stability in flood water are illustrated in Figure 6.51, from ARR2019.
Figure 6.51: Typical modes of vehicle instability

The literature review carried out for ARR2019 identified the measure of flow attributes for vehicle stability
analysis as D.V m2s-1, determined as the product of flow depth (D, m) and flow velocity (V, ms -1).
Safety criteria for each vehicle class is based on limited laboratory testing of characteristic vehicles. The
upper tolerable velocity for moving water is defined based on the frictional limits and is a constant 3.0 ms-1
for all vehicle classifications.
The upper tolerable depths within still water are defined by the floating limits:
• Small passenger vehicles: 0.3 m
• Large passenger vehicles: 0.4 m
• Large 4WD vehicles: 0.5 m.
The upper tolerable depths within high velocity water (at 3.0 ms-1) are defined by the frictional limits:
• Small passenger vehicles: 0.1 m
• Large passenger vehicles: 0.15 m
• Large 4WD vehicles: 0.2 m.

While specifically equipped vehicles may remain stable in water of greater depths, the intention of the
presented criteria is to focus on the more vulnerable commonly used vehicles.
The flow hazard regime for vehicles developed for ARR2019 is recommended by this guide and is shown in
Table 6.21 and plotted in Figure 6.51.
Table 6.21: Flow hazard regimes for vehicles
Class of Length Kerb Ground Limiting Limiting Limiting Equation of

vehicle (m) Weight clearance still water high velocity3 stability
(kg) (m) depth1 velocity
flow
depth2
Small < 4.3 < 1250 < 0.12 0.3 0.1 3.0 DV ≤ 0.3
passenger
Large > 4.3 > 1250 > 0.12 0.4 0.15 3.0 DV ≤ 0.45
passenger
Large 4WD > 4.5 > 2000 > 0.22 0.5 0.2 3.0 DV ≤ 0.6
Note: This table is sourced from ARR2019 Table 6.7.2.

1At velocity = 0 ms-1.
2At velocity = 3.0 ms-1.
3At low depth.
Figure 6.52: Safety criteria for vehicles in variable flow conditions
The ARR2019 investigations considered the previously adopted GRD guidelines for vehicle stability but
adopted a modified version better suited to flood conditions and was more consistent with the experimental
results. However, the recommended criterion is quite similar to the previous GRD formula.

It is noted however that vehicles can be washed from roads in a wide range of conditions and drivers often
have difficulty identifying hazardous conditions. As such, there is consideration for adopting a policy of
determining the road to be non-trafficable if there is any inundation at all. This criterion could be considered
appropriate in urban and tourist areas. This reduces the risk but may be regarded as over-conservative.
Pedestrians
In addition to the risk to vehicles, there is also a risk to pedestrians on flooded roads, with pedestrian safety
criteria developed by ARR. It is more difficult to assess the safety criterion for pedestrians than it is for
vehicles due to a wider variety of individual behaviour and conditions. However, ARR has developed criteria
and these are reflected in the GRD.
The two recognised hydrodynamic mechanisms by which people may lose stability in flood flows are moment
instability and friction instability.
In brief, moment (toppling) instability occurs when a moment induced by the oncoming flow exceeds the
resisting moment generated by the weight of the body. This stability parameter is sensitive to the buoyancy
of a person, body positioning and weight distribution.
Frictional (sliding) instability occurs when the drag force induced by the horizontal flow impacting on a
person’s legs and torso is larger than the frictional resistance between a person’s feet and the ground
surface. This stability parameter is sensitive to weight and buoyancy, clothing type, footwear type and ground
surface conditions.
These conditions are illustrated in Figure 6.53.
Figure 6.53: Typical modes of human instability in floods

Additionally, loss of stability may also be triggered by adverse conditions, which should be taken into account
when assessing safety such as:
• Bottom conditions: uneven, slippery, obstacles.
• Flow conditions: floating debris, low temperature, poor visibility, unsteady flow and flow aeration.
• Human subject: standing or moving, experience and training, clothing and footwear, physical attributes
additional to height and mass including muscular development and/or other disability, psychological
factors.
• Other issues: strong wind, poor lighting, etc.
The safety criteria for pedestrians depends on the physical characteristics of the subjects as well as the flow
conditions. The best measure of physical attributes for human stability is the parameter H.M (mkg), which is
the product of the subject’s height (H; m) and mass (M; kg). The measure of flow attributes is the parameter
D.V (m2s-1), the product of flow depth (D, m) and flow velocity (V, ms -1).
In order to define safety limits, which are applicable for all persons, hazard regimes are defined based on
H.M for representative population demographics. Each classification is based on laboratory testing of subject
stability within floodwaters. The following suggested classifications from ARR2019 are:
• Adults, where H.M > 50 mkg
• Children, where H.M is between 25 and 50 mkg
• Infants and very young children, where H.M < 25 mkg.
Several hazard regimes are recommended based on D.V flow values for each H.M classification. The hazard
regimes, as suggested from laboratory testing of subject stability and response within variable flow
conditions, are:
• Low hazard zones where D.V < 0.4 m2s-1 for children and D.V < 0.6 m2s-1 for adults.
• Significant hazard zone for children exists where flow conditions are dangerous to most between D.V =
0.4 to 0.6 m2s-1.
• Moderate hazard zone where conditions are dangerous for some adults and all children is defined
between D.V = 0.6 to 0.8 m2s-1 for adults. This is inferred to define the limiting working flow for
experienced personnel such as trained rescue workers.
• Significant hazard zone where flow conditions are dangerous to most adults and extremely dangerous
for all children is suggested between flow values of D.V = 0.8 to 1.2 m2s-1.
• Extreme hazard where flow conditions are dangerous to all people is suggested for D.V> 1.2 m2s-1.
These hazard regimes for tolerable flow conditions (D.V) as related to the individual’s physical characteristics
(H.M) are presented in Table 6.22 and Figure 6.54.
Table 6.22: Flow hazard regimes for people
DV (m2s-1) Children (H.M = 25 to 50)1 Adults (H.M > 50)

0 Safe (to depth of 0.5 m) Safe (to depth of 1.2 m)
0 - 0.4 Low Hazard if depth < 0.5m and velocity
< 3m/s otherwise Extreme Hazard Low Hazard if depth < 1.2m and
0.4 - 0.6 Significant Hazard; Dangerous to most if velocity < 3m/s otherwise Extreme
depth < 0.5m and velocity < 3m/s Hazard
otherwise Extreme Hazard

DV (m2s-1) Children (H.M = 25 to 50)1 Adults (H.M > 50)

0.6 - 0.8 Moderate Hazard; Dangerous to
some2 if depth < 1.2m and velocity <
3m/s otherwise Extreme Hazard
0.8 - 1.2 Extreme Hazard; Dangerous to all Significant Hazard; Dangerous to
most3 if depth < 1.2m and velocity <
3m/s otherwise Extreme Hazard
> 1.2 Extreme Hazard; Dangerous to all
Note: Maximum depth stability limit of 0.5m for children and 1.2 m for adults under good conditions considering factors
such as the ground surface, and lighting for example. Maximum velocity stability limit of 3.0 ms-1 for both adults and
children.
1More vulnerable community members such as infants and the elderly should avoid exposure for floodwater. Flood flows
are considered extremely hazardous to these community members under all conditions.
2working limit for trained safety workers or experienced and well-equipped persons (D.V < 0.8 m2s-1)
3Upper limit of stability observed during most investigations (D.V > 1.2 m 2s-1).
Figure 6.54: Safety criteria for people in variable flow conditions

General flood hazard curves
Following the derivation of safety criteria for people and vehicles, Smith et al (2014) undertook a literature
review of building stability. Smith et al (2014) then combined all three curves (pedestrian, vehicle and
building) to develop general flood hazard curves (refer to Figure 6.55). These curves are used for general
classification of flood hazard on the floodplain and may be used to compare the existing to post road
construction conditions.

Figure 6.55: Combined flood hazard curves

Source: AIDR Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-3 Flood Hazard (AIDR 2017).
Bicycles
The current edition of the GRD does not provide any safety criteria for bicycles in flood water. Similarly,
ARR2019 has not considered safety for bicycles. While safety criteria for vehicles on flooded roads is
typically concerned with cross drainage and inundation extents, concern for bicycle traffic needs to consider
these issues as well as longitudinal drainage where inundation encroaches onto the traffic or bicycle lanes.
The recommended safety criterion for bicycles is that the road is not trafficable for bicycles when there is any
inundation.
Aquaplaning
Aquaplaning is a special case of inundation of the road and is a potentially a serious safety issue.
Aquaplaning occurs when a film of water on the road surface reaches a critical depth, causing separation
between the tyres and road surface. This causes a loss of grip on the road resulting in loss of control of the
vehicle including directional instability, with the worst case being a complete loss of directional control.

Section 4 of the GRD Part 5A provides information to assist in understanding of the phenomenon of
aquaplaning as well as how to assess and mitigate it, therefore this topic is not discussed further here.
In addition to the risk of aquaplaning from runoff on the road pavement itself, there is also a risk of
aquaplaning from shallow overtopping of the road from flooding, so shallow flooding where the road is still
defined as trafficable can also be a safety concern. This means that shallow flow normally regarded as
trafficable may be a hazard if vehicles encounter the water while travelling at speed.
6.11.3 Risk with Drainage Infrastructure
Since drainage infrastructure crosses water courses, there are risks for the general community as well as
road users related to the drainage works. These risks can be analysed and mitigated to a certain extent.
A method of considering and mitigating risks as part of the design process is to perform a risk assessment.
Chapter 12 of Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM) has a detailed procedure for considering risk
assessments for urban drainage systems, which can apply to the specialist application of road drainage.
For road drainage, the risk related to the drainage design includes several categories.
• Structural features that may present a hazard to motorists, such as culvert headwalls. These are not
specifically related to the drainage performance. Discussion of this is contained in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of
the GRD and there has been no update on the specific concerns and therefore they are not covered
here.
• Danger from cross drainage structures, especially culverts, where people, including children, may be
washed into the structure.
• Ponded water beside road embankments, where a formal basin is built as part of the road design, or
ephemeral, only during flood events.
As described in QUDM, the safety risks associated with stormwater structures can be managed, but not
necessarily eliminated, through the use of appropriate designs and management techniques. The primary
means is to design the infrastructure so that the risk is minimised. In addition to this approach, the
infrastructure can be designed so that:
• people who accidently fall into the water can escape or
• by providing fencing or other barriers to either prevent people from entering the waterway or
• by providing screens on culvert entrances.
The QUDM procedure involves investigating the risks in the design and evaluating the overall risk into a
range of classes. The mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design are suggested for each class of
risk.
The detailed approach to the risk assessment and mitigation is included in QUDM and is not included here.

6.12 Joint Probability
6.12.1 Introduction
Joint probability is an important concept in hydrology and needs to be considered in a range of different road
drainage design applications.
In flood hydrology there are many situations where a number of factors need to be considered jointly when
determining the probability of a flood outcome, in other words when “Event A” AND “Event B” determine the
flood outcome, including the joint influence of a number of factors in determining the magnitude of a design
flood event. For example, the design flood level for a road crossing of a tributary near the junction with a
major river downstream may depend on flooding in:
• the main river or
• the tributary or
• a combination of the two.
Similarly, the flood immunity of a road in a coastal region affected by tides depends on both the stream flows
as well tidal influence. In hydrologic analysis, a flood peak may depend on the average depth and
spatial/temporal distribution of rainfall inputs, the magnitude and temporal distribution of losses and the
influence of flood modifying factors, such as the initial conditions of natural and artificial storages in the
catchment. The flood simulation process needs to allow for the joint probability of the different factors, which
may be correlated or independent of each other.
A similar factor is consideration of the risk of flooding on a road link with multiple waterway crossings. On a
road link, closure on any individual crossing can close the whole link. Analysis of the flood immunity of a link
therefore depends not only on the flood immunity of each individual crossing, but also on the probability of
flooding on each crossing occurring independently or coincidently.
ARR2019 provides advice on joint probability in ARR2019 Book 4 Chapter 4, and this section is adapted
from this section of ARR, with a particular focus on road flood and drainage planning and design. The
discussion in ARR is more detailed and technical than is required for routine flood projects, especially for the
smaller projects that are most relevant for road design applications.
Figure 6.56, taken from ARR2019 shows the generic issues related to consideration of joint probability in
hydrology, including road drainage design.

Figure 6.56: Components that need to be considered in solution of joint probability problems
Figure 6.56 shows how the probability distribution of each of the different inputs must be combined to
produce a probabilistic output for the design issue required.
For major projects subject to complex flood conditions detailed analysis such as Monte Carlo methods can
be applied and ARR should be consulted for guidance. However most routine road projects do not justify
such detail and this guide therefore provides advice on more simple approaches and issues that need to be
considered.
6.12.2 Joint probability Considerations in Hydrology
This aspect of joint probability is mainly concerned with the application of runoff routing modelling, where
several different input parameters need to be included and these can vary from one event to another. When
the models are applied to design cases, they must be defined to ensure that the design rainfall of the defined
probability can be transferred to a design flood of the same probability. This process is called “AEP
neutrality”.
Figure 6.57 shows the framework for including joint probability into runoff routing analyses, which is a
common requirement for routine hydrologic analysis. The “simple event” approach sets parameters for
losses, temporal patterns and spatial distribution with the parameter selection designed to ensure that the
design flood AEP matches the design rainfall AEP. This is designed to provide an “average” set of
parameters to provide this assurance. The more advanced methods of temporal pattern ensembles and
Monte Carlo methods, described in detail in ARR provide a more robust solution to ensure AEP neutrality.

Figure 6.57: Simple Monte Carlo simulation framework for joint probabilities
The requirement for consideration of joint probability for hydrologic analysis is to consider the probability of
occurrence of design rainfall events with rainfall distribution and catchment conditions.
This is a difficult problem and one without a simple solution, which is why ARR recommends application of
the ensemble or Monte Carlo analysis methods. However, for some routine and low risk applications,
consideration of joint probability could be considered.
6.12.3 Joint probability Considerations in Road Flood Design
There are four flood estimation applications where joint probability must be considered in flood estimation for
road design and where careful consideration of the issues is essential to obtain a robust flood estimate.
These applications are as follows.

Coastal streams affected by tidal levels
The first situation is for road crossing locations on a river near the coast where flooding may occur from
runoff in the river, tidal water levels, including storm tides, or a combination of the two. In this case, there is a
decision to be made concerning the risk of flooding directly from tidal levels and flooding from the local river.
However, the main concern is with the selection of an appropriate tailwater level to be used in the
assessment of river flooding. Tidal levels need to consider astronomical tides as well as storm tide and
determine the appropriate tidal level to adopt for the time when flooding occurs. In most cases, it is likely to
be over-conservative to assume the coincidental occurrence of high tides, storm tides and flooding, and the
appropriate combination needs to be considered.
This is a difficult statistical analysis, but the following procedure is recommended.
For the calculation of 1% AEP flood events in coastal areas, it recommended that analysis be undertaken of
four different combinations of river flooding and coastal flooding (storm tide), as follows:
• 1% AEP catchment flooding with 5% AEP coastal flooding.
• 1% AEP catchment flooding with neap tide conditions in the coastal waterway to provide an
understanding of potential flow velocities.
• 5% AEP catchment flooding with 1% AEP coastal flooding.
• no catchment flooding with 1% AEP coastal flooding.
These four conditions are illustrated in Figure 6.58.
Once these four scenarios have been examined, a judgement needs to be made on the appropriate flood
level to adopt. This needs to consider the distance from the coast, the differences between results with the
alternative assumptions, the significance of the infrastructure involved and the risk profile.
Figure 6.58: Interaction of catchment and coastal flooding
Source: DTMR 2014.
This approach is a pragmatic method that gives an indication of the potential range of possible solutions.
The recommended design procedure for hydraulic assessment for road drainage infrastructure located close
to the coast, where tidal influences may be an issue is as follows:

1. Prepare the design flood inflows using standard hydrology procedures.

2. Establish the hydraulic model for the water course from upstream of the structure to the downstream
limit at the mouth of the river.
3. Determine the astronomical tides for the mouth of the river using the published tide data.
4. Determine storm tide levels for the mouth of the river using published results from any local storm surge
study, more regional results or generic national data.
5. Analyse the flood levels and hydraulic design for the structure for three cases. These are:
a. catchment flooding associated with storm tides of the same probability (complete dependence).
b. catchment flooding with Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) as the tailwater level (assumed to be
almost complete independence, though still a little conservative).
c. storm tides without any catchment flooding (complete independence).
6. Determine the difference between the scenarios.
7. If the difference is sufficiently small to accept, adopt the complete dependence case as the design
condition, which will result in a slightly conservative result.
8. If the difference is large enough that it may have an impact on the design, a decision needs to be made
on the appropriate design approach. It may still be seen as acceptable to assume complete
dependence resulting in a conservative result, though this does result in a design flood level higher than
could be justified for the adopted probability.
9. A decision needs to be made then on the level of dependence to be adopted, with criteria noted above.
If the decision is to be made to accept complete independence, the tailwater level of the MHWS should
be adopted. If the decision is that there is partial dependence, the tailwater level needs to be accepted
as a point between the MHWS level and the storm tide level. ARR2019 has published a procedure for
estimating the extent of dependence, but this method is too complex to be used for routine applications
and not recommended in this guide.
10. The design floods should then be analysed for the catchment floods with the selected tailwater level.
11. As a check, the catchment floods should also be analysed with a lower tailwater level to check for
design flow velocities to determine scour potential. The lower tide level should be mean sea level or
Mean Low Water Springs.
12. As a sensitivity check, the catchment floods can be analysed with a higher tidal level, such as the HAT,
to assess the risk for a more coincident extent of flooding and tidal levels.
Minor streams upstream of a major river
The second situation is where there is a road crossing location on a tributary where flooding may occur from
the local tributary, the backwater from the downstream river or a combination of the two. This case is
especially important for locations where there is a small tributary flowing into a more major river with the road
crossing on the minor tributary. In some cases, the major downstream river may be well downstream of the
tributary crossing and the possibility of backwater effects may not be immediately obvious. Backwater from
the major river will backup into the tributary and may be higher than the level reached by floods in the minor
tributary alone. Where backwater occurs, the flow velocity will be relatively low, but the local runoff may have
a much higher flow velocity. If there is a significant difference in catchment size, or the sources of the two
rivers are located some distance apart, flooding may occur independently in the two rivers. If the two rivers
are similar sizes and individual rainfall events are likely to cover both catchments, flooding in the two rivers
may frequently coincide. However, in many cases, there will be some coincidence of flooding but it may not
be likely that the flood peaks occur together on the two rivers as they affect the road crossing.

The approach suggested for this situation is similar to that suggested for tidal areas, as follows:
1. Calculate flood level for local tributary inflow with local catchment critical duration for the design AEP
without any flow in the main river.
2. Calculate flood level for flow of the design AEP in the main river for the main catchment critical duration
without any flow in the tributary.
3. Calculate flood level for the design AEP for flow in the main catchment coincident with the local tributary
flow also of the design AEP, using the main catchment critical duration.
4. Compare all three flood levels.
5. Review the catchment conditions and assess whether flooding will occur independently in the two rivers,
by considering the relative catchment sizes, the typical rainfall distributions and any historical or
anecdotal evidence.
6. Based on the considerations of the three calculated flood levels and the evidence of the coincidence of
flooding, determine the appropriate design flood level.
7. In any case, analyse the case for flow in the local catchment without any downstream flooding should
also be considered since this will be a critical condition for flow velocity. This condition may also result
in a high afflux, but the absolute flood level will be lower and most likely not a critical design constraint,
though it could be checked.
Streams downstream of a dam

A third situation is for road crossing locations on a stream downstream of a dam, where the flood flows may
vary depending on the initial water level in the dam or on the dam operation. In this case, flooding may be
less when the upstream dam is empty or even low, since the initial flow in the river will be stored in the dam
rather than flow down the river to the road crossing. If the dam is full at the start of the flood, there will be no
“initial loss” and the flood will therefore be larger.
A means of assessing this case is to study the historical or design dam storages to determine the median
storage that could be expected at the beginning of a flood and use this in the analysis of the design flood at
the road crossing. It may also be useful to do the analysis separately assuming that the dam is full at the
beginning of the flood since this will provide a maximum flood level, though the AEP will be less than the
design case.
Varying floodplain conditions
In addition, road crossing locations on a river where channel conditions may vary sufficiently between events
that the flood immunity for the crossing may vary. A particular condition is where vegetation cover on a
floodplain varies, for example there is a major difference in Manning’s n values between a floodplain with
fallow land or an area of sugar cane. Consideration of blockage is a particular example of this case, and this
is discussed in Section 6.10 of this guide.
Analysis in this case should consider using different hydraulic roughness values over the floodplain to cover
the range of conditions considered possible as sensitivity tests. Low Manning’s n values will mean higher
flow velocities and lower flood levels while higher Manning’s n values will result in lower velocities and higher
flood levels. Considering this range can help to understand the potential risk and thereby set freeboard
levels.

Breakout 25: Joint Probability Summary
When concerned about potential joint probability, projects will be typically in catchments where a major river meets a
smaller tributary or the ocean.
The independent cases should each be assessed (i.e. 1% AEP river dominated event, 1% AEP ocean dominated
event) and then the fully coincident case which is extremely unlikely (i.e. a 1% AEP river peak meeting a 1% AEP tidal
surge).
If the difference in flood levels at key locations is only small, then the coincident case can be adopted. However, if
there is a large difference, then a more complex approach is required. This would involve doing a profile of the two
cases along the river and then considering a full joint probability assessment.
6.12.4 Flooding on a Road Link
When planning the desired flood immunity level of a road link, an important concept, that is often not
understood or implemented well, is the assessment of the risk of closure of the total link as well as the
individual crossings. This issue is particularly important where there is no realistic alternative route available.
The probability of closure for an existing road link is not simply based on the minimum flood immunity
standard of all cross drainage structures along the road link. Equally, it is incorrect to set the acceptable level
of risk of closure for the road link and then adopt this level (in the form of a flood immunity) for the design of
each drainage crossing. This will not necessarily achieve the desired level of immunity or risk of closure for
the link connection.
Road design usually involves planning individual cross drainage structures to a standard level of flood
immunity. Statistically this means the probability of the road being closed at any one of these crossings is the
risk for each individual crossing. However, due to the independence of rainfall events over time and
potentially between catchments, any drainage crossing along the link could close, due to an event larger
than the design flood, independently from all other crossings. This situation, when considered across the
whole road link, could greatly increase the risk (probability) of closure of the road link.
The assessment of probability of closure for a road link requires the determination of dependency between
the crossings, that is, are the crossings along a road link independent of each other or not. The level of
dependency influences the level of probability and therefore risk of closure.
Breakout 26: Flooding on a Road Link
This concept of probability of closure for a road link can be explained by use of an example. Assume a road link with 5
drainage crossings, each designed with a flood immunity of 2% AEP.
If all of the crossings on the road link are totally dependent, then a single rainfall event greater than 2% AEP will close
all of the crossings at the same time. This gives the road link a probability of closure of 2% AEP. However, if the
crossings are fully independent then each crossing can be subjected to an independent rainfall event greater than 2%
AEP at a different time to the other crossings. Therefore, the risk of closure of each crossing is independent of what
occurs at the other crossings. This situation can give the road link a probability of closure of about 10% AEP.
Typically, the crossings are dependent to a certain extent and the risk will be somewhere between the two cases
noted above. In this case, a single event may affect more than one crossing at a time on some occasions, but it is
likely that the crossings will be affected independently at other times.

Breakout 26: Flooding on a Road Link
Crossings will be fully dependent if the length of the road link is small and a single rainfall event will always affect all
crossings at one time. The dependence decreases as the length of the road link increases and the probability of a
single rainfall event effecting all catchments reduces. The dependence is low when there are many small catchments.
In this case, each small catchment may be affected by a localised short duration storm event, which will only extend
over a limited geographical area, and these events may occur anywhere along the road. An example of this is if there
is a long length of road covering 50 small catchment areas, each with its own crossing designed to have 2% AEP
flood immunity, the risk of closure of the road link is relatively high every year.

Breakout 27: Road Closure Joint Probability
An example project analysing the combined probability of road closure has been carried out by Jordan et al (2015) for
the Flinders Highway between Townsville and Cloncurry. This uses a detailed analysis involving continuous flow
simulation and should be considered only for major projects.
An example of the combined probability analysis is plotted in Figure 6.59, extracted from Jordan et al (2015).
Figure 6.59: Effects of dependency for Flinders Highway

This figure illustrates the issues related to flooding on a road link. For example, on Link 14E (Julia Creek to
Cloncurry), the average annual time of closure (AATOC) if the crossings are fully independent (that is flooding on one
does not necessarily occur at the same time as at any others and the road may be closed at different locations in
different years), is just over 70 hours per year. However, if flooding at the crossings is fully dependent, that is the
same rainfall event closes all crossings at the same time, the AATOC is only just over 20 hours per year, which is
equal to the longest time for closure for any crossing. The actual situation is between these two extremes, with an
AATOC of about 50 hours per year, which means that there is some coincidence of flooding, but it is partly
independent.
This case study and the paper describing it provide a good illustration of the flood risk and the influence of the joint
probability of flood coincidence.
The analysis of this risk is complex and depends on an assessment of the catchment types, the expected
rainfall mechanism and the distance between crossings.
Calculation of the risk of closure of the whole link needs to consider the flood immunity of each individual
crossing as well as the degree of independence of the crossings.
A good description of the issues of link closure and a simplified approach to analysis is provided in two
papers concerning the flood risk to railways lines in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia by Netchaef
(1983) and Fricke et al (1983). The paper by Fricke et al (1983) has the details of the procedure they
developed for assessing the risk of closure on a link by considering the cross correlation between rainfall
stations and then relating this to the catchment size. The end result for assessing the risk of closure was by
calculating the equivalent number of independent catchments. This is still a relatively complex analysis but is
considerably easier than the method involving continuous simulation as described by Jordan et al (2015).

The detailed analysis for this procedure is not included in this guide since it is a specialised procedure, but
the paper by Fricke et al (1983) can be referenced.
6.13 Uncertainty
6.13.1 Introduction
The hydrology and hydraulic analysis used in road flood and drainage planning and design is a simplified
representation of complex real world catchments and natural processes and for this reason can never be
completely accurate. There are many sources of uncertainty in the process that can impact on the final
result. Despite all of this the techniques used for hydrologic and hydraulic analysis in Australia work
reasonably well. Decision makers and the general public need to understand the processes and the
uncertainty to ensure that the limitations inherent in the flood design are appreciated particularly where this
influences the design.
The previous edition of the GRD did not cover uncertainty and it was only briefly covered in the ARR 1987.
However, the recent edition of ARR2019 provides a more complete coverage.
Consideration of uncertainty in flood design is important for several reasons as follows:

• Decision makers and the public should know and understand limitations in the process and results. They
should appreciate the reliability and not place undue confidence in the results. Stakeholders should
understand that road design may use the best available methods for analysis but flood assessment and
design is a complex process and a complete understanding of all processes and risk aspects cannot be
completely known.
• Considering uncertainty encourages the road designer to think about the processes involved and the
decisions made based on model results. Without considering this factor, it is possible to be over-
confident in the analysis and results. Where design guides are very prescriptive in describing the
procedures, there is a risk that the design may follow the guide completely and the possibility of
uncertainty may not be apparent.
• It makes predictions of different experts more comparable and leads to a transparent science. When two
or more different analyses are carried out for a project, the results may initially appear incompatible.
However, when considering the uncertainty in each result, this incompatibility may not be significant.
Different methodology or different designers may lead to different appreciations of the problem and
therefore a better understanding.
6.13.2 Sources of Uncertainty
ARR2019 outlines the sources of uncertainty in general flood estimation applications, and this guide relates
these to the specific applications to road flooding and drainage and to the other sections of the GRD. These
sources as adapted from ARR2019 are summarised as follows.
Predictive uncertainty
Predictive uncertainty represents the total uncertainty in the predictions of interest, typically the estimates of
the design flood, both discharge and level. It is comprised of the various sources of uncertainty that are
outlined below, including data uncertainty, parametric uncertainty, structural uncertainty, regionalisation
uncertainty and deep uncertainty. This total predictive uncertainty is used as input to the decision making
uncertainty framework, to provide reliable predictions. The magnitude of the total predictive uncertainty and
the relative contribution of the various sources of uncertainty is of obvious interest. The magnitude provides
an indication of the total uncertainty of the predictions, while the relative contribution highlights which sources
of uncertainty are the key contributors and which could be reduced. In the case of road design the predictive
uncertainty is concerned with the reliability of flood levels for assessing flood immunity, of flood discharges

for assessing waterway structure sizes and of flood analysis for assessing the potential impacts of the project
on neighbouring properties. This uncertainty needs to be understood and appreciated by all stakeholders so
they understand the overall performance and reliability of any particular design.
Data uncertainty
Data uncertainty is a key source of predictive uncertainty. The more uncertain the data used to inform the
methods used to estimate the peak flows and flood levels, the more uncertainty there is in the predictions of
the peak flows. The definition of “data” is a challenging one in the context of design flood estimation since in
each step of the modelling process, the data used as an input may be based on the output of a prior
modelling process, rather than actual measurements. Data uncertainty is dependent on the quality and
number of measurements undertaken to inform that information. Data is an essential input to any road
drainage and flood design and is essential both for formal calibration of methods as well as for an
assessment of the general reasonableness of the result. It is also essential to help stakeholders appreciate
the results. Any uncertainty or inaccuracy in the input data leads to uncertainty in the results. The data
uncertainty can refer to either formal data or anecdotal (informal) data and in the context of road design, will
refer to both hydrology and hydraulic data. For example observed flood levels can be obtained from water
level recorders or debris marks in buildings, which may be very accurate. While debris marks without
knowing where they were recorded or local features may be quite uncertain, with an accuracy usually of ±0.3
m.
Parametric uncertainty
Design flood estimates rely on using mathematical models to predict design floods. These models are
estimated using time series of uncertain quality data with finite length. These limitations induce uncertainty in
the estimates of these parameters, called parametric uncertainty. This parametric uncertainty would occur
even if the mathematical model were exact. The magnitude of this parametric uncertainty decreases as the
length of the time series of data increases. Conversely it increases when the uncertainty of the data
increases. When time series are short and/or uncertainty in the data is high then parametric uncertainty can
contribute significantly to total predictive uncertainty. In the context of road design, the uncertainty will relate
to both hydrology and hydraulic models. For ungauged catchments, the parameters used to calculate design
flood estimates from the RFFE method have considerable uncertainty. For runoff-routing models, the
parameters are either calibrated or estimated from regional relationships. Routing parameters as well as
losses are likely to be more reliable where there is calibration data, but this approach still has uncertainty.
Use of regional parameter estimates for ungauged catchments is even more inaccurate. Hydraulic
calculations are generally carried out using a hydraulic model which may be as simple as application of
Manning’s equation, through more complex methods such as a 1D model through to very advanced 2D
methods. All of these rely on model parameters including Manning’s roughness parameter, “n”, which is
critical for all hydraulic calculations. More complex models have more parameters and more variation in the
parameters. Estimates of parameter uncertainty are difficult to quantify but it is possible to understand the
relative uncertainty for different model types and calibration extent.
Structural uncertainty
Structural uncertainty refers to the uncertainty in the mathematical model used to provide the predictions of
the peak flows. It is a consequence of the simplifying assumptions made in approximating the actual
environmental system with a mathematical hypothesis where the structural error of a hydrologic model
depends on the model formulation. Models used for road drainage design can be very simple such as
Manning’s equation or a complex and advanced 2D hydraulic model, but they are all simplifications of the
real world. There is no reason why a simplification of a natural system cannot be used effectively for
analysis, as long as the simplification represents the key attributes. However, the simpler models are likely to
result in more uncertainty than more complex ones that are a more complete representation of the complex
natural system. Assessment of model structural uncertainty needs to consider how complete the model
representation is compared to the natural system and incorporate this into consideration. In general, for road
drainage analysis, the uncertainty for the hydrology component is expected to be greater than that for the

hydraulic component, which can be regarded as providing a more physically based representation of nature.
Unfortunately, the hydrology is more critical than the hydraulics since this component provides the inflow
hydrograph and the amount of water than needs to be managed by the road infrastructure.
Regionalisation uncertainty
Regionalisation uncertainty refers to the uncertainty induced when there is a geographical migration of
hydrological information from a data rich location to a data poor location. In the context of design flood
estimation, it refers to any information that is transferred from one site to another. In particular the regional
parameters used for hydrologic analysis including the RFFE and runoff-routing methods rely on regional
relationships to transfer parameter values for ungauged catchments. It is less of an issue for the hydraulic
model which is prepared specifically for a particular water course or floodplain, however the estimation of
Manning’s n for locations without calibration data is a similar issue. At the original data rich location there is
considerable uncertainty from the original application of the model which is dependent upon structural,
parametric and data uncertainty. Regionalisation adds to this uncertainty increasing the predictive
uncertainty. Given there are large number of sources of uncertainty in regionalisation uncertainty, it can
induce significant predictive uncertainty, when there is very limited at-site data. The RFFE is a good example
where the regionalisation adds to the underlying data and parametric uncertainty. Another example is where
runoff-routing models uses regional or transferred parameters.
Deep uncertainty
Deep uncertainty refers to the sources of uncertainty that impact on the robustness of design but are difficult
to assign a priori probabilities measures to. In some cases, a cause of uncertainty is plausible but has never
been observed. It acknowledges that practitioners and decision makers may not be able to enumerate all
sources of uncertainty in a system nor their associated probabilities. In the context of design flood estimation,
examples of deep uncertainty could include the effects of climate change, because the different scenarios
used for future greenhouse gas emissions are uncertain and cannot be assigned probabilities. Another
example might be future land use changes within a catchment, because it depends on variety of political,
social and economic factors, which can be difficult to predict and reliably assign probabilities to incorporate
into the design.
6.13.3 Examples of Uncertainty in Flood Design
The estimation of design rainfall is a critical input in many road drainage and flood designs, and this is often
regarded as an accurate and reliable estimate. While design rainfall is accurate and reliable there is still
some underlying uncertainty issues which need to be considered and the uncertainty varies with location.
In most cases projects will use the design rainfall estimates provided by the Bureau of Meteorology and
published in ARR, rather than undertake a specific local individual analysis. Therefore, the design rainfall
inputs will always be regional estimates.
The source of data uncertainty is rainfall gauge density and the length of rainfall data across Australia, which
is highly variable in different parts of Australia and with far lower gauge density and shorter records for sub-
daily rainfall data than daily. This can induce significant data uncertainty in the design rainfall estimates. A
probability model is used to estimate the extreme rainfall events (e.g. 1% AEP) based on the limited historic
rainfall data available. This probability model has parametric uncertainty, which increases as the length and
quality of the rainfall data decreases. There is structural uncertainty in the choice of the probability model for
extreme rainfall, and this is increased when the probability model is used to extrapolate from shorter rainfall
time series to extreme events. This is particularly problematic for sub-daily rainfall, because records are
typically shorter than daily rainfall data. There is regionalisation uncertainty because the design rainfall
estimates are regionalised to areas with limited gauged data.

This design rainfall for an event is then disaggregated into a time series using temporal patterns, they have
their own sources of data, parametric, structural and regionalisation uncertainty, because they are estimated
based on rainfall data most likely from outside the catchment of interest. If spatial patterns are used to
distribute design rainfall spatially across a catchment, then they will have similar sources of uncertainty.
Considering the high spatial and temporal variability of rainfall processes these uncertainties in design
rainfall are unlikely to be small.
Using Regional Flood Frequency (RFFE)
When there is no at-site data, then regional information using RFFE is used to inform the parameters and the
choice of the probability model used for the flood frequency distribution. For this case, the data uncertainty is
not a source of uncertainty, however the parametric uncertainty is high because no at-site data is available,
and the structural uncertainty is also high because no at-site data is available to evaluate if the chosen
probability model for the flood frequency distribution is appropriate.
When using regional information there is also regionalisation uncertainty because the parameters of the flood
frequency has been transferred from another catchment. All the sources of uncertainty that contribute to the
regionalisation uncertainty as described previously will be relevant to this source of uncertainty.
Catchment modelling approach to estimating design floods (runoff-routing)

Runoff-routing modelling is a critical method for estimating design flood flows for road design and this
approach to design flood estimation relies on estimates of the design rainfall, which is converted into
effective rainfall using a loss model and then used as input into runoff-routing model (calibrated to a limited
number of flood events) to simulate flood events and therefore provide estimates of the design flood.
Estimation of design rainfall is a key part of this process, and uncertainty for this aspect is described above.
Other aspects of this uncertainty are as follows.
The parameters for the runoff-routing model and the loss model are usually calibrated jointly using historic
flood events in a given catchment. There are distinct components of the catchment modelling processes,
however as their sources of uncertainty are similar, they will be discussed together.
The first case is where there is at-site data to calibrate the model parameters.
Data Uncertainty. Runoff-routing models (e.g. RORB) and loss models (e.g. Initial/continuing loss) required
in the catchment modelling approach are typically calibrated to at-site flood event data. In this calibration
step, the data uncertainty is the uncertainty in the streamflow data (discussed previously) and the additional
uncertainty in the rainfall data, which as discussed previously, increases as the rainfall gauge density within
the catchment decreases.
Parametric Uncertainty. The runoff-routing model loss model have parameters estimated through
calibration to a limited number of flood events. This source of parametric uncertainty will decrease as the
number of events decreases, and the consistency of the parameter estimates between events also
increases. If the parameter estimates vary significantly between events, this will increase the parametric
uncertainty.
Structural Uncertainty. As the runoff-routing model and the loss models represents a mathematical
simplification of the actual catchment processes and will be a source of structural uncertainty. As the fit to the
data used for calibration increases this source of uncertainty will decrease but will not be eliminated. If the
complexity of the runoff-routing model increases, e.g. move from lumped to a spatially distributed model,
then potentially the structural uncertainty is decreased, however, with a spatially distributed model the
challenge becomes estimating the parameters over a spatial grid. Hence, if there is a lack of spatial
streamflow and rainfall data to calibrate the model, then there is a potentially a shift from structural
uncertainty to parametric uncertainty, which may result in no reduction the total predictive uncertainty.

If there is no at-site calibration data, the runoff routing model must be established using regional information
only.
Data, Parametric, and Structural Uncertainty. When there is no at-site data, the regional information is
used to inform the parameter estimates, and choice of runoff-routing models (such as RORB for example)
and loss model (such as initial losses and continuing losses for example). For this case, data uncertainty is
not a source of uncertainty, however the parametric uncertainty is higher because no at-site data is
available, and the structural uncertainty is also high because no at-site data is available to evaluate if the
runoff-routing model or loss model is appropriate.
Regionalisation Uncertainty. When using regional information there is also regionalisation uncertainty
because the parameters of the runoff-routing model and loss model have been transferred from another
catchment using a regionalisation procedure. All the sources of uncertainty that contribute to the
regionalisation uncertainty as described previously will be relevant to this source of uncertainty, but they will
apply both to the loss model and the runoff-routing model. In comparison to regionalisation of flood
frequency distribution which is relatively well advanced, the regionalisation of runoff-routing models and loss
models is still relatively unreliable and hence the regionalisation uncertainty of runoff-routing and loss models
is likely to be far larger than regionalisation of flood frequency distributions.
6.13.4 Application of Uncertainty in Road Design
While the uncertainty in the analysis of flooding and drainage in road projects is difficult to understand, it is
important that designers, stakeholders and the community understand the importance of the concern.
Section 6.6 of this guide outlines a range of different methods for design flood estimation. Each of these
methods have different levels of uncertainty and the uncertainty inherent in each method should be
considered in decisions of the appropriate method for design flood estimation.
Uncertainty in flood design can be incorporated into the design in several ways:
• Separate independent methods can be used to complete the flood analysis, especially for the hydrology
component and these independent methods can provide support for the result to be accepted.
• Sensitivity analysis can be used to assess the relative and absolute influence of different components of
the design and therefore can assist in determining the components that need to be determined most
carefully.
• Freeboard can be provided to allow for possible uncertainty in results and thereby limit the risk of severe
damage.
It is important to consider the uncertainty in the methods used to analyse flooding on road projects and use
this assessment in the selection of methods. This uncertainty also needs to be communicated to relevant
stakeholders so there are no unrealistic expectations concerning the results. For critical decisions where the
risk of overtopping has significant consequences a freeboard of 300m-500mm will remove most of the
uncertainty. A practical test is to determine if your decision making would substantially change using the
results from your sensitivity analysis.

References
Alderson A (2006) The collection and discharge of storm water from the road infrastructure, report no. ARR
368, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (2017) Australian Disaster Resilience Guideline 7-3 Flood Hazard,
Edited and published by the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, on behalf of the Australian
Government Attorney-General’s Department.
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (2022) Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model, accessed 10 September
2022.
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (2022b) ARR Data Hub, accessed 10 September 2022.
Austroads (2001) Road run-off and drainage: environmental impacts and management options, AP-R180-01,
Austroads (2003) Guidelines for treatment of stormwater run-off from the road infrastructure, AP-R232-03,
Austroads (2006) Guide to road design: part 2: design considerations, AGRD02-06, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads (2009a) Guide to pavement technology: part 10: subsurface drainage, AGPT10-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2009b) Guide to pavement technology: part 7: pavement maintenance, AGPT07-09, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2015) Austroads glossary of terms, 6th edn, AP-C87-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2015b) Guide to road design: part 6B: roadside environment, AGRD06B-09, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads (2016) Guide to road design: part 3: geometric design, AGRD03-16 (Edn 3.4 published February
2021), Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2017) Guide to road design: part 6A: paths for walking and cycling, AGRD06A-17 (Edn 2.1
published February 2021), Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2017b) Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, AGPT02-17,
Austroads (2018) Guide to bridge technology: part 4: design procurement and concept design, AGBT04-18,
Austroads (2018b) Guide to bridge technology: part 7: maintenance and management of existing bridges,
AGBT07-18, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2019) Guide to bridge technology part 8: hydraulic design of waterway structures, AGBT08-19,
Austroads (2019b) Guide to pavement technology: part 8: pavement construction, AGPT08-19, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2021) Guide to road design: part 1: introduction to road design, AGRD01-21, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads (2021b) Guide to road tunnels: part 2: planning, design and commissioning, AGRT02-21,
Austroads (2022) Guide to road design: part 6: roadside design, safety and barriers, AGRD06-22 Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.

Austroads (2023a) Guide to road design: part 5A: drainage – road surface, networks, basins and subsurface,
AGRD05A-23, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2023b) Guide to road design: part 5B: drainage – open channels, culverts and floodways,
AGRD05B-23, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Babister M and Barton C (2016) Project 15: Two Dimensional Modelling in Urban and Rural Floodplains,
accessed 10 August 2022.
Babister M, Trim A, Testoni I and Retallick M (2016) ‘The Australian rainfall and runoff datahub’ [symposium
paper]. 37th Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium 2016: Water, Infrastructure and the Environment.
Barton, ACT.
Ball J, Babister M, Nathan R, Weeks W, Weinmann E, Retallick M, Testoni I, (Eds) (2019) Australian Rainfall
and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation, Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), Canberra.
Boyd M J, Rigby E H, VanDrie R and Schymitzek I (2002), WBMN2000 for flood studies on natural and
urban catchments, In 'Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications', pp. 225-
258.
Bradley J B, Richards D L and Bahner C D (2005) Debris control structures: evaluation and
countermeasures, hydraulic engineering circular no. 9, 3rd edn, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, USA.
Brown S A, Schall J D, Morris J L, Doherty C L, Stein S M and Warner J C (2009) Urban drainage design
manual, hydraulic engineering circular no. 22, 3rd ed, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
USA.
Bureau of Meteorology (2012) Intensity frequency duration, BoM, Melbourne, Vic, accessed 7 August 2012.
Bureau of Meteorology (2016) Design Rainfall Data System, BoM, Melbourne, Vic, accessed 7 August 2022.
Bureau of Meteorology (2020) Flood Warning System for the Warrego River, BoM, Melbourne, Vic, accessed
10 September 2022.
Bureau of Meteorology (2022) About the Geofabric, BoM, Melbourne, Vic, accessed 10 August 2022.
Bureau of Meteorology (2022b) Water Data Online, BoM, Melbourne, Vic, accessed 10 August 2022.
Carroll D G (2012) URBS (Unified River Basin Simulator) – A rainfall runoff routing model for flood
forecasting and design, Version 5.00.
Chanson H (2004) The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction 2nd ed, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (2012) Acid sulphate soils, CSIRO, Clayton,
Vic.
Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia (2012) Design software pipeclass, CPAA, St Leonards, NSW.
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Change in Australia, accessed 12 August 2022.
Dear S E, Moore N G, Dobos S K, Watling K M and Ahern C R (2002) Queensland acid sulfate soil technical
manual: soil management guidelines, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Indooroopilly, Qld.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2012) Climate change, DCCEE, Canberra, ACT.
Department of Environment and Resource Management (2004) Soil conservation measures: design manual
for Queensland, DERM, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Main Roads (2000) Fauna sensitive road design: vol 1: past and existing practices, DMR,
Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Natural Resources and Water (2007) Queensland urban drainage manual, vol. 1, 2nd edn,
DNRW, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads (2010a) Fauna sensitive road design manual: vol 2: preferred
practices, DTMR, Brisbane, Qld.

Department of Transport and Main Roads (2010b) Road drainage manual, 2nd edn, DTMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Environment Protection Authority, New South Wales (1997) Managing urban stormwater: treatment
techniques, NSW EPA, Sydney, NSW.
eWater Cooperative Research Centre (2012) Evolving water management, eWater CRC, Bruce, ACT,
Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration (2009) Guideline specifications for soil media in bio-retention
systems, FAWB, Monash University, Clayton, Vic.
Fairfull S and Witheridge G (2003) Why do fish need to cross the road? Fish passage requirements for
waterway crossings, NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, NSW.
Fricke T J, Kennedy M R and Wellington N B (1983) ‘The use of Rainfall Correllation in determining design
storms for waterways on a long railway line’. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Inst.
Engineers Australia, National Conference. Publication No. 83/13, pp215-219.
Geoscience Australia (2012) Maps and 3D models, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Geoscience Australia (2022) Digital Elevation Data, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, ACT, accessed 10
August 2022.
Hennessy K B, Fitzharris B, Bates B C, Harvey N, Howden M, Hughes L, Salinger J and Warrick R (2007)
Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: chapter 11: Australia and New Zealand,
Contribution of working group II to the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, IPCC, Exeter, UK.
Hu L, Gallant J, Prosser J P, Moran C and Priestly G (2001) Prediction of sheet and rill erosion over the
Australian continent, incorporating monthly soil loss distribution, technical report 13/01, CSIRO Land and
Water, Canberra, ACT.
Infrastructure Sustainability Council (2022) IS Rating Scheme, accessed 10 August 2022.
Innoyze (2020) XPRAFTS: Urban and Rural Runoff Routing, accessed 10 August 2022.
Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Queensland (2017) Queensland Urban Drainage Manual,
International Erosion Control Association (2008) Best practice erosion & sediment control, IECA Australasia,
Picton, NSW.
Jordan P, Nathan R, Weeks W, Waskiw P, Herron A, Cetin L, Rogencamp G, Stephens C, Russell C (2015)
Estimation of flood risk for linear transport infrastructure using continuous simulation modelling, Hydrology
and Water Resources Symposium, Hobart, December 2015.
Laurenson E M (1962) Hydrograph synthesis by runoff routing, Research Report 66, Sydney: Water
Research Laboratory, University of New South Wales.
Laurenson E M (1964) A catchment storage model for a runoff routing, Journal of Hydrology, volume 2, pp.
141-163.
Laurenson E M, Mein R G and Nathan R J (2010) RORB Version 6 Runoff Routing Program - User Manual.
Ling F, Pokhrel P, Cohen W, Peterson J, Blundy S, Robinson K (2015) Project 8: Use of Continuous
Simulation Models for Design Flood Estimation and Project 12 Selection of an Approach Stage 3 Report,
Main Roads Western Australia (2006) Floodway design guide, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia (2012) Climate change, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Melbourne Water (2005a) Constructed shallow lake systems design guidelines for developers, version 2,
Melbourne Water, Melbourne, Vic.
Melbourne Water (2005b) WSUD engineering procedures: stormwater, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Vic.
Melbourne Water (2009) Constructed waterways in urban developments guidelines, Melbourne Water
Melbourne, Vic.

Melbourne Water (2010) Constructed wetlands guidelines, Melbourne Water, Melbourne, Vic.
Melbourne Water (2012a) Urban stormwater harvesting, Melbourne Water, Melbourne, Vic.
Melbourne Water (2012b) Guidelines for stormwater harvesting, Melbourne Water, Melbourne Vic.
McGrath T, Weeks W, Stewart J and Miles K (2008) ‘David and Goliath – Local and Regional Flood
Modelling in the Yellow Gin Creek Flood Study’ [conference presentation], Engineers Australia, 9th
National Conference on Hydraulics in Water Engineering, Darwin.
McKerchar A I and Macky G H (2001) ‘Comparison of a regional method for estimating design floods with
two rainfall-based methods’, Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand), vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 129–38.
Ministry for the Environment (2012) Climate change information, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Mudgway L B, Duncan H P, McMahon T A and Chiew F H S (1997) Best practice environmental
management guidelines for urban stormwater, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,
Clayton, Vic.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council & National
Health and Medical Research Council (2009) Guidelines for water recycling: stormwater harvesting and
reuse, National water quality management strategy document no 23, NRMMC, EP&HC & NHMRC,
Canberra, ACT.
Netchaef P (1983) Design Storm Criteria for a Long Railroad in a Cyclone Area, Engineers Australia,
Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, 1983, Hobart.
Oakden G J (1977) Highway surface drainage: design guide for highways with a positive collection, Ministry
of Works and Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Pachauri R K and Reisinger A (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report, Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pilgrim D H (ed) (2001) Australian rainfall and runoff: a guide to flood estimation, vol. 1, rev. edn, Institution
of Engineers, Australia, Barton, ACT.
Pilgrim D H (ed) (2007) Australian rainfall and runoff: a guide to flood estimation: vol. 2, CD-ROM, rev. edn,
Institution of Engineers, Australia, Barton, ACT.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2014) Guideline Storm Tide – Issues for Design of
Road Infrastructure in Coastal Areas, accessed 10 August 2022.
Queensland Government (2022) Water Monitoring Information Portal, accessed10 August 2022.
Ragan R M and Duru J O (1972) ‘Kinematic wave nomograph for times of concentration’, Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 1765–771.
Rahman A, Haddad K, Haque M M, Kuczera G, Weinmann P E, Stensmyr P, Babister M, Weeks W (2015)
The New Regional Flood Frequency Estimation Model for Australia: RFFE Model 2015, 36th Hydrology
and Water Resources Symposium, 7-10 December, 2015, Hobart.
Ramsar (2012) The Ramsar convention on wetlands, Ramsar, Gland, Switzerland.
Retallick M and Babister M (2018) Defining acceptable impacts for flood impact assessments, Hydrology and
Water Resources Symposium, Engineers Australia, Melbourne.
Roads and Traffic Authority (1999) RTA code of practice for water management, road development and
management, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Rosewell C J and Keats J (1993) SOILOSS: a program to assist in the selection of management practices to
reduce erosion, 2nd edn, technical handbook no. 11, Department of Conservation and Land Management,
Sydney, NSW.
Royal Life Saving Society Australia (2004) Guidelines for water safety: urban water developments, RLSSA,
Sydney, NSW.

Savage M (2010) Specification for supply of recycled material for pavements, earthworks and drainage,
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney, NSW.
Schueler T R (1987) Controlling urban runoff: a practical manual for planning and designing urban best
management practices, Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning Board, Washington, DC,
USA.
Sharma A, Wasko C, Lettenmaier D (2018) If Precipitation Extremes Are Increasing, Why Aren’t Floods?.
Water Resources Research, 54, 8545-8551. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023749.
Smith G P, Davey E K, Cox R (2014) Flood Hazard, WRL Technical Report 2014/07, Water Research
Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales.
Smith G and Wasko C (2012) ARR Project 15: Two Dimensional Simulations in Urban Areas-
Representation of Buildings in 2D Numerical Flood Models, accessed 10 August 2022.
State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads), Cost-benefit Analysis Manual Road
Projects, The State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads), 2011.
State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads), Road Drainage Manual, © The State of
Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads), 2019.
Thompson P L and Kilgour R T (2006) Hydraulic design of energy dissipators for culverts and channels,
hydraulic engineering circular no. 14, Federal Highway Administration, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Tomlinson AI (1980) The frequency of high intensity rainfalls in New Zealand, Ministry of Works and
Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Turner AK (1960) ‘Rainfall losses in relation to runoff for small catchments’, Journal of Institute of Engineers,
Australia, vol. 32, no. 1-2, pp. 1–6.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Future of Climate Change, accessed 10 August
2022.
VicRoads (2003) Road design guidelines: part 7: drainage, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads (2006) Acid sulphate soils, technical note 22, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads (2010) Sustainability and climate change strategy 2010 – 2015, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads (2012) Fauna sensitive road design guidelines, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Victorian Stormwater Committee (1999) Urban stormwater: best practice environmental management
guidelines, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Vic.
Ward M, Retallick M, Babister M and Testoni I (2018) ‘Ensemble assessment and gridded surface response’
[symposium paper]. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium (HWRS 2018): Water and
Communities. Melbourne: Engineers Australia, 2018: 735-748. Engineers Australia.
2004–2007, Western Australia Department of Water, Perth, WA.
2004–2007: chapter 9: structural controls, Western Australia Department of Water and Swan River Trust,
Perth, WA
WMAwater (2017) Flood Frequency Analysis, State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage
WMAwater (2018a) ARR2016 Case Study – Rural Report on Sensitivity To ARR2016 Approaches, © State
of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage, 2018
WMAwater (2018b) ARR2016 Case Study – Urban Report on Sensitivity To ARR2016 Approaches, © State
of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage, 2018
Wong T, Breen P and Lloyd S (2000) Water sensitive road design: design options for improving stormwater
quality of road runoff, technical report 00/1, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology,
Melbourne, Victoria.

Wong, THF (ed) (2006) Australian runoff quality: a guide to water sensitive urban design, Engineers Media,
Crows Nest, NSW.
Standards Australia and New Zealand Standards

AS/NZS 1254:2010, PVC-U pipes and fittings for stormwater and surface water applications.
AS 1597.1:2010, Precast reinforced concrete box culverts: small culverts not exceeding 1200 mm span and
1200 mm height.
AS 1597.2:1996, Precast reinforced box culverts: large culverts (from 1500 mm span and up to and including
4200 mm span and 4200 mm height.
AS 2439.1:2007, Perforated plastics drainage and effluent pipe and fittings: perforated drainage pipes and
associated fittings.
AS/NZS 2041.1:2011, Buried metal structures: design methods.
AS/NZS 2041.2:2011, Buried corrugated metal structures.
AS/NZS 2041.4:2010, Buried corrugated metal structures: helically formed sinusoidal pipes.
AS/NZS 2041.6:2010, Buried corrugated metal structures: bolted plate structures.
AS/NZS 2566.1:1998, Buried flexible pipelines: structural design.
AS/NZS 2566.2:2002, Buried flexible pipelines: installation.
AS/NZS 3725:2007, Design for installation of buried concrete pipes.
Further Reading
ANZECC 2000, Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, Australian and
New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, accessed 21 August 2012.
Auckland Regional Council (ARC) (2003) Stormwater management devices: design guidelines manual
(TP10), Auckland Regional Council, NZ.
Balkham M, Fosbeary C, Kitchen A and Rickard C (2010) Culvert design and operation guide, CIRIA C689,
London, UK, accessed 21 August 2012.
Boubee J, Jowett I, Nichols S and Williams E (1999) Fish passage at culverts: a review with possible
solutions for New Zealand indigenous species, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Brickell R G (1985) Geomechanics for New Zealand roads, National Roads Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
Cawthron Institute (2000) Fish passage in New Zealand rivers, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.
Centre for Advanced Engineering (2005) Managing flood risk: the case for change, CAENZ, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand.
Griffiths G A (1981) ‘Flow resistance in coarse gravel bed rivers’, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, vol. 107,
no. 7, pp. 899–918.
Harding J, Mosley P, Pearson C and Sorrell B (2004) Freshwaters of New Zealand, New Zealand
Hydrological Society & New Zealand Limnological Society, Wellington, NZ.
Hyman W A and Vary D (1999) Best management practices for environmental issues related to highway and
street maintenance, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice
272, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Henderson F M (1966) Open channel flow, Macmillan, New York, USA.
Hicks D M and Mason P D (1991) Roughness characteristics of New Zealand rivers, DSIR Marine and
Freshwater, Wellington, New Zealand.
Maidment D R (ed) (1993) Handbook of hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

McKerchar A I and Pearson C P (1989) Flood frequency in New Zealand, publication 20, Hydrology Centre,
DSIR Division of Water Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Melville B and Coleman S (2000) Bridge scour monograph, Water Resources Publications, LLC, Colorado,
USA.
Ministry of Works and Development (1977) Highway surface drainage: design guide for highways with a
positive collection system, Ministry of Works & Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Morgan T K K B (2004) A Tangata Whenua perspective on sustainability using the Mauri model, Facility of
Engineering, Auckland University, New Zealand, accessed 21 August 2012.
New Zealand Environmental Research Foundation (2004) Waterway management in New Zealand: best
management practice manual, New Zealand Environmental Research Foundation, Wellington, NZ.
New Zealand Transport Agency (2003) Bridge manual, 2nd edn, New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington,
New Zealand.
New Zealand Transport Agency (2010a) Stormwater treatment standard for state highway infrastructure,
New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Transport Agency (2010b), Erosion and sediment control standard for state highway
infrastructure (including field guide for contractors), New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, New
Zealand.
New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (2008) National code of practice for utilities access to the transport
corridors, NZUAG, Wellington, New Zealand, accessed 21 August 2012.
O’Riley, A, Pandey, S, Langdon, A & Wilkins, A (2002) Characterisation of runoff contaminants from New
Zealand roads and effect of rainfall events, research report no. 228, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington,
NZ.
Overton J M, Smale M C, Whaley K J, Clarkson B D, Emmet D K and Simcock R C (2000) Measuring and
enhancing roadside biodiversity, report no. 157, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Overton J M, Smale M C, Whaley K J, Fitzgerald N B and McGlone H (2002) A methodology for assessing
the biodiversity of road networks: a New Zealand case study, report No. 221. Transfund New Zealand,
Wellington, NZ.
Thompson C and Tomlinson A (1995) A guide to probable maximum precipitation in New Zealand, NIWA
science and technology series no. 19, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand, accessed 21 August 2012.
United States Department of Agriculture (1966) Handbook of channel design for soil and water conservation,
soil conservation service technical publication 61, USDA, Washington DC., accessed 21 August 2012.
United States Department of Agriculture, (1987) Stability design of grass-lined open channels, agriculture
handbook number 667, USDA, Washington DC, accessed 21 August 2012.
Western Australia Department of Water (2011) Water sensitive urban design brochures, Department of
Water, Perth, WA, accessed 25 October 2012.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Design Series

HDS 04 2008, Introduction to highway hydraulics (NHI-08-090)
HDS 05 2012, Hydraulic design of highway culverts, 3rd edn (HIF-12-026)
HDS 06 2001, River engineering for highway encroachments (NHI-01-004)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Engineering Circular

HEC 09 2005, Debris control structures evaluation and counter measures (IF-04-016)
HEC 11 1989, Design of riprap revetment (IP-89-016)
HEC 14 2006, Hydraulic design of energy dissipaters for culverts and channels (NHI-06-086)

HEC 15 2005, Design of roadside channels with flexible linings, 3rd edn (IF-05-114)
HEC 18 2012, Evaluating scour at bridges, 5th edn (HIF-12-003)
HEC 20 2012, Stream stability at highway structures, 4th edn (HIF-12-004)
HEC 21 1993, Bridge deck drainage systems (SA-92-010)
HEC 22 2009, Urban drainage design manual, 3rd edn (NHI-10-009)
HEC 23 2009, Bridge stability and stream instability countermeasures experience, selection and design
guidance, 3rd edn, vol. 1 and 2 (NHI-09-111 and NHI-09-112)
HEC 26 2010, Culvert design for aquatic organism passage (HIF-11-008)

Design of an Infiltration Basin
Design of an Infiltration Basin
The basin is to be sited in an area of sandy loam (permeability of 5 x 10-5 m/s) which has a catchment area
of five ha containing 50% impervious areas. The time of concentration is 20 minutes and it is desired to
design the basin to cater for a storm event with a 10 year ARI. The groundwater is located approximately 3 m
below the floor of the basin. The batter slopes are to be 1:8.
Referring to Table A 1 the following process is followed:

• using the procedures in Pilgrim (2001) the rainfall intensities (col. 2 of Table A 1) were calculated for
storms of varying durations (col. 1) with a 10 year ARI
• the Rational Method was used to estimate the run-off volumes (col. 3) assuming constant intensity storm
events
• the volume of water entering the basin for each time period was then calculated (col. 4)
• a trial basin size of 60 m long with a width of 25 m was adopted
• the depth in the basin of the run-off is then calculated assuming that there are no losses (col. 5)
• the depth in the basin is halved (col. 6)
• half of the hydraulic radius is calculated (col. 7)

• radius of influence is calculated (col. 8) from Equation A1:
𝑅 = 𝑟 + 50 (𝐻1 + 𝑑) 𝐾 0.5 A1
where
𝐻1 = Half the depth of water in basin (m)
K = Soil permeability (m/hour)
• Outflow is calculated (col. 9) from Equation A2:
𝐾𝜋(2𝑇)(𝐻′ + 𝑑)2 A2
𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 =
𝑅
𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝑟
where
𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 = At time 2𝑇 (m3)
𝐾 = Soil permeability (m/s)
𝑇 = Storm duration (sec)
𝐻′ = Half depth of water in basin (m)
𝑑 = Distance from floor of basin to the water table (m)
𝑟 = Half wetted perimeter
𝑅 = Radius of influence from the centre of the basin

• Storage is calculated by subtracting the outflow from the inflow.

• For the new storage volume a new depth can be calculated to check that it does not exceed the
recommended maximum of 0.6 m.
𝑉 0.5 A3
[𝑊 2 + 4(𝐵𝑆) ] − 𝑊
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝐿
2 𝐵𝑆
where
𝑊 = Width of basin floor (m)
𝐵𝑆 = Batter slope (1:x)

𝑉 = Storage volume (m3)
𝐿 = Length of basin floor (m)
and detention time s is given by Equation A4:
𝑑 A4
𝐻′ + 𝑑
𝐾( )
𝑑
The depth at maximum storage volume and the detention time for the example can then be calculated from
these equations.
Depth = ((252 + 4[8] * 1070/60)0.5 – 25)/(2*8) = 0.59 m < 0.6 m, therefore acceptable
Check the detention time

= 3/(5x10-5((0.54/2+3)/3)) = 55 050s = 15.3 hours < 72 hours, therefore acceptable
using equation
Check the detention time at

= 3/[5x10-5(0/2+3)/3 = 16.7 hours > 12 hours, therefore acceptable
minimum inundation level
Table A 1: Tabulation of inflow and outflow hydrographs
Storm 10I Storage

Q10 Inflow Depth Depth/2 r R Outflow
duration required
(mm/h) (m3/s) (m3) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3)
(h) (m3)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.125 175 1.215 550 0.33 0.17 15.15 16.33 20 530
0.25 119 0.826 740 0.43 0.22 15.97 17.18 40 700
0.5 76.0 0.528 950 0.54 0.27 16.82 18.07 80 870
0.75 57.2 0.397 1070 0.60 0.30 17.29 18.56 130 940
1 46.3 0.322 1160 0.64 0.32 17.63 18.92 180 980
2 29.0 0.201 1450 0.77 0.39 18.70 20.03 380 1070
3 21.9 0.152 1640 0.86 0.43 19.36 20.73 590 1050
6 13.5 0.094 2030 1.02 0.51 20.66 22.08 1260 770
9 10.2 0.071 2300 1.13 0.56 21.52 22.97 1970 330
12 8.3 0.058 2490 1.20 0.60 22.10 23.58 2700 0
18 6.6 0.046 2970 1.38 0.69 23.50 25.05 4340 0
24 5.5 0.038 3300 1.49 0.74 24.42 26.01 6040 0

Drainage Construction Material

Considerations
The types of pipes and culverts generally used in drainage systems are listed in Table B 1, outlining the
general properties and applications of the different types of pipes. Designers should confirm the use of the
pipe types with the relevant road agency. Designers should confirm the types of pipes for use as not all road
agencies endorse the use of UPVC or HDPE pipes or have conditions on their use.

Table B 1: Pipe and culvert materials
Steel reinforced Fibre reinforced Reinforced Corrugated Unplasticised High-density

Culvert Corrugated steel
concrete pipes concrete pipes concrete box aluminium pipes polyvinyl chloride polyethylene pipes
type/material pipes (CSPs)
(SRCPs) (FRCPs) culverts (RCBCs) (CAPs) (UPVC) (HDPE)
Relevant AS/NZS 4058 for AS 4139 for AS 1597.1 for AS/NZS 2566.1 for AS/NZS 2041.1 for AS/NZS 2566.1 for AS/NZS 5065 for
(main) manufacture. manufacture. design, structural design. design methods. design details. manufacture.
standards AS/NZS 3725 for manufacture and
design and AS/NZS 3725 for installation of AS/NZS 2566.2 for AS/NZS 2041.2 for AS/NZS 2566.2 for See AS/NZS 2566.1
installation. some loading spans up to 1200 installation. installation. installation for design details.
requirements. mm. requirements.
AS/NZS 2041.4 for AS/NZS 2566.2 for
AS 1597.2 for helically formed AS/NZS 1254 for installation
design, stormwater and
sinusoidal pipes. requirements.

manufacture and surface water
installation of AS/NZS 2041.6 for
bolted plate applications.
spans greater than
1500 mm and up to structures.
AS 2439 for perforated
4200 mm.
drainage pipe and
associated fittings.
Size(1) 225 mm – 3600 mm 225 mm – 750 mm. 300 mm x 225 mm 300 mm – 3600 300 mm – 1800 90 mm – 225 mm 100 mm – 1500 mm
diameter available. to 1200 mm x 1200 mm diameter. mm diameter. diameter.
mm for small units. (68 mm x 13 mm
Large units from corrugations).
1500 mm x 900
mm – 4200 mm x 900 mm – 3600
4200 mm. mm (75 mm x 25
mm).
1200 mm – 3600
mm (125 mm x 25
mm)(2).
Strength Typically classes 2 to Classes 1, 2, 3 & 4 Design to 112 kN As specified in As specified in AS As specified in AS Specified by
10 as specified in AS as specified in AS test load to AS AS/NZS 2041. 2041.4. 1254 or AS 2439 Manufacturer’s
4058 but may be 4139 but may be 1597.1 for small Class 12 minimum for Profile Number in the
manufactured up to manufactured up to span units. plain pipes in road range 003 to 290.
Class 12. Class 6. works.


Determined in For corrugated pipes, Stiffness SN 1800
accordance with Class 400 behind N/m/m/ is the
design kerbs, Class 1000 minimum allowable.
requirements in AS minimum under roads. See AS/NZS 2566.1.
1597.2 for large See AS/NZS 2566 for
span units. design details.
Stock length 2.44 m. 4.0 m. 1.22 m 6.0 m to 12.0 m as 6.0 m to 12.0 m as 6.0 m 6.0 m
Flush joint pipes – ordered for ease of ordered for ease of
1.22 m if ordered. transporting, but transporting, but
can vary can vary
considerably. considerably.
Joint types(3)(4) Flush, socket & Double v-ring, Butt Patented bolted Patented bolted Solvent weld, rubber Rubber ring, socket
rubber ring. rubber ring bands or plate bands or plate ring. fusion, fusion weld,
Dia < 600 mm supertite. Rebated bolting. bolting. bolted flange.
recommend rubber joints do not
ring or socket. comply with current
Dia > 675 mm AS 4139.
recommend flush or
butt.
Minimum cover Dependent on size See In certain situations 600 mm for typical 600 mm for See manufacturer’s See manufacturer’s
and class of pipe. manufacturer’s can be directly highway loads. highway loads. installation details. installation details.
Larger pipes can have installation details. driven on but
less than 0.4 m of fill depends on base See See
for class 2 whereas slab design. manufacturer’s manufacturer’s
smaller pipes It is generally good requirements for requirements for
generally require practice to locate construction traffic construction traffic
more than 600 mm for the crown of the loadings. loadings.
the same class. box unit outside of
See Concrete Pipe the pavement
Association of layers.
Australasia software See AS 1597.1 or
‘Pipeclass’ (CPAA AS 1597.2 and
2012). road agencies for
further details.


Other Invert in fresh water Invert in fresh Invert in fresh Aggressive soil Not suitable for Saltwater, aggressive Saltwater, aggressive
installation for extended periods, water for extended water for extended (e.g. pH 4 to 9 high saltwater of soil, invert in fresh soil, invert in fresh
conditions typical conditions. periods, typical periods, typical chloride, high aggressive soil. water for extended water for extended
conditions. conditions. sulphate) invert in periods, typical periods, typical
Saltwater and fresh water for Maximum height of conditions. conditions.
aggressive soils extended periods, fill may vary from 9
require appropriate typical conditions. m to 30 m Fill heights in excess
cover, cement and depending on the of 30 m have been
treatment. site loading achieved.
Maximum fill height conditions and the
limited to 2 m for structural strength

small spans and 10 of the pipe
m for large spans. (VicRoads 2003).
Advantages Spun concrete more Does not require Have distinct Lightweight – lower Lightweight – lower Lightweight – lower Lightweight – lower
dense than wet cast, support from structural and freight costs and freight costs and freight costs and can freight costs and can
making it more surrounding soil. geometric can be installed can be installed be installed without be installed without
durable. Internal diameters advantages over without heavy without heavy heavy machinery. heavy machinery.
Does not require remain the same pipes. See AGRD machinery. machinery. Chemically inert. Chemically inert.
support from for all pipe classes. Part 5B Section 3. Can be installed in Can be installed in Hydraulically smooth. Hydraulically smooth.
surrounding soil. Continuous base high high Can be installed in Can be installed in
slab minimises embankments. embankments. high embankments. high embankments.
differential
settlement.
Does not require
support from
surrounding soil.
Disadvantages Heavy – increased Heavy – increased Heavy – increased Light weight makes Light weight makes Light weight makes Light weight makes
freight costs and freight costs and freight costs and them susceptible to them susceptible to them susceptible to them susceptible to
requires heavy require s heavy requires heavy floating. floating. floating. floating.
machinery for machinery for machinery for Lower strength Highly susceptible Compaction of Standard pipes not
installation. installation. installation. than steel pipes. to corrosion and surrounding soil is vital suited to pressure
Internal diameters Lower heights of fill Wet cast concrete More costly than other chemical for strength. applications.
decrease with possible. more prone to steel. attack. Only available in Compaction of
increased class. chemical attack. Corrugations have Corrugations have limited sizes. surrounding soil is
Lower fill heights. high Manning’s n. high Manning’s n. vital to for strength.


Lower heights of fill Refer also to any Compaction of Compaction of Refer also to any road Refer also to any
possible. road agency surrounding soil is surrounding soils is agency requirements. road agency
requirements. vital for strength. vital for strength. requirements.
Design life Pipes manufactured Pipes Culverts Design life in A 50 year design Design life in excess Design life in excess
and installed in manufactured to manufactured and excess of 75 years life can be of 50 years (and as of 50 years (and as
accordance with the AS 4139 can installed in may be achieved in expected for CCP’s high as 100 years) is high as 100 years) is
relevant standards expect to achieve a accordance with low abrasion having standard achievable when achievable when
can expect to achieve design life in the relevant environments galvanising where designed and installed designed and
a design life in excess excess of 50 years standards can having pH between pH is between 6 in accordance with the installed in
of 100 years. provided the semi- expect to achieve a 5 and 9 and and 10, resistivity f relevant standards and accordance with the
manufacturer’s
rigid property of the design life of 100 resistivity above between 2000 and relevant standards
pipe material years. 1500 ohm-cm. 10 000 ohm-cm requirements. and manufacturer’s
remains. CaCO3 levels do and CaCO3 levels requirements.
not affect service are above 50 ppm.
life.
1 The minimum recommended size of pipes for stormwater drainage system is 300 mm diameter. The minimum recommended size across a road formation (i.e. culvert) is 375 mm
diameter, larger may be required in areas of high debris (refer to local requirements). Minimum recommended height for a box culvert is 375 mm although 300 mm may be used in
tight conditions. Refer to AGRD Part 5B – Section 3 for further details.
2 Pipe diameters as low as 150 mm (with corrugation size 38 mm x 6.5 mm) are available but not commonly used.
3 Flush or butt joints are recommended where movement will be minimal.
4 All cross drainage and longitudinal drainage pipes located within any fill material should be rubber ring jointed.
Source: Adapted from VicRoads (2003).

Summary of Erosion and Sedimentation

Control Techniques
Table C 1: Summary of erosion and sediment control techniques
Technique Advantages Disadvantages

1. Roadway surface Directs surface water to protected None – should be part of good
Crowning to ditch or sloping to single channel construction procedures.
berm Minimises erosion.
Compaction The final lift of each day's work None – should be part of good
should be compacted and bladed to construction procedures.
drain to a ditch or berm.
Aggregate cover Minimises surface erosion. Requires reworking and compaction
Permits construction traffic during if exposed for long periods.
adverse weather. Loss of surface aggregates can be
May be used as part of permanent anticipated.
base construction.
Seed/mulch Minimises surface erosion. Must be removed when pavement

construction is commenced.
2. Roadway channels Can be located as required to collect Little guidance on spacing and size.
Sediment traps/straw bale filters sediment during construction. Sediment removal may be difficult.
Clean-out can usually be done by the Specifications must include
equipment onsite. provisions for periodic clean-out.
May require seeding, sodding or
paving during final clean-up.
Check dams Maintains low velocities. Close spacing on steep grades.
Catches sediment. Requires clean-out.
Can be constructed of logs, rock, Unless keyed at sides and bottom,
timber, masonry or concrete. erosion may occur.
Sodding Easily placed, minimum preparation. Requires watering during first few
Can be repaired during construction. weeks.
Immediate protection. Sod not always available.
May be used on sides of lined Will not withstand high velocity or
channels to increase capacity. severe abrasion from sediment load.
Seeding with mulch and matting Usually least expensive. Will not withstand medium to high
Effective for channels with low velocities.
velocities.
Easily placed in small quantities by
inexperienced personnel.
Paving, riprap, rubble Effective for high velocities. Cannot always be placed when
May be part of the permanent erosion needed due to construction traffic
control features. and final grading and dressing.
Initial cost is high.
3. Cutting slopes Diverts water from cutting. Access to top of cutting.
Berm at top of cutting Collects for slope drains or lined Difficult to build on steep slopes or
channels. rock surfaces.
May be constructed prior to
excavation.


Concentrates water and may require
channel protection or energy
dissipation devices.
Diversion dyke Collects and diverts water at selected Access for construction.
location reduces erosion potential. May be continual maintenance
May be incorporated in permanent problem if not lined.
drainage system. Disturbed material or berm easily
eroded.
Benching Slows velocity of run-off. May cause sloughing of slopes due
Collects sediment. to water infiltration.
Provides access to slope for seeding, Requires additional right of way.
mulching and maintenance. May not be possible in unsuitable
Collects water for slope drains or material.
may divert to natural ground. Requires maintenance to be
Assists in establishing vegetation. effective. Increases excavation
quantities.
Slope drains Prevents erosion of slope. Requires other structure to collect
Can be part of temporary or water.
permanent system. Permanent construction not always
Can be constructed or extended as compatible with other project work.
excavation progresses. Usually requires some type of energy

dissipation.
Seeding/mulching Contributes to a grassed slope. Difficult to schedule high production
Mulch provides temporary erosion units for small increments.
protection until grass is rooted. Success depends largely on season.
Temporary or permanent seeding May require supplementary watering.
may be used.
Mulch should be anchored.
Larger slopes can be seeded in
stages if smaller equipment is used.
Sodding Provides immediate protection. Difficult to place until embankment is
Can be used to protect adjacent complete.
property from sediment and turbidity. Sod not always available.
May be expensive.
Riprap, rock mattresses or hard Provides immediate protection for Expensive.
sealing high risk areas and under structures. Difficult to place on high slopes.
Sealing may be pre-cast or cast-in- May be difficult to maintain.
situ.
Temporary cover (plastic sheeting, Easily placed and removed. Provides only temporary protection.
geotextiles etc.) Useful for providing some degree of Original surface usually requires
protection for high risk areas. additional treatment when cover is
removed.
Must be anchored to prevent wind
damage.
4. Embankment slopes Prevents run-off running down face. Requires monitoring to ensure
Berms at top of embankment Collects run-off for slope drains or effective placement.
channels. Failure to compact properly results in
Can be placed as part of the normal failure of berm.
construction operation. Sediment build up.
Slope drains Prevents run-off running down face. Energy dissipator required at outlet.


Can be full or half pipe, pre-cast Removal of temporary drain may
sections, rock mattresses, or other disturb growing vegetation.
materials.
Can be extended as construction
progresses.
Can be either temporary or
permanent.
Embankment berms or benches Reduces velocity of slope run-off. Requires additional material if excess
Collects sediment. spoil is not available.
Provides access for maintenance. May cause sloughing.
Collects water for slope drains. Additional right of way may be
Can be used to spoil excess material. needed.
Seeding/mulching Can decrease slope exposure if Difficult to place until cutting is

applied at appropriate time. complete.
Mulch that is cut in or otherwise Sod not always available.
anchored will collect sediment. May be expensive.
5. Protection of adjacent property Use slashing and logs from clearing May be considered unsightly in urban
– brush barriers operation. areas.
May be covered and seeded later.
Eliminates need for burning or
disposal of cleared material.
Straw bale barriers Bales readily available in most areas. Require removal.
When properly installed and Subject to damage by vandals.
maintained, they filter sediment and Flow is slow through straw, requiring
some turbidity from run-off. considerable area.
May introduce unwanted species of
vegetation.
Sediment traps Collects much of the sediment from Do not remove all sediment and
embankment slopes and channels. turbidity. Space not always available.
Inexpensive. Require constant maintenance.
Can be cleaned and expanded to Usually need to be removed.
meet need.
Energy dissipators Minimises erosion away from project. May collect debris.
Slows velocity, permits sediment Require special design.
deposition and collection Can be expensive.
downstream. May be quite large structures.
Level spreaders Converts concentrated channel or Adequate space may not be
pipe flow back to sheet flow. available.
Avoids channel easements and Sodding of overflow is required.
construction off project. Must be part of permanent erosion
Simple to construct. control effort.
Requires constant maintenance.
6. Protection of stream Permits work to continue during Usually requires pumping of seepage
construction dyke normal stream stages. water out of the work site.
Subject to erosion from stream and
from direct rainfall on dyke.
Coffer dam Work can be continued during most Expensive.
anticipated stream conditions.
Clear water can be pumped directly
back into stream.
No material deposited in stream.


Temporary stream channel change Prepared channel keeps flow away Channel will usually require
from construction. protection.
Stream must be returned to old
channel and temporary channel
refilled when finished.
Riprap Easy to stockpile and place. Can be expensive.
Can be installed in increments as
needed.
Temporary culverts for haul roads Minimises turbulence and turbidity. Space not always available without
Provides uninterrupted route for fish. conflicting with permanent structure
Normal flow can be provided by work.
pipes, higher flows can pass over Larger pipe sizes may be expensive.
roadway. May be subject to washouts.
Rock lined low-level crossing Minimises stream turbidity. May not be fordable during high
Inexpensive. flows.
May also serve as a channel flow During periods of low flows, passage
check or sediment trap. of aquatic life may be blocked.
Source: VicRoads.

Rational Method Background and

Application
Method for Run-off Calculation
There are several methods or techniques available for flood estimation in various sized catchments and
these procedures are described in detail in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001). Road agencies or project owners
may specify a method they require or prefer and this will be specified within local guides or design
documentation.
Rational Method
The adopted standard method of run-off calculation for small rural and urban catchments is the Rational
Method. The Rational Method is a simple, statistical method used to calculate peak discharge from a
catchment for a given ARI and is widely accepted and used in Australia and internationally. The Rational
Method has its limits and these are discussed in Section D.1.2 – Applicability of Rational Method. Use of this
method outside of these limits can give poor or inaccurate results.
The Rational Method assumes a relationship between the duration of a constant intensity rainfall event
required to produce peak outflow from a catchment and the longest travel time or ’time of concentration’, tc,
of the catchment.
The application of the Rational Method is based on the following assumptions:

• the rainfall has a uniform area distribution across the catchment
• the rainfall has a uniform time distribution during the time of concentration
• the peak discharge occurs at the end of the critical storm duration or time of concentration
• the run-off coefficient remains constant throughout the duration of the storm
• the return period of the peak flow is the same as that of the rainfall intensity.
Applicability of Rational Method
As a guide the Rational Method can be used to estimate the peak discharge for small and simple rural
catchments up to 25 km2 in area and due to complexity, urban catchments up to 1 km2. For commentary on
the accuracy of the different peak discharge assessment methods refer to McKerchar and Macky (2001).
The method is not applicable for complex catchments, irrespective of size. Complex catchments include:
• multiple streams
• branched catchments
• mixed land use catchments
• situations where a catchment may be inundated by another catchment
• situations where the catchment may overflow into an adjacent catchment
• catchments with significant storage capacity (dam, swamp and major retention/detention basin)
• irrigated land.

Rural Hydrology
Rational Method
Peak catchment discharge is estimated using the Rational Method and is calculated using Equation 8 below:
𝑄𝑌 = 𝑘 x 𝐶𝑌 x 𝐼𝑡𝑐 ,𝑌 x 𝐴 8
where
𝑄𝑌 = Flow rate, 𝑄 (m3/s) for an ARI of 𝑌 years
𝑘 = A conversion factor, 𝑘 = 0.278 when 𝐴 is in km2 and 0.00278 when 𝐴 is

𝐴hectares (ha) and for smaller catchments (i.e. urban) when 𝐴 is m2,
𝑘 = 0.278 x 10-6
𝐶𝑌 = Run-off coefficient, 𝐶 (dimensionless) for an ARI of 𝑌 years
𝐼𝑡𝑐,𝑌 = Average rainfall intensity, 𝐼 (mm/h) for design duration of 𝑡𝑐 (time of concentration,
see Section D.2.1 – Time of Concentration) and ARI of 𝑌 years
𝐴 = Area of catchment either hectares, km2 or m2

It is important to note that the Rational Method has difficulty in modelling temporary storage, infiltration,
retention, evaporation or variation in rainfall intensities within a storm of particular ARI, as these are all
subsumed in the selection of a run-off coefficient.
Table 6.23 provides a summary for the application of flood estimation methods for rural areas in Australia
and New Zealand.
Table 6.23: Summary of application of Rational Method for rural areas
Region Time of concentration Run-off coefficient Frequency factors

NSW – Eastern 𝑡𝑐 = 0.76𝐴0.38 C10 from AR&R Vol. 2 Read off map(1) with
where: (Pilgrim 2007) adjustment for
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (hours) elevation
𝐴 = catchment area (km2)
NSW – Western (flat 𝑡𝑐 = 0.76 𝐴0.38 C10 from AR&R Vol. 2 Read off map(1) with
catchments) where: (Pilgrim 2007) with adjustment for
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (hours) adjustment for area elevation
NSW – Western (hilly Regional flood frequency method applicable
catchments)
Victoria(2) 𝑡𝑐 = 0.76 𝐴0.38 C10 (or P10) from AR&R Tabulated values
where: Vol. 2 (Pilgrim 2007)
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (hours)
See Appendix F for 𝑡𝑐 in minutes

Region Time of concentration Run-off coefficient Frequency factors

Queensland(3) 𝐹x𝐿 C50 determined from Not applicable
𝑡𝑐 =
𝐴0.1 x 𝑆𝑒0.2 summation of rainfall
intensity, topography,
storage and ground
cover factors
Western Australia 𝑡𝑐 = ∆δ where the factors ∆ and δ C10 = ф10εΦ (LSe)γ Cy/C10 factors are
are related to one of 7 zones where the factors ф ε Φ based on the
and γ are related to one percentage of cleared
of 7 zones land
South Australia – 𝑡𝑐 = 0.5 𝐴0.65 Predetermined values Not applicable
Eastern where:
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (hours)
South Australia – 𝐹x𝐿 Values dependent upon Not applicable
𝑡𝑐 =
Northern and Western x 𝑆𝑒0.2
𝐴0.1 slope
Tasmania 𝐹x𝐿 C = 0.9 for paved areas Not used
𝑡𝑐 =
x 𝑆𝑒0.2
𝐴0.1 C = 0.35 for rural
for rural catchments (less than 20 catchments (common to
ha) apply a sensitivity check
to test robustness of
results)
ACT NSW – Eastern zone applies

Northern Territory(4) 𝐹x𝐿 Approximate values Not applicable
𝑡𝑐 =
𝐴0.1 x 𝑆𝑒0.2 given
New Zealand(5),(6) Ramser Kirpich C value equals the sum Not applicable
𝑡𝑐 = 0.0195𝐿0.77 𝑆𝑒−0.385 of catchment
characteristic factors
where:
derived from Turner’s
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (mins) table
𝐿 = channel length (m)
𝑆𝑒 = average channel slope (m/m)
or
57.18 x 𝐿1.2
𝑡𝑐 = 0.1
𝐿 x 𝐻 0.2
where:
𝑡𝑐 = time of concentration (mins)
𝐿 = channel length (km)
𝐻 = elevation difference between
highest and lowest points on main
channel (m)
1 Map is located in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001, Book 4).
2 See Appendix F for guidance on the use of the area size factor for small rural catchments in Victoria.
3 See Appendix E for further information regarding the estimation of the coefficient of run-off in Queensland.
4 Se= equal area slope.
5 C value from Turner’s table (Turner 1960)
6 Common New Zealand practice is to adopt the smaller tc value found from the Ramser-Kirpich and Bransby-Williams
formulae to give a conservative estimate of the storm duration and selection of higher rainfall intensity.
Source: Adapted from Alderson (2006).

Time of Concentration
In the Rational Method, the time of concentration tc for a catchment is defined as either:
• the time taken for water to flow from the most time-remote point on the catchment to the outlet or point of
interest, or
• the time taken from the start of rainfall until all of the catchment is simultaneously contributing to flow at
the outlet or point of interest.
The significance of the time of concentration is that peak outflow will always result when the entire catchment
is contributing flow from rainfall on the catchment (excluding partial area effects, see Section D.2.4 – Partial
Area Effects). The most intense rainfall that contributes to the outflow will be that with duration equal to the
time of concentration.
Therefore, tc is the duration used to select the design rainfall intensity from the IFD table generated in
Section 6.7.3 – Design Rainfall.
The time of concentration is generally made up of three components:

• overland flow time across natural surfaces until flow concentration occurs forming a stream
• time of flow in channels (natural and artificial)
• time of flow in pipes (if applicable).
The type of flow will vary throughout the catchment, although once channelised, overland flow conditions do
not normally recur. Overland flow to channel flow and pipe flow back to channel flow can be expected to
occur. There may also be overland or channel flow parallel with pipe flow at full capacity. Several flow paths
may need to be examined to determine which is the longest or most critical in terms of design flows.
The absolute minimum time of concentration to be used in design for catchments is 5 minutes as prescribed
in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001).
In designing culverts for road crossings, the time of concentration used should allow for future development
of the upstream catchment (see Section 6.3 – Catchments).
In several of the Rational Method procedures outlined in Table 6.23, formulae are specified for estimating the
time of concentration. The specified formula must be used with the particular procedure. Where a complete
procedure based on observed data is not available, the Bransby-Williams formula or the Ramser-Kirpich
formula can be used. The Bransby-Williams formula is more commonly used in Australia, whereas the
Ramser-Kirpich formula is used in New Zealand, possibly due to the catchments characteristics being
typically steeper and the stream flows more concentrated. Both methods can be used and then a judgement
applied to adopt the most appropriate method.
For all catchment sizes within the limits of the Rational Method, the time of concentration is commonly
determined using one of the relevant formulae outlined in Table 6.23. These formulae which include overland
flow and channel flow conform to the accepted practices in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001).

The Bransby-Williams formula is (Equation 9):
𝐹x𝐿 9
𝑡𝑐 =
𝐴0.1 x 𝑆𝑒0.2
where
𝑡𝑐 = Time of concentration (min)
𝐹 = A conversion factor. F = 58.5 when A is in km2 and 92.7 when A is hectares (ha)
𝐿 = Length of mainstream(km) from the outlet to the catchment divide
𝐴 = Area of catchment (either km2 or hectares)
𝑆𝑒 = Equal area slope (m/km) as defined in Figure 6.60
If the catchment has several possible flows paths upstream of the site, each path will have to be assessed to
determine the path with the longest time of concentration.
Figure 6.60: Derivation of the equal area slope of main stream

Equal
Area
Slope
Natural
Stream
Profile
Source: Derived from Pilgrim (2001).
Run-off Coefficient
The run-off coefficient relates the volume of water that is discharged from a catchment to the rain falling over
the catchment.
The run-off coefficient includes effects of catchment characteristics, infiltration and other losses as well as
rainfall intensity. The run-off coefficient CY, as used in the Rational Method, is a function of the design ARI (Y
in years) and depends on many features of the catchment area including:

• rainfall intensity
• relief or slope of catchment
• storage or other detention characteristics
• ground characteristics such as vegetation cover, soil type, and impervious areas.
The run-off coefficient can be determined by rearranging the Rational Method formula, shown in Equation 10
and using the catchment data for the rainfall and stream flows, from stream gauges:
360 x 𝑄𝑌 10
𝐶𝑌 =
𝐴 𝑌𝐼𝑡𝑐
where
𝐶𝑌 = Coefficient of runoff from a storm with an ARI of Y years
𝑄𝑌 = Discharge from a storm of Y years (m3/s)
𝐴 = Catchment area (ha)

𝑌
𝐼𝑡𝑐 = Storm intensity (mm/h) for a storm duration 𝑡𝑐 and an ARI of Y years
The data is often analysed by different methods and a summary of the methods used across Australia and
New Zealand in shown in Table 6.23.
Coefficients of run-off can be determined for storms of other ARI by use of frequency factors (FY) as shown
in Table 6.24 and Equation 11:
Table 6.24: Frequency factors (FY) for the coefficient of run-off for use in the Rational Method
Y (years) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
FY 0.80 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.15 1.20
CY = FY x C10 11
where
Y = ARI in years
FY = Frequency factor from Table 6.24
C10 = 10 year ARI run-off coefficient
See Appendix F for further information regarding the estimation of the coefficient of run-off in Queensland.
Partial Area Effects
In general, the appropriate time of concentration (tc) for calculation of the peak flow at any point is the longest
time of travel to that point. However, in some situations, the maximum flow may occur when only part of the
upstream catchment is contributing. Thus the product of a lesser C x A and a higher tIY (resulting from a
lower tc) may produce a greater peak discharge than that if the whole upstream catchment is considered.
This is known as the ‘partial area effect’.

Partial area effects usually result from the most upstream portion of the overall catchment (typically relatively
small) but having a tc considerably longer than the rest of the catchment. This can result from differences
within a catchment of surface slope, shape, or ground covering type.
The designer needs to be aware of the possibility of the partial area effect and to check as necessary to
ensure that an appropriate peak discharge is obtained.
The occurrence of the Partial Area Effect in the rural environment is not common, but designers should look
for catchments that display the characteristics that may allow the partial area effect to occur. These
catchments need to be checked to ensure that the peak discharge for the catchment is correctly determined.
Figure 6.61 shows two examples of rural catchments that may experience the partial area effect.
Figure 6.61: Examples of catchments that may be subject to partial area effects
In Catchment (I), Figure 6.61, the whole catchment is assessed with all parameters for the time of
concentration and run-off calculations determined normally. The catchment is then divided, where the
catchment changes from wide to narrow, into two portions. The lower portion is then assessed as if it was the
whole catchment, that is, A will be smaller, and Se will be based on the channel bed from the catchment
outlet to the dividing line between the portions and so on. In this case tc will be shorter and therefore IY will be
higher. This is undertaken as the narrow portion of the catchment significantly increases the time of
concentration, with only a relatively small area contributing to the run-off. The higher discharge of the two
assessments is deemed to be the peak discharge.
In Catchment (II), Figure 6.61, the whole catchment is again assessed with all parameters for the time of
concentration and run-off calculations determined normally. The catchment is then divided, where the
catchment slope changes from steep to flat. The lower portion is then assessed as if it was the whole
catchment. In this case, Se will be much higher and will have a bigger impact on reducing tc and so intensity
will therefore be higher. This is due to the steeper section of the catchment having a relatively shorter time of
concentration, hence higher IY with the flatter section having a relatively longer tc which reduces the IY.
Again, the higher discharge of the two assessments is deemed to be the peak discharge.
Progressive Catchments
A situation that often occurs in rural environments is where a stream crosses a road several times and
receives flows from different catchments along its course, which add to the stream flow and this is known as
‘Progressive Catchments’. In concept, this is similar to the partial area effects a catchment may experience.
The Rational Method can only estimate the run-off at a point, usually the outlet of the catchment, or the site
for a culvert. Therefore, disregarding any upstream crossing, the variables A and C used in the Rational
Method (Equation 8) must describe the whole upstream catchment and the variables Se/tc must be based on
the flow path from the site to the top of the catchment. If there are several flow paths or streams, time of
concentration calculations will need to be undertaken on each path to determine the critical duration.

To demonstrate the approach, using the catchments shown in Figure 6.62, the peak discharge at Point 5
would be estimated from assessing catchment C normally. To estimate the peak discharge at Point 3,
variables A and C must cover both Catchments B and C while variables Se/tc would be based on the critical
duration determined from paths (3, 4, 10), (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or (3, 4, 5, 6, 8) and the resulting area contributing
for that critical duration. To estimate the peak discharge at Point 1, variables A and C need to cover
Catchments A, B and C and variables Se/tc would be based on the critical duration determined from paths (1,
2, 9), (1, 2, 3, 4, 10), (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8) and the resulting are contributing for that critical
duration.
Figure 6.62: Progressive catchments
7
9
Catchment C
Catchment C
8
Catchment A 6
2 Road
5
3
4
1
Catchment B
10
Technically, any upstream crossing could act as a detention device. That is, a device that reduces the peak
flow but lengthens the time flow occurs at that point, though this effect would usually be small. This would
have an impact on the flow at some downstream point, as determined by using the Rational Method as
explained in this section. The impact would typically be a reduction in the peak discharge. Therefore the
approach adopted here is considered conservative.
If the land use or components of C vary between the catchments or if a more accurate estimate of run-off is
required, then use of an appropriate numerical run-off-routing model is needed and assistance from a
suitably qualified specialist is required.
Urban Hydrology
Rational Method
The Rational Method provides a simple methodology for assessing the design peak flow rate to enable the
determination of the sizes of drainage systems within an urban catchment area less than 100 hectares (1
km2). However, the Rational Method in urban environments has significant limitations, and it is the task of the
designer to be familiar with these limitations and to know when an alternative methodology is required.

The choice of hydrologic method must be appropriate to the type of catchment and the required degree of
accuracy. The Rational Method should not be used whenever a full design hydrograph is required for flood
mapping or to assess flood storage issues. Instead the more reliable run-off-routing techniques presented in
publications such as AR&R Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (Pilgrim 2001 2007) should be adopted.
The Rational Method formula for flow estimation (see Equation 8 in Section D.2.1 – Rational Method) can be
reconfigured for a flow rate in litres per second (L/s) to reflect the peak discharge in small urban catchments,
as shown in Equation 12:
𝐶𝑌 x 𝑌𝐼𝑡𝑐 x 𝐴 12
𝑄𝑌 =
360
where
𝑄𝑌 = Peak discharge for a storm with an ARI of Y years (m3/s)
𝐶𝑌 = Run-off coefficient for a storm with an ARI of Y years (dimensionless)
𝑌 Average rainfall intensity for a storm of 𝑡𝑐 minutes duration (time of concentration)

𝐼𝑡𝑐 =
and an ARI of Y years (mm/h)
Time of Concentration
Most urban catchments are largely man-made and hence the flow paths can generally be readily determined.
However, urban hydrology is much more complicated than rural hydrology and therefore designers need to
undertake this work carefully with regular reviews and checks. Designers should also note that care is
required when the larger events cause overland flow to bypass underground pipe systems – as the tc may be
smaller.
For further description of the time of concentration in the Rational Method, see Section A.1.1 – Time of
Concentration.
In designing culverts for road crossings, the time of concentration used should allow for future development
of the upstream catchment. This development could be the changing of land use due to farming or
urbanisation near or within a town or city. Consider the example illustrated in Figure 6.63.

Figure 6.63: Catchment development
Existing catchment Possible catchment

development
If the time of concentration to point A is calculated in the Existing Catchment, it will be made up of:
• a considerable length of overland and channel flow

• a short length of flow in pipes.
In the case with Possible Catchment Development where the drainage system in the catchment upstream of
the road is improved, the overland flow time will be reduced and the time of concentration to A also reduced.
With this shorter time of concentration the design rainfall intensity will increase and therefore increase the
amount of run-off generated. Designers need to check the full range of possible cases.
In determining the time of concentration, the designer should adopt the appropriate catchment conditions in
accordance with the required analysis. Ultimate flow conditions should be based on a fully developed
catchment in accordance with the allowable land use shown in the relevant local authority plans, or as
directed by the local authority.
It should be noted that the time of concentration as used in the Rational Method is not the same as the
critical storm duration or time to peak as determined from run-off-routing models. It is therefore inappropriate
to adopt the critical storm duration determined from a run-off-routing model and apply it as the time of
concentration for a Rational Method analysis.
To apply the Rational Method in an appropriate and consistent manner, four different methodologies for
determination of the time of concentration are presented below for different types of drainage catchments:
• Predominantly piped or channelised urban catchments less than 100 ha with the top of the catchment
being urbanised.
being bushland or a grassed park.
• Bushland catchments too small to allow the formation of a creek with defined bed and banks.
• Urban creeks with a catchment area less than 100 ha.

being urbanised.
Components of time of concentration:
Standard inlet time (see Table 6.25). If the actual length of kerb/channel travel is unusually long, then an
additional travel time must be added to the standard inlet time (next dot point below). If a gully/field inlet does
not exist near the top of the catchment, determine the initial travel time to the start of the kerb/channel, and
then add the travel time along the kerb/channel. The standard inlet time includes the travel time along a
typical length of kerb/channel from near the top of the catchment to the first pipe or channel inlet.
Pipe flow time using actual flow velocities determined from a pipe network analysis or Manning’s Equation
(see Equation 13). Alternatively, if the pipe flow time is not critical, an average pipe flow velocity of 2 m/s and
3 m/s may be adopted for low gradient and medium to steep gradient pipelines respectively.
Creek and/or channel flow time using actual flow velocity determined from numerical modelling or Manning’s
Equation. Alternatively, if the expected travel time in the creek is not critical, an average flow velocity of 1.5
m/s may be adopted (not applicable to constructed channels).
Predominantly piped or channelised urban catchments less than 100 ha with the top of the catchment being
bushland or a grassed park.
Components of time of concentration:

Estimate the length of ‘sheet’ run-off at the top of the catchment using Table 6.27 or field observations, then
estimate the sheet flow travel time.
Determine the remaining distance of assumed concentrated overland flow from the end of the ‘sheet’ run-off
to the nearest kerb, pipe inlet, open channel or creek. Then determine the travel time for this concentrated
overland flow based on the calculated flow velocity.
Pipe and/or channel flow as per Case (1) above.
Bushland catchments too small to allow the formation of a creek with defined bed and banks.
Time of concentration is determined as for (2) above.
Urban creeks with a catchment area less than 100 ha.
Time of concentration for an urban catchment containing a watercourse with defined bed and banks may be
determined as for rural catchments but only if the following conditions apply:
• channel storage along the watercourse, for the catchment condition being analysed, is not significantly
reduced from the natural (i.e. pre-urbanisation) conditions
• less than 20% of the catchment drains to a pipe network.
If the above two conditions do not apply, then the time of concentration should be based on the procedures
outlined in (1) or (2) above as appropriate for the catchment conditions.
Overland flow
Overland flow at the top of a catchment will initially travel as sheet flow, after which it will move down the
catchment as minor concentrated flow. Travel times for the sheet flow and concentrated flow components
need to be determined separately.

The sheet flow travel time is defined as the travel time from the top of a catchment to the point where
stormwater run-off begins to concentrate against fences, walls, gardens, or is intercepted by a minor
channel, gully or piped drainage. This concentration of flow may also occur in the middle of vegetated areas
as the stormwater concentrates in minor drainage depressions.
The time required for water to flow over a homogeneous surface such as lawns and gardens is a function of
the surface roughness and slope. There are a number of methods available for the determination of sheet
flow travel times and a local government may direct which of these methods should be applied. Two such
methods are presented in this section.
Irrespective of which method of calculation is adopted, it is the designer’s responsibility to determine the
effective length of this sheet flow.
In urban areas, the length of overland sheet flow will typically be 20 m to 50 m, with 50 m being the
recommended maximum. In rural residential areas the length of overland sheet flow should be limited to 200
m; however the actual length is typically between 50 m and 200 m where the flow will be concentrated in
small rills, channels, or tracks.
Standard inlet time
Use of standard inlet times for developed catchments is recommended because of the uncertainty related to
the calculation of time of overland flow. The standard inlet time is defined as the travel time from the top of the
catchment to a location where the first gully or field inlet would normally be expected as depicted in
Figure 6.64.
Suggested standard inlet times are presented in Table 6.25. These inlet times are considered appropriate for
traditional (i.e. non water sensitive urban design (WSUD)) low density residential areas where the top of the
catchment is low density residential, but not a park or bushland.
Figure 6.64: Application of standard inlet time

Table 6.25: Suggested standard inlet times
Inlet time
Location
(minutes)
Road surfaces and paved areas 5
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at top of catchment is greater than 15% 5
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at top of catchment is greater than 10% and up to 8
15%
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at top of catchment is greater than 6% and up to 10
10%
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at top of catchment is greater than 3% and up to 6% 13
Urban residential areas where average slope of land at top of catchment is up to 3% 15
Note: The average slopes referred to are the slopes along the predominant flow path for the catchment in its developed
state.
If the top of the catchment consists of high density residential development, then the local government
should be consulted for inlet times appropriate for the catchment. In such cases it is recommended that the
standard inlet time should not exceed 10 minutes unless demonstrated otherwise by the designer.
If the hydrologic analysis is being performed on a development located at the top of the catchment, the
actual inlet time is likely to be less than the minimum time suggested in Table 6.25. In these cases the
minimum inlet time should be adopted.
If the first gully or field inlet is located further down the catchment slope than would normally be expected,
then the standard inlet time should only account for the travel time down to the location where the first gully
or field inlet would normally have been located.
If the urban drainage system does not incorporate pipe drainage (i.e. no gully or field inlet exists) then the
standard inlet time should extend down the catchment to a location where an inlet would normally be located
in a traditional pipe drainage system.
A standard inlet time should not be adopted in sub-catchments where detailed overland flow and
kerb/channel flow calculations are justified. However, a local government may require that the use of
standard inlet times shall not apply within their area and may recommend alternative methods.
In certain circumstances, the use of standard inlet times may result in times of concentration being
unacceptably short for the catchment under consideration, such as airports, or large flat car parks. In these
cases the designer should utilise Friend’s Equation (Equation 15) to determine the time of initial overland
flow (see Overland Flow, below). Inlet times calculated by these methods should only be adopted for design
if the sheet flow length criteria discussed below are met and if due consideration is given to the type and
continuity of the surface where overland flow is occurring.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that a maximum inlet time of 20 minutes be adopted for urban
and residential catchments, including playing fields and park areas.
Roof to main system connection
In cases where use of a standard inlet time is not considered appropriate, the roof to main system flow travel
times as shown in Table 6.26 are suggested.

Table 6.26: Suggested roof drainage system travel times
Time to point ‘A’

Development category
(minutes)
Rural residential, residential low density. 5
For the roof, downpipes and pipe connection system from the building to the kerb and/or
channel or a rear-of-allotment drainage system, Figure 6.65(a).
Residential medium and high density, commercial, industrial and central business. 5
For the roof and downpipe collection pipe to the connection point to the internal allotment
drainage system abutting the building Figure 6.65(b).
Note: The flow time from Point A (Figure 6.65 (a) & (b)) through the internal allotment pipe system to the kerb and/or
channel, street underground system or rear of allotment system for the more intense developments noted should be
calculated separately.
Figure 6.65: Examples of roof drainage systems for residential and industrial allotments
KERB AND / OR CHANNEL

(a): residential (b): industrial
Note: Point A is referred to in Table 6.5.

Design steps
To determine the overland flow travel time the following steps should be applied:
1. Where practical, inspect the catchment to determine the length of initial overland sheet flow, or for new
developments measure the length of overland flow from the design plans.
2. Where it is not practical to inspect the catchment, determine the likely length of overland sheet flow
based on Table 6.27.

3. Determine the sheet flow travel time one of the overland sheet flow calculation methods described
below.
4. Determine or measure the remaining distance of assumed concentrated overland flow from the end of
the adopted sheet flow to the nearest kerb, channel, or pipe inlet.
5. Determine the concentrated flow travel time using either Manning’s Equation or for preliminary design
purposes, Figure 6.66.
Manning’s Equation is (Equation 13):
2⁄ 1⁄ 13
𝑅 3𝑆 2
𝑉=
𝑛
where
𝑉 = Velocity in the channel (m/s)
R = Hydraulic radius (m)

𝑆 = Slope of energy line or hydraulic gradeline (m/m)
𝑛 = Manning’s roughness coefficient
and the hydraulic radius is determined by (Equation 14):

𝐴 14
𝑅=
𝑃
where
𝐴 = Flow area (m2)
𝑃 = Wetted perimeter (m)

Figure 6.66: Example of kerb and channel flow time using Manning’s Equation
For simplicity, several standard times can be adopted for overland flow:
• A two-minute minimum flow time is often adopted for the flow to travel from the crown of a road to the
gutter.
• On wider carriages, of say 10 m and above, a three-minute travel time or more, may be more appropriate.
• Typically a minimum travel time of five minutes is adopted for any drainage element to run-off into an
underground or surface system. As a guide, carriageway elements up to 200 m in length, regardless of
slope, fall within this minimum.

Table 6.27: Recommended maximum length of overland sheet flow
Surface condition Assumed maximum flow length (m)

Steep (say > 10%) grassland (Horton’s n = 0.045) 20
Steep (say > 10%) bushland (Horton’s n = 0.035) 50
Medium gradient (approx. 5%) bushland or grassland 100
Flat (0–1%) bushland or grassland 200
Overland sheet flow calculations
Three different formulae are detailed here for overland flow calculations. Designers can choose the method
appropriate or approved for the work being undertaken.
Formula attributed to Friend, may be used for the determination of overland sheet flow times. This was derived
from previous work in the form of a nomograph, as shown in Figure 6.67, for shallow sheet flow over a plane
surface.
Friend’s Equation is (Equation 15):
2⁄ 15
107 𝑛 𝐿 3
𝑡= 1⁄
𝑆 2
where
t = Overland sheet flow travel time (mins)
L = Overland sheet path length (m)

𝑛 = Horton’s roughness value for the surface
𝑆 = Slope of surface (%)
Surface roughness values for Horton’s n are similar but not identical to Manning’s n values. See Table 6.28
for values for Horton’s n.
Figure 6.67: Overland sheet flow times – shallow sheet flow only

Table 6.28: Horton’s roughness values
Surface condition n(1)

Concrete or asphalt 0.010–0.013
Bare sand 0.010–0.016
Gravelled surface 0.012–0.030
Bare clay – loam soil (eroded) 0.012–0.033
Sparse vegetation 0.053–0.130
Short grass paddock 0.100–0.200
Lawns 0.170–0.480
1 Horton’s roughness coefficient, ‘n’ is similar but not the same as the Manning’s ‘n’
Source: DNRW (2007).
The second formula or method attributed to Oakden (1977) is (Equation 16):
2⁄ −1⁄3 16
𝑇𝑐 = 500𝑛𝐿 3 𝑆𝑓
where
𝑇𝑐 = Time of concentration (seconds)
𝐿 = Length (m)
𝑆𝑓 = Slope (m/m)
𝑛 = Manning’s roughness value
The third method is attributed to Ragan and Duru (1972) and often referred to as the kinematic wave
equation:
(𝐿𝑛)0.6 17
𝑇𝑜 = 6.94
𝐼 0.4 𝑆 0.3
where
𝑇𝑜 = Time of overland flow (minutes)
𝐿 = Overland flow path length (m)
𝑛 = Manning’s roughness value
𝐼 = Rainfall intensity from the design ARI event (mm/h)
𝑆 = Slope of overland flow path (m/m)
Using Equation 17 requires an iterative approach because the rainfall intensity alters as the time of
concentration alters. The kinematic wave equation can be applied quite simply, without iteration, if a suitable
design aid is prepared by plotting values of To I 0.4 against duration.

The formula can be applied to multiple flow segments. Where the drained area is composed of different
surfaces and slopes, it should be divided into segments or planes, and the calculated travel times for these
combined. This causes complications in selecting the intensity to be used in the formula – it should be the
average intensity over the total time involved.
It is incorrect to add values of ToI0.4 for each of the segments, as Equation 17 is based on the assumption
that no flow is entering the flow segments from upstream. The following method of combining segments is
outlined in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001, S Mills in Book 8):
For two segments A and B, the total overland flow time is (Equation 18):
Ttotal = T(LA) + TB(LA + LB) – TB(LA) 18
where
LA = Length of flow for segment A
LB = Length of flow for segment B

T(LA) = Time for flow across segment A
TB(LA + LB) Time for flow across the total length of segments A and B using the slope and
=
roughness of segment B
TB(LA) Time for flow across a virtual segment along a length equal to segment A using
=
the slope and roughness of segment B
For each additional segment, the following value should be added (Equation 19):
TX(Ltotal) – TX(Ltotal - LX) 19
where
The segment name and Ltotal is the total length of flow, including the current
X =
segment X. Use the slope and roughness of segment X.
Calculations for single flow and multiple flow segments utilising the kinematic wave equation are presented in
the Section D.5 – Worked Example (Urban).
Kerb/gutter flow
The Flow time in gutters is a component of the time of concentration for a drainage area to an inlet. To find
the gutter flow component of the time of concentration, a method for estimating the average velocity in a
gutter is needed. The velocity in a gutter varies with the flow rate and the flow rate varies with the distance
along the gutter, i.e. both the velocity and flow rate in a gutter are spatially varied. The time of flow can be
estimated by use of an average velocity obtained by integration of the Manning's equation for the gutter
section with respect to time (Brown et al.2009).
Table 6.29 and Figure 6.68 can be used to determine the average velocity in triangular gutter sections. In
Table 6.29, T1 and T2 are the flow spreads at the upstream and downstream ends of the gutter section
respectively. Ta is the spread at the average velocity. Figure 6.68 is a nomograph to solve Equation 20
(repeated from AGRD Part 5 – Section 5.5.1) for the velocity in a triangular channel with known cross-slope,
gutter slope and spread (Brown et al. 2009):

Table 6.29: Spread at average velocity in a reach of triangular gutter
T1/T2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Ta/T2 0.65 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.86 0.90
Source: Brown et al. (2009).
2⁄ 1⁄ 2⁄ 20
𝐾𝑐 𝑆𝑥 3 𝑆𝐿 2 𝑇 3
𝑉=
𝑛
where
𝐾𝑐 = Conversion factor = 0.376
𝑆𝑥 = Crossfall (m/m)
𝑆𝐿 = Longitudinal slope (m/m)
𝑇 = Width of spread (m)

𝑛 = Manning’s roughness coefficient
or, for preliminary design purposes, use Figure 6.66.


Figure 6.68: Velocity in triangular gutter sections

Source: Brown et al. (2009).
Pipe flow
Wherever practical, pipe travel times should be based on calculated pipe velocities either using a pipe flow
chart (refer to AGRD Part 5A – Appendix B), uniform flow calculations using Manning’s Equation, or results
from a calibrated numerical drainage model.

For preliminary design purposes, pipe flow travel time can be estimated using Figure 6.66. Alternatively, if
the travel time within the pipe is small compared to the overall time of concentration, then an average pipe
velocity of 2 m/s and 3 m/s may be adopted for low gradient and medium to steep gradient pipelines
respectively.
Channel flow
The time stormwater takes to flow along an open channel may be determined by dividing the length of the
channel by the average velocity of the flow.
The average velocity of the flow is calculated using the hydraulic characteristics of the open channel.
Manning’s Equation (Equation 13) repeated here, is suitable for this purpose:
2⁄ 1⁄ 8
𝑅 3𝑆 2
𝑉=
𝑛
where
𝑉 = Velocity in the channel (m/s)
𝑅 = Hydraulic radius flowing full (m) (see Equation 14)

𝑆 = Slope of energy line or hydraulic gradeline (m/m)
𝑛 Manning’s roughness coefficient for the channel

Where an open channel has varying roughness or depth across its width it may be necessary to split the
channel into sections and determine the average flow velocity in each section, to determine the overall flow
time.
Grass swales
Flow travel times along grassed swales can vary significantly depending on flow depth and vegetation. Swale
roughness, n should be determined from the vegetation retardance charts presented in AGRD Part 5B –
Appendix A.
Estimate of kerb, pipe and channel flow time
For checking or preliminary design purposes, an overall flow time can be determined from Figure 6.69. The
chart may be used directly to determine approximate travel times along a range of rigid channel types and
with the application of multiplier Δ, for a range of loose-boundary channel forms.
Flows can reach drains/channels via roof to gutter conduits, overland flow paths or along gutters. In many
cases, flows travel along two or three consecutive paths, and it is necessary to calculate a total travel time.

Figure 6.69: Flow travel time in pipes and channels

Notes:
Flow travel time (approximate) may be obtained directly from this chart for:
- kerb-and-gutter channels
- stormwater pipes
- allotment channels of all types (surface and underground)
- drainage easement channels (surface and underground).
Multiplier Δ, should be applied to values obtained from the chart as per:
- grassed swales, well maintained and without driveway crossings – Δ = 4
- blade-cut earth table drains, well maintained and no driveway crossings – Δ = 2
- natural channels – Δ = 3.

Run-off Coefficient
The run-off coefficient relates the volume of water that is discharged from a catchment to the rain falling over
the catchment. The value is not constant, but varies with rainfall intensity and the proportion of impervious
areas. Different approaches are applied to urban and rural situations. As catchment size increases, it can be
beneficial to determine the sensitivity of the analysis to variations in the run-off coefficient.
It is common to prescribe run-off coefficients (e.g. 0.9 for urban areas and 0.35 for rural areas). However, it is
worthwhile checking the sensitivity of the run-off volumes to variations in run-off coefficients and how this will
affect the drainage design.
The following is an extract from AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001, Book 8):
Run-off coefficient C can be interpreted in different ways:
- as a ratio between run-off and rainfall volumes
- as the ratio of their peak rates
- as the ratio of the run-off to rainfall frequency curves.
In this last, ‘probabilistic’ interpretation, the value of C does not relate to a particular
storm. This concept is discussed in detail in Book 4 of AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001). It
covers the whole range of possible events, involving different combinations of rainfalls
and antecedent conditions. Values have been derived for some medium-sized, gauged
urban catchments in Australian Capital Cities by Aitken (1975), Pilgrim (1982) (both cited
in AR&R Vol. 1 Pilgrim 2001) and others.
Many relationships have been proposed relating run-off coefficients to factors such as land
use, surface type, slope and rainfall intensity. The one given in Figure 6.704 is a composite
relationship reflecting experience of drainage authorities and evidence from the few
gauged urban catchments with suitable lengths of record. It should be used in preference
to the run-off coefficient relationships given in previous editions of this publication.
Figure 6.70 relates the coefficient for a 10 year ARI, C10, to the pervious and impervious
fractions of the catchment, and to its rainfall climate, expressed through the 10 year ARI,
1 hour duration rainfall intensity, 10I1.
4
Figure and equation references have aligned with this Guide.

Figure 6.70: Run-off coefficient
The upper line represents conditions for areas where 10I1 is 70 mm/h or greater, and the
lower one is for areas where 10I1 is 25 mm/h or lower. For areas where 10I1 is between 25
and 70 mm/h, a line can be interpolated using the equations:
1
𝐶10 = 0.9 x 𝑓 + 𝐶10 x (1 − 𝑓) 21
and
1
( 0.7 − 0.1)x ( 10𝐼1 − 25) 22
𝐶10 = 0.1 +
(70 − 25)
= 0.1 + 0.0133 x ( 10𝐼1 − 25)
where
𝐶10 = The 10 year ARI run-off coefficient
1
𝐶10 = The pervious area run-off coefficient
𝑓 = The fraction impervious (0.0 to 1.0)
Pervious area run-off coefficients range from 0.1 to 0.7, corresponding to the respective
10I limits of 25 and 70 mm/h. These are likely to differ from coefficients derived in
1
regional procedures for rural design flow estimation (such as those in Book 4, Section 1
(Pilgrim 2001)), due to different interpretations of the Rational Method, the different scales
of catchment size and the different times of concentration.
For average recurrence intervals other than 10 years, the C10 value is multiplied by a
frequency factor from Table 6.24:
𝐶𝑌 = 𝐹𝑌 𝐶10 23
where
𝐶𝑌 = Run-off coefficient for a storm with an ARI of Y years(dimensionless)
𝐹𝑌 = Frequency factor (from Table 6.24)

𝐶10 = The 10 year ARI run-off coefficient

Where run-off coefficients calculated from the above equations exceed 1.0, they should
be arbitrarily set equal to 1.0.
Note that no allowance is made for slope and soil type. While it seems logical that they
would affect run-off coefficients, there is little firm evidence to confirm this. To some
extent, the effect of slope is incorporated in the time of concentration estimate. As for soil
type, designers may make adjustments based on local evidence, if it is available.
The above relationships can be applied both to areas which are essentially
homogeneous, and to those where pervious and impervious portions are intermixed.
Where a catchment consists of portions which are significantly different, they should be
separated and different C values applied.
For an example of the use of the design pivot line refer to AGRD Part 5A – Section 5.7.2.
For simplicity, Equation 24 can be used to estimate the percentage of impervious area for residential areas.
The equation is valid up to a residential density of 20 dwellings per hectare and caution should be used in
applying Equation 24 to developments with greater densities:
𝑓 = 3 x 𝑅𝐷 − 5 24
where
𝑅𝐷 = The number of residences per hectare (ha)

See Appendix E for further information regarding the estimation of the coefficient of run-off in Queensland.
Future development of urban catchments
The run-off coefficient must account for the future development of the catchment as depicted in the planning
scheme or zoning maps for the relevant local government, but should not be less than the value determined
for the catchment under existing conditions.
Table 6.30 provides guidance in the selection of fraction impervious values for various development
categories.
In making the decision on whether or not to allow for future development, the disruption to traffic when the
additional waterways are constructed in the future must be considered. Other considerations include the
requirements by some local governments to not allow any increase in water discharging into drainage
structures in the road corridor from development of an upstream catchment.
Detention basins are therefore often specified in the design of the development, particularly in small,
urbanised catchments. In this case there is no need to consider the effect of development.
In the case where the detention basin only moderates the run-off from the development, then the parameters
of the detention basin design need to be considered in the discharge calculations at the departmental
drainage structure.

Table 6.30: Fraction impervious vs development category
Fraction
Development category
impervious (fi)
Central business 0.90–1.00
Commercial, local business, neighbouring facilities, service industry, general industry, home industry 0.90
Significant paved areas e.g. roads and car parks 0.90
Urban residential – high density 0.80–0.90
Urban residential – low density (including roads) 0.45–0.75
Urban residential – low density (excluding roads) 0.30–0.50
Rural residential 0.10–0.30
Open space and parks, etc. 0.0–0.20
Notes:
The designer should determine the actual fraction impervious for each development. Local governments may specify
default values.
Typically for urban residential high density developments:
- townhouse type development fi = 0.70
- multi-unit dwellings > 20 dwellings per ha
- high-rise residential development fi = 0.90.
In urban residential low density areas fi may vary depending upon road width, allotment size, house size and extent of
paths, driveways etc.

Source: Modified from DNRW (2007).
Partial Area Effects
The partial area effect phenomenon outlined in Section D.2.4 – Partial Area Effects for rural catchments is
also applicable for urban catchments. The occurrence of partial area effects in the urban environment is
much more common than in the rural environment.
Figure 6.71 shows various examples of urban catchments that may experience partial area effect.
A simplified procedure is based on a comparison between the full area discharge and the partial area peak
discharge for the time of concentration of the impervious areas of the critical sub-catchment. Care must be
exercised as this procedure can underestimate the peak discharge.
The method involves the use of a time of concentration ti corresponding to the flow travel time from the most
remote, directly connected, impervious area of the catchment to the point under consideration. Thus, the
calculated peak discharge is that from the impervious portion of the catchment plus that from the previous
part of the catchment which has begun to contribute up to time ti since the storm began.
Therefore (Equation 25):
𝑡𝑖 25
𝐶𝐴 = 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 + ( 𝐶 𝐴 )
𝑡𝑐 𝑝 𝑝
where
Overall coefficient of run-off with 𝐶𝑖 and 𝐶𝑝 being the coefficients for the
𝐶 =
impervious and pervious areas respectively
𝐴 = Overall areas with 𝐴𝑖 and 𝐴𝑝 being the impervious and pervious areas respectively
𝑡𝑖 = Time of concentration from impervious area (minutes)

𝑡𝑐 = Time of concentration for the catchment (minutes)
Figure 6.71: Examples of urban catchments that may be subject to partial area effects
(a)
(b)
Source: Adapted from DNRW (2007).
Worked Example (Rural): Rural Run-off

This example describes the process to determine the stormwater run-off from a simple rural catchment.
The example commences after the catchment area has been determined and catchment data has been
gathered.
The task for this example is, given the catchment data below, estimate the peak stormwater discharge at
Point A, the site for a proposed culvert, for the ARI’s 50, 20 and 10 year flood events.
Catchment data
• area = 6 km2
• catchment, Figure 6.72, is predominately flat to rolling country used for grazing cattle
• channel is well defined and with little storage
• chainage and heights for stream profile, as shown, have been extracted from a topographic map.

Figure 6.72: Catchment
Solution
The Rational Method formula (Equation 8) needs to be used to solve this – Q50 = k x C50 x I50 x A.
The area has been calculated as A = 6 km2, therefore k = 0.278. Then determine C50 and I50.
Because I50 is required to determine C50, calculate I50 first.
Step 1
To determine I50, firstly calculate tc for the catchment. To do this, use Bransby-Williams formula (Equation 9):
𝐹x𝐿
𝑡𝑐 =
𝐴0.1 x 𝑆𝑒0.2
Previously it has been determined that A = 6 km2 (therefore F = 58.5) and the length of the catchment as L =
1.9 km, therefore calculate Se.
To calculate Se, use equal area slope method.
Plot the stream profile. Set Point A as datum. Mark distances and heights relative to Point A, see Figure 6.73.

Figure 6.73: Stream profile

Now calculate the area under the stream profile.
Using the above area, calculate the right ordinate of a triangle, which has the equivalent area.
Plot this ordinate (known as the equal area ordinate) and draw a line back to Point A, and calculate the slope
of this line (Figure 6.74).

Figure 6.74: Plot of equal area ordinate

Now use Bransby-Williams formula, to calculate tc.
58.5 x 1.9
𝑡𝑐 =
60.1 x 2.470.2
𝑡𝑐 = 78 minutes
Step 2
Now determine the rainfall intensity for the ARI 50, 20 and 10 year storm events, each with a duration of 78
minutes.
A variety of methods may be employed to generate an IFD table for the project site (see Section 6.7.3). For
this worked example a software application, RAIN, developed by DTMR, has been utilised.

Figure 6.75: Output from RAIN

It can be seen from Figure 6.75, that 78 minutes falls between the standard durations of 1 and 1.5 hours.
Interpolate the required intensities:
Duration Intensity ARI 50

1 h (60 min) 88.73
1.5 h (90 min) 69.33
(88.73 − 69.33)
[ x (90 − 78)] + 69.33 = 77.09
(90 − 60)
Therefore I50 = 77.1 mm/h.
Interpolating for the ARI 20 year and 10 year events, I20 = 64.8 mm/h and I10 = 55.8 mm/h.
Step 3
The last variable to determine is CY the run-off coefficient. See Section D.2.3 – Run-off Coefficient and
Appendix E (for Queensland application).
For the given catchment characteristics of the project site, the run-off coefficient C50 can be determined from
Table E 1 in Appendix F.
Note that Table E 1 only provides the run-off coefficient for the ARI 50 year event (C50) and these are used to
calculate C50 as shown in Table 6.31.

Table 6.31: Calculation of C50
Intensity 27.1
Catchment relief 0
Catchment storage 10
Ground characteristics 40
C50 = 77.1/100 = 0.77
To determine CY for the other ARIs, use the factors given in Table 6.32.
Table 6.32: Extract from Table E 2
ARI Coefficient
10 0.8 C50
20 0.9 C50
Therefore:
Table 6.33: Summary of CY calculation
C20 = 0.77 x 0.9 = 0.69

C10 = 0.77 x 0.8 = 0.62
Step 4
Now calculate the peak catchment discharge for each ARI using the Rational Method (using values from
Table 6.33):
Q10 = 0.278 x 0.62 x 55.8 x 6 = 57.7 m3/s
Q20 = 0.278 x 0.69 x 64.8 x 6 = 74.6 m3/s
Q50 = 0.278 x 0.77 x 77.1 x 6 = 98.9 m3/s
Worked Examples (Urban): Urban Run-off
Overland Flow Time
Example 1: Overland flow time calculation
Consider overland flow travel time for a sub-catchment in Melton, Victoria, with a length of 45.0 m, a slope of
0.01 m/m, and a roughness of 0.200. The design ARI event is 10 years.

The form of the equation (Equation 17) is:
(𝐿𝑛)0.6
𝑇𝑜 = 6.94 x
𝐼 0.4 𝑆 0.3
where
𝑇𝑜 = Overland flow time (minutes)
𝐿 = Overland flow path length (m)
𝑛 = Manning’s surface roughness
𝐼 = Rainfall intensity for the design ARI event (mm/h)
𝑆 = Slope of overland flow path (m/m)
The equation is solved for To I0.4 and the corresponding number is interpolated from a tabulation of ToI0.4
values to arrive at a time of overland flow.
Table 6.34 shows the rainfall intensity frequency and duration table (IFD) for Melton, Victoria.
Table 6.34: IFD table for Melton

Source: BOM website.
The kinematic wave equation has been chosen for this example involves rainfall intensity, it must be solved
together with the relationship between duration, t and intensity, I. To simplify calculations, a tabulation of To
I0.4 can be prepared as shown in Table 6.35.

Table 6.35: Tabulation of ToI 0.4
Average recurrence interval

Duration, To
(mins)
1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years
5 23.0 25.9 29.7 32.0 34.7 38.2 40.7

6 26.9 30.2 34.7 37.3 40.4 44.4 47.5
10 41.2 46.3 53.0 57.1 61.8 61.8 72.4
20 72.2 81.3 92.7 99.6 107.6 107.6 125.7
30 99.4 111.6 127.2 136.5 147.5 147.5 172.0
60 168.9 189.4 215.3 230.4 248.8 248.8 289.2
Solve for To.
Using Equation 17:
(45.0 x 0.200)0.6
To =6.94 x
I 0.4 x 0.010.3
Therefore:
𝑇𝑜 𝐼 0.4 = 103.3
The value of ToI0.4 corresponds to an overland flow time between 20 and 30 minutes for the 10 year ARI. By
interpolation from Table 6.35:
To = 21.0 minutes
From Table 6.35, if the design ARI is two years, a value of 103.3 corresponds to duration of 27.3 minutes.
For a one year ARI the duration is 31.7 minutes, while for an ARI of 100 years it is 15.8 minutes.
Example 2: Overland flow time for multiple flow segments
Consider overland flow travel time for two segments a and b, where segment a is an asphalt paved surface
and segment b is a grassed median batter as shown in the Figure 6.76.

Figure 6.76: Overland flow travel time for two segments
Source: VicRoads.
For this example the project location is Melton, Victoria, design ARI event is 10 years and the following
Manning’s surface roughness values have been adopted:
n= 0.013 for asphalt paved surface
n= 0.200 for short grass median batter
A method for combining segments is outlined in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001, Book 8).
For the two segments a and b, the total overland flow time is (Equation 18):
13
Ttotal = T(LA) + TB(LA + LB) – TB(LA)TB(LA)
where
LA = The length of flow for segment a
T(LA) = The time for flow across segment a, from point a to b
TB(LA+LB) The time for flow across the total length of segments a and b using the slope and
=
roughness of segment b, from point a to c
TB(LA) The time for flow across a virtual segment along a length equal to segment a
using the slope and roughness of segment b, from point a to b
Note it is incorrect to add values of ToI0.4 for each of the segments, as the kinematic wave equation is based
on the assumption that no flow is entering the flow segment from upstream.

Solve for T(LA)
The time for flow across segment a (paved asphalt surface) point a to b:
(13.0 x 0.013)0.6
𝑇(𝐿 = 6.94 x
𝐴) 𝐼 0.4 x 0.030.03
𝑇(𝐿 ) 𝐼 0.4 = 6.8

𝐴
By interpolation from the tabulation of To I0.4 values for Melton, Victoria (Table 6.35) for the 10 year ARI:
6.8
𝑇(𝐿 = 5x
𝐴) 32
𝑇(𝐿 = 1.1 minutes

𝐴)
Solve for TB(LA+LB)
The time for flow across the total length of segments a and b, using the slope and roughness of segment b
(short grass median batter) (point a to c) is as follows:
(19.2 x 0.200)0.6
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 = 6.94 x
𝐴+𝐿𝐵) 𝐼 0.4 x 0.1670.3
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 𝐼 0.4 = 26.6

𝐴+𝐿𝐵)
Again by interpolation:
26.6
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 = 5x
𝐴+𝐿𝐵) 32.0
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 = 4.2 minutes

𝐴+𝐿𝐵)
Solve for TB(LA)
The time for flow across a virtual segment along a length equal to segment a using the slope and roughness
of segment b (short grass median batter) (point a to b):
(13.0 x 0.200)0.6
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 = 6.94 x
𝐴) 𝐼 0.4 0.1670.3
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 ) 𝐼 0.4 = 21.1

𝐴
By interpolation:
21.1
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 =5x
𝐴) 32.0
𝑇𝐵(𝐿 = 3.3 minutes

𝐴)

Solve for Ttotal
The total overland flow time for two segments a and b:
Ttotal = T(LA) + TB(LA+LB) – TB(LA)
Ttotal = 1.1 + 4.2 – 3.3 minutes
Ttotal = 2.0 minutes
Additional segments
For each additional segment, the following value should be added (see Equation 19):
TX(Ltotal) – TX(Ltotal – LX) 26
where
The segment name and Ltotal is the total length of flow, including the current
X =
segment X. Use the slope and roughness of segment X
TX(Ltotal) The time for flow across the total length of segments a, b and X, using the slope
=
and roughness of segment X (point a to d)
TX(Ltotal – LX) The time for flow across a virtual segment along a length equal to segment a and
=
b, using the slope and roughness of segment X (point a to c)
Figure 6.77: Overland flow travel time for additional segments
Source: VicRoads.

Use of Rational Method
The following provide examples of using the Rational Method, for different catchment characteristics.
Example 1: Single land-use catchments
Consider run-off from an impervious catchment (run-off coefficient = 1, i.e. all rain falling on the catchment
flows out of the catchment) of plan area A ha, so shaped that all surface run-off is conveyed directly to, and
discharged from, O (Figure 6.78). If this catchment were subject to a storm event of constant intensity, I
mm/h for a long duration, then the resulting relationship between discharge, Q, and time would take the form
of the run-off hydrograph shown in Figure 6.79. Note that the ‘time of rise’ of the hydrograph is tc minutes, the
catchment's time of concentration.
Figure 6.78: Impervious catchment of area A ha draining to O
Impervious
Catchment
Area = A ha
O
Outflow, Q
The peak (steady state) outflow that occurs at O, QO, must equal the rate at which precipitation is being
supplied to the catchment during the event since there are no losses. The discharge at O is found by
application of the rational formula method with the run-off coefficient equal to one.

Figure 6.79: An idealised run-off hydrograph for a constant intensity storm for the impervious catchment
Qo
Discharge
Time tc
Consider now run-off from Catchment B (Figure 6.80), a rectangular, impervious catchment of uniform slope
and plan area 0.10 ha, draining to O, whose time of concentration (i.e. travel time from the most remote
point) is 20 minutes. Catchment B is located in the climatic region whose rainfall IFD relationship for
frequency ARI = 10 years is presented in Figure 6.81.
Figure 6.80: Catchment B
O

Figure 6.81: Rainfall intensity-duration relationship for ARI = 10 years
60
Rainfall Intensity (mm/h)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80
Rainfall Duration (mins)
If the storm events (intensity constant) from the curve in Figure 6.81 are applied to Catchment B, the
resulting run-off hydrographs at O take the forms shown in Figure 6.82. It has been assumed that the speed
at which the run-off travels to the discharge point at O, is the same for the whole catchment, hence the
straight lines in the hydrographs in Figure 6.82.
• intensity 10I15 = 55 mm/h, for a duration of 15 minutes (dash-dot line)
• intensity 10I20 = 48 mm/h, for a duration of 20 minutes (solid line)
• intensity 10I25 = 42 mm/h, for a duration of 25 minutes (dotted line)
• intensity 10I1 = 25 mm/h, for a duration of 60 minutes (dashed line).
For the hydrographs listed above, the peak flow rate at O, QO, is given by application of Equation 27 and is:
27
(𝐶 𝑥 𝐴) x 10𝐼𝐷
𝑄𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 =
0.36
where
𝑄𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 = Peak flow rate (L/s)
𝐶 = Run-off coefficient (= 1.00 in each case)

𝐴 = Catchment area contributing the discharge at time of concentration (ha)
10 Rainfall intensity corresponding to an ARI of 10 years with a duration of

𝐼𝐷 =
𝐷 (mm/h)

For the first case, where the storm duration (15 minutes) is less than the time of concentration (20 minutes),
only 15/20 parts of the catchment contribute to the peak discharge. For the three other cases, the storm
duration is equal to, or longer than, the time of concentration and so the whole catchment contributes to the
peak discharge. Therefore the peak discharges are:
QO = (1.0 x 0.10 x (15/20)) 55/0.36 = 11.5 L/s
QO = (1.0 x 0.10) 48/0.36 = 13.3 L/s
QO = (1.0 x 0.10) 42/0.36 = 11.7 L/s
QO = (1.0 x 0.10) 25/0.36 = 6.9 L/s
Figure 6.82: Hydrograph for rainfall bursts on Catchment B
14
15 min.
Discharge at 0 (m /s x 10 )
-3
12 20 min.
25 min.
10
60 min.
3
8
6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (mins)
The peak discharges can then be plotted against storm duration to determine the design discharge for the
catchment as shown in Figure 6.83. The maximum discharge occurs when the rainfall duration is 20 minutes,
i.e. when the rainfall duration is equal to the time of concentration for Catchment B (see Section D.3.2).

Figure 6.83: Plot of peak discharge against rainfall duration for Catchment B
15
Peak Discharge (m /s x10 )
-3
3
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Rainfall Duration (mins)
The trends displayed in Figure 6.82 and Figure 6.83 are typical when Rational Method assumptions and
rainfall intensity-duration relationships are combined. Storms which produce peak discharge from a
catchment have durations equal to the catchment time of concentration, tc, or longest travel time.
The application of a run-off coefficient to take account of losses due to infiltration, depression storage, etc., in
pervious catchments has little influence on the assumed relationship between critical storm duration and tc
stated above.
Example 2: Multi-land-use catchments
When discharge estimates are required in a multi-land-use catchment of the type illustrated in Figure 6.84,
conventional use of the Rational Method requires the critical storm duration to be still set to the total
catchment longest travel time. This is accepted practice even though overland flow speed in its various
components may be demonstrably different. Travel time from point F will therefore over-ride travel from point
P because run-off movement across the pervious surface is much slower than across the impervious
surface.
The only concession made in the Rational Method for the composite nature of the catchment draining to O is
in the adoption of a weighted run-off coefficient in proportion to the areas of the land use components.
Given a catchment containing two different land use areas, A1 and A2, with corresponding run-off coefficients
C1 and C2, the weighted run-off coefficient, CW, is (Equation 28):
𝐶1 𝐴1 + 𝐶2 𝐴2 28
𝐶𝑤 =
𝐴1 + 𝐴2

Figure 6.84: Catchment E – composite impervious/pervious catchment
F P
Pervious Impervious
Catchment Catchment
Ap = 0.2ha Ai = 0.1ha
Cp = 0.4 O Ci = 1.0
The following example illustrates a conventional application of the Rational Method to a multi-land-use
catchment, in this case Catchment E (Figure 6.84):
• impervious area Ai = 0.10 ha with Ci = 1.00
• pervious area Ap = 0.20 ha with Cp = 0.40
• travel time from point P to O ti = 20 minutes
• travel time from point F to O tc = 60 minutes
Hence the weighted run-off coefficient Cw is:
(1.00 x 0.10) + (0.40 x 0.20)

𝐶𝑤 = = 0.60
(0.10 + 0.20)
Time of concentration must be the greater of ti and tp and therefore is equal to 60 minutes. Using the same
rainfall intensity data as used in the previous single-land-use example, the design discharge occurs when the
storm duration is equal to the time of concentration. Therefore the design rainfall intensity is 25 mm/h.
Therefore the design discharge from the Catchment E is given by application of the Rational Method:
(𝐶𝑤 𝐴)10 𝐼1 (0.60 x 0.30) x 25

𝑄𝑜 = = = 12.5 L/s
0.36 0.36
But this is less than the peak discharge estimated at O for that part of Catchment E previously determined for
Catchment B.

Example 3: Time/area representation
The Rational Method assumption that the speed with which run-off elements travel to discharge point, O, is
steady, as stated in the previous section, is capable of much wider interpretation than might be assumed for
it implies the existence of a fixed relationship of proportionality between catchment area and time.
Figure 6.85 illustrates this for the case of a rectangular impervious catchment of uniform slope and plan area
A, draining to point O. Time of concentration for the catchment is tc minutes.
In this catchment, the speed of travel is the same at all points at all times (Rational Method assumptions). It
follows that run-off from the lowest quarter of the area has either passed through O at time tc/4 minutes after
the commencement of a constant intensity storm on the catchment or just arrived there. The area, A/4, is
described in this situation as the area contributing to run-off at O at time tc/4. Similarly, this applies for the
area/time pairs A/2 and tc/2, 3A/4 and 3tc/4, A and tc. These pairs, plotted in Figure 6.85, yield the time-area
relationship for the catchment.
Figure 6.85: Time-area graph for simple catchment of area, A and time of concentration, tc
P
A
3A
4
Area
A
2
A
4
A
4
O tc tc 3tc tc
4 2 4
Time
Similar graphs can be constructed to describe the time-area responses of real-world catchments which are
irregular in shape, non-uniform in slope and which include a mixture of pervious and impervious components.
Representation of such catchments on simple time-area plots requires the ’contributing area’ of each
component to be expressed in terms of equivalent impervious area i.e. the product of run-off coefficient and
component area (CA). The time-area graph of Catchment E, presented in Figure 6.86, illustrates this
process.

Figure 6.86: Time-area graph for Catchment E
0.14
Pervious Area
Equivalent Impervious Area
0.12 Impervious Area

Total
0.10
0.08
(CA)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 20 40 60 80
Time (mins)
Catchment E:
• At 20 min: Rain fall stops. All of the impervious area contributing, one-third of the pervious area
contributing (i.e. time of concentration is 60 minutes for the pervious area and flow is assumed to be
constant, therefore 20 mins/60 mins contributing).
• At 40 min: All of impervious area ceases to contribute, the lowest third of the pervious area ceases to
contribute but mid third area of pervious area contributes to discharge. Therefore at this time one-third of
the pervious area contributes.
• At 60 min: The furthest point in the previous area begins to contribute. The mid third area ceases to
contribute to discharge. The furthermost third of the pervious area contributes.
• At 80 min: All flow ceases.
Example 4: Partial area method
This method combines a number of Rational Method and time-area properties leading to a design flow
estimation procedure that is non-graphical and can be carried out ‘by hand’ (i.e. tabular), using spread-sheet
technology or by computer programming. It produces two possible critical design storm outflows (constant
intensity storms) at the discharge point of each drainage sub-catchment. The two design outflows arise from
'full-area' and 'part-area' considerations.
Full-area flow estimate
Peak run-off flows are determined for single or multiple land-use drainage sub-catchments in the manner
described when using the Rational Method procedures for multiple land use:
1. critical design storm duration = tc, travel time from the outer extremity of the most remote pervious area
2. full equivalent impervious area (CA)full = (CWA), where CW is the weighted run-off coefficient

3. rainfall intensity, YI𝑡𝑐 = average intensity, duration to be obtained from catchment rainfall intensity-duration
chart for selected ARI of Y years
4. discharge is calculated using the Rational Method formula.
The flows calculated by this approach are referred to as full-area flow estimates.
Directly connected impervious (or paved) areas are those that contribute run-off directly to the drainage
collection network. Such run-off may be conveyed by pipe, channel or informally across the impervious
surface before reaching the formal collection system (e.g. roadside channels). Run-off, from impervious (or
paved) areas not directly connected to the formal collection system, is included with the pervious areas, Ap.
Part-area flow estimate
Peak run-off flows are also determined for the same sub-catchments using:
1. critical design storm duration = ti, travel time from the outer extremity of the most remote, directly
connected impervious area
2. 'part' equivalent impervious area is calculated in Equation 25:
𝑡 20
𝐶𝐴𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 = 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 + (𝑡 𝑖 x 𝐶𝑝 𝐴𝑝 )
𝑐
3. rainfall intensity YI𝑡𝑐 = average intensity, duration to be obtained from catchment rainfall intensity-
duration chart for selected ARI of Y years.
The flows calculated by this approach are referred to as part-area flow estimates.
The theoretical basis for the part equivalent impervious area calculation (CA)part follows from the time-area
representation (see Example of time/area representation earlier in this section) of the lumped paved and
separately lumped pervious components present in a multi-land-use catchment.
Strict time/area representation of the paved and pervious components of real-world catchments differ from
the simple model. Justification for its use is therefore claimed on the grounds of simplicity and adequacy. It is
simple because it translates into an easily understood tabular flow estimation procedure, and adequate
because it yields estimates which involve much the same level of uncertainty as is associated with more
complex and time-consuming methods.
Example of partial area rational method
Consider the peak flow estimates (design ARI = 10 years) which may be derived from the full-area and part-
area conditions which arise in Catchment E, represented in Figure 6.84.
Full-area estimate by the Rational Method formula:
Equivalent impervious area = (CWA) = 1.0x0.1 + 0.4x0.2 = 0.18 ha
Storm duration (equal to tc) = 60 minutes, hence 10I60 m = 25 mm/h
Hence, full-area peak flow estimate:
0.18 x 25
𝑄𝑓 = = 12.5 𝐿⁄𝑠
0.36

Part-area estimate (CA)part is:
𝑡𝑖
Equivalent impervious area = 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 + ( x 𝐶𝑝 𝐴𝑝 )
𝑡𝑐
= 1.0 x 0.10 + (20/60 x 0.4 x 0.2)
= 0.127 ha
Storm duration (equal to ti) = 20 minutes, hence 10I20 m = 48 mm/h
Part-area peak flow estimate:
0.127 x 48
𝑄𝑝 = = 16.9 L⁄s
0.36
Recommendation: outlet works for point O in Catchment E should carry a design flow (ARI = 10 years) of
16.9 L/s.

Estimation of Coefficient of Run-off –

Queensland Application
Rural Hydrology
The run-off coefficient for the ARI 50 year event (C50) is determined using Table E 1. To determine the value
of CY for other ARIs, the C50 value is modified using the factors from Table E 2.
It should be noted that this method can give a C50 value greater than 1.0. This can occur when rainfall
intensity exceeds 120 mm/h and the remaining characteristics are at maximum values (possible in small,
steep catchments). In this instance, C50 should be rounded down to 1.0.
The run-off coefficient C is a statistical composite of several aspects including the effects of rainfall intensity,
catchment characteristics, infiltration (and other losses) and channel storage. It should not be confused with
the volumetric run-off coefficient which is the ratio of total run-off to total rainfall.
Table E 1: Estimation of the run-off coefficient for rural catchments
Run-off producing values (in brackets) as % in calculation of C for a 50 year average

Characteristic
recurrence interval event
Rainfall intensity (C ) = 0.3 I50 + 4
Very steep slopes > 15% Hilly to steep slopes 4–15% Flat to rolling slopes < 4%
Catchment relief
(10) (5) (0)
Poorly defined water courses,
Well defined water courses, Overland Flow is significant,
large flood plain storage
Catchment storage negligible storage some floodplain storage
capacity
(10) (5) (0)
Grazing land and Dense vegetation Heath and sand
Ground Agricultural land
open forest and rainforest dunes
characteristics
(40) (30) (20) (10)
Notes:
Catchment storage is defined as a catchment’s ability to detain or temporarily hold water within a stream’s adjacent
floodplain. Water will slowly drain after flood water recedes.
Example:
Determine C50 for a rainfall intensity of 40 mm/h over a catchment with the following characteristics:
- Catchment relief – hilly with average slopes 4–8%.
- Catchment storage – well defined system of small watercourses with little storage capacity.
- Ground characteristics – open forest.
16 + 5 + 10 + 40
𝐶50 = = 0.71
100
Table E 2: Adjustment factors for run-off coefficients for other average recurrence intervals
Average recurrence interval

Rural coefficient Urban coefficient
(years)
1 0.8 C50 0.80 C10
2 0.8 C50 0.85 C10

5 0.8 C50 0.95 C10

10 0.8 C50 1.00 C10
20 0.9 C50 1.05 C10
50 1.0 C50 1.15 C10
100 1.05 C50 1.20 C10
Notes:
C50 determined for rural catchments using Section D.2 – Rural Hydrology.
- C10 determined using method described in Section D.2.3 – Run-off Coefficient.
- Where run-off coefficients calculated using the above table exceed 1.00, they should be arbitrarily set to 1.00.
Urban Hydrology
The run-off coefficient is calculated in accordance with the method summarised in the following steps:
Determine the fraction impervious fi for the catchment under study from Table 6.30 (fraction impervious
Step 1
v development).
Determine the one hour rainfall intensity 1I10 for the ARI 10 year event at the locality. See Section D.3 –
Step 2
Urban Hydrology.
Step 3 Determine the 10 year C value from Table E 3 and Table E 4 (C10 values for 0% fraction impervious).
Step 4 Determine the urban coefficient (frequency factor FY) for the required ARI from Table 6.24, if required.
Multiply the C10 as per Urban Coefficient (Step 4) to determine the run-off coefficient for the design
Step 5
storm CY.
In certain circumstances the resulting value of CY will be greater than 1.0. In accordance with the
recommendations of AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001) a limiting value of CY = 1.0 should be adopted for urban
areas.
There is little evidence to support an allowance for either slope or soil type in fully developed (non-WSUD)
urban areas. If there are significant local effects, and reliable data is available, then adjustments for soil type
may be incorporated within the calculations at the discretion of the designer in consultation with the relevant
local authority.
The relationships shown in AR&R Vol. 1 (Pilgrim 2001) and adopted in this Guide apply to areas that are
essentially homogeneous, or where the pervious and impervious portions are so intermixed that an average
is appropriate. In cases where separable portions of a catchment are significantly different, they should be
divided into sub-catchments and different values of C applied.
Notwithstanding the above notes and limitations, it is the responsibility of the designer to ensure each sub-
catchment flow is determined using a suitable coefficient of discharge. The local government body may set
specific C values to be used within their area.
Table E 3: C10 values
Intensity Fraction impervious fi

(mm/h)
1I 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 0.90 1.00
10
39–44 See 0.44 0.55 0.67 0.78 0.84 0.90

Table 6.
45–49 0.49 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.85 0.90
32
50–54 0.55 0.64 0.72 0.81 0.86 0.90

55–59 0.60 0.68 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.90

60–64 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.84 0.87 0.90
65–69 0.71 0.76 0.80 0.85 0.88 0.90
70–90 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.90
1I
10 = One-hour rainfall intensity for an ARI 10 year event & C10 = Run-off Coefficient for an ARI 10 year event
Table E 4: C10 values for 0% fraction impervious
Medium density bush, or Light cover bushland, or poor

Land good grass cover, or high grass cover, or low density
Dense bushland
description density pasture, or zero pasture, or low cover bare
tillage cropping fallows
Intensity Soil permeability Soil permeability Soil permeability

(mm/h)
1I10 High Med Low High Med Low High Med Low
39–44 0.08 0.24 0.32 0.16 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.40 0.48
45–49 0.10 0.29 0.39 0.20 0.39 0.49 0.29 0.49 0.59
50–54 0.12 0.35 0.46 0.23 0.46 0.58 0.35 0.58 0.69
55–59 0.13 0.40 0.53 0.27 0.53 0.66 0.40 0.66 0.70
60–64 0.15 0.44 0.59 0.30 0.59 0.70 0.44 0.70 0.70
65–69 0.17 0.50 0.66 0.33 0.66 0.70 0.50 0.70 0.70
70–90 0.18 0.53 0.70 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.53 0.70 0.70
Source: Derived from Department of Environment and Resource Management (2004).

Estimation of Discharge from Rural

Catchments in Victoria – Use of Area Size
Factor
General
VicRoads has carried out research that indicates that peak discharges might be underestimated in certain
conditions for small rural catchments in some Victorian locations (less than 5000 hectares). An area size
factor is therefore applied to determine peak discharges for rural catchments.
This appendix outlines the procedure to determine peak discharge incorporating the area size factor. It is
likely that the requirement for use of the area size factor in Victoria will be reassessed when the Australian
Rainfall and Run-off review has been finalised (anticipated in 2013).
The procedures set out in this appendix are based on a statistical interpretation of the Rational Method, with
design discharge factors determined by geographical location.
The method for rural catchments is not applicable:

1. where the total catchment area is less than 1 km2 (100 hectares)
2. where comparisons are required between surfaces with different imperviousness, before and after
proposed development
3. where there are flood plains with significant storage and where flow may spill over sub-catchment
boundaries other than via the main channel or may be restricted by backing up from a downstream
catchment
4. where detention basins are to be, or have been introduced.
In cases (1) and (2), the discharge estimation method in Section D.3 – Urban Hydrology, should be used. In
cases (3) and (4), a flood routing method is required.
Victorian Conditions
Note: Data applies to Victoria only.
Rainfall intensity/duration charts were calculated by the method given in Pilgrim (2001). Run-off coefficients
were based on flood discharge data supplied by the Rural Water Commission from 325 gauged catchments
having 10 or more years of continuous discharge records. The sizes of gauged catchments areas ranged
between 1800 ha. and 264 500 ha. The run-off coefficient for rural catchments less than 5000 ha is
increased by an area size factor, FA.

Storm Run-off Estimation
The peak flow for rural catchments is estimated by Equation A5:
𝑃𝑌 𝐼𝑌 𝐴 A5
𝑄𝑌 =
360
where
Expected maximum discharge for the Y year average recurrence interval (ARI)
𝑄𝑌 =
(m3/s)
𝑃𝑌 = Design discharge factor
Average intensity of rainfall (mm/h) for the 𝑌 year ARI interval during the
𝐼𝑌 =
catchment characteristic time tk
The formula does not represent the pattern of any particular storm event, as the times of rise, peak flows and
durations of flow resulting from storms in a catchment can vary significantly. Rather, it is a means of quickly
estimating a design discharge from the catchment for the design ARI. The designer should keep in mind that
actual peak flows could vary from the estimate by plus or minus 30%.
Average Recurrence Interval
The ARI is defined as the average interval in years between the occurrence of a specified discharge and an
equal or larger flow. However, it should be noted that there can be a significant probability of this discharge
occurring in any one year. For example, although a discharge of 10 year ARI could be equalled or exceeded
in a 10 year period, there is approximately a 1 in 10 probability that it could be exceeded in any one year.
Any culvert or drainage system will occasionally have to carry flows greater than the design
discharge. Appropriate provision must be made for control of the excess.
When selecting the ARI for a design, the following factors should be considered:
• the consequences of flooding, such as damage to property, road, and structures
• traffic delays or extra travel distance due to road closure during floods
• road maintenance costs
• the additional cost of providing for a longer ARI.
Section 6.4.4 provides a guide to the selection of ARIs for flood immunity. Section 6.4.4 was updated as part
of the broader document, and therefore uses the current AEP terminology.
The ARI to be used for final design would be selected after evaluation of the factors listed above.
Definition of Catchment Area
Contour maps of Victoria are available from the Land Victoria website at
http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/imf/search/Topo30Front.jsp.
The designer is advised to inspect the site to check the details of the area against the catchment as
interpreted from the map.

Unmapped shapes less than the height of the contour interval, or features added during property
development, can alter contributing areas and drainage paths.
In flat country, a site inspection may not reveal all the relevant information, and stereoscopic interpretation of
aerial photographs, or catchment definition by photogrammetry could be helpful.
Calculation of Characteristic Time
It is necessary to calculate a typical run-off response time, called the characteristic time tk before selecting a
design value of rainfall intensity.
For rural catchments, the characteristic time is calculated from Equation A6:
𝑡𝑘 = 7.924𝐴0.38 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 A6
where
It is important that this time be the same as that used to derive the design discharge factor, PY. It is incorrect
to add a time of overland flow to the characteristic time.
Average Rainfall Intensity
Rainfall intensity-frequency-duration tables can be produced for any location in Victoria from the Australian
Bureau of Meteorology website. Input data required to generate a table are the latitude and longitude for the
city, town or location of interest.
Design Discharge Factor
The 10-year ARI design discharge factors for rural catchment areas greater than 5000 hectares in Victoria,
except the region between Horsham and Mildura where there are insufficient stream gauging
records, are shown on

Figure F 1(a) and Figure F 1(b). The design discharge factor decreases with area and increases with ARI
and is calculated from Equation A7:
𝑃𝑌 = 𝑃10 𝐹𝑌 𝐹𝐴 A7
where
𝑃𝑌 = Discharge factor for Y year ARI
10 year ARI factor read from Figure F1 (a) and Figure F 1 (b)(rural catchments
𝑃10 =
only)
𝐹𝑌 = Frequency factor read from Table 6.25
𝐹𝐴 = Area size factor, which may be read from Figure F 2 or calculated from
𝐹𝐴 = 1.0 (FA not applicable, if A > 5000 ha
𝐹𝐴 = [1.6 – 0.6(A – 1000)/4000], if 1001 < A < 5000 ha
𝐹𝐴 = [2.1 – (A/2000)], if 301 < A < 1000 ha

𝐹𝐴 = 2.0 approx., if 0 < A < 300 ha

Figure F 1 (a): Design discharge factor
DESIGN DISCHARGE FACTOR
10 YEARS AVERAGE RECURRENCE

INTERVAL

Figure F 1 (b): Design discharge factor
DESIGN DISCHARGE FACTOR
10 YEARS AVERAGE RECURRENCE

INTERVAL

Figure F 2: Area size factor (FA)

Catchment area ‘A’ (ha x 1000)


Blockage Form




AGRD05-23 Guide To Road Design Part-5 Drainage General and Hydrology Considerations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRD05-23 Guide To Road Design Part-5 Drainage General and Hydrology Considerations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Austroads Ltd 2023 | This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.

Edition 4.0 published January 2023

Austroads Publication No. AGRD05-23 • Department of Infrastructure, Transport,

Austroads 2023 | page i

2.1.1 Providing for a Safe System ....................................................................................................... 8

Austroads 2023 | page i

3.3.2 Identifying Fauna Passage Criteria .......................................................................................... 28

3.5.9 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 49

Austroads 2023 | page ii

4. Drainage Considerations .....................................................................................................................89

4.8 Extreme Events ....................................................................................................................................102

5. Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................116

Austroads 2023 | page iii

6.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................131

6.6 Hydrology Methods for Road Drainage and Flood Design...................................................................163

Austroads 2023 | page iv

6.12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 258

Design of an Infiltration Basin..............................................................................................280

Drainage Construction Material Considerations ................................................................282

Summary of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Techniques .........................................287

Rational Method Background and Application ..................................................................291

Estimation of Coefficient of Run-off – Queensland Application ........................................339

Estimation of Discharge from Rural Catchments in Victoria – Use of Area Size

Blockage Form .......................................................................................................................349

Austroads 2023 | page v

Table 5.2: Summary of maintenance practice .......................................................................................129

Austroads 2023 | page vi

Figure 6.1: Catchment delineation ..........................................................................................................135

Austroads 2023 | page vii

Figure 6.31: Catchment F covers two ARF regions ..................................................................................210

Austroads 2023 | page viii

Figure 6.82: Hydrograph for rainfall bursts on Catchment B .....................................................................332

Austroads 2023 | page ix

The Guide provides the guidance necessary for designers to:

Austroads 2023 | page 1

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Guide to Road Design

Part 2: Network Wide Design

Part 5: Part 6: Part 7:

Part 4A: Part 5A:

All Parts Inter-relate

1.2 Scope and Definitions

Austroads 2023 | page 2

1.2.2 Definitions of Key Terms

Nomograph – A two-dimensional diagram designed to allow the approximate graphical computation of a

Austroads 2023 | page 3

1.3 Jurisdictional Considerations

1.3.1 Link to Jurisdictional Supplements

1.3.2 Road Agency Policies and Guidelines

1.3.3 Federal and State Legislation, Strategies and Guidelines

1.3.4 Jurisdictional Responsibility

1.4 Inter-agency Relations

1.5 Management and Planning Framework

Austroads 2023 | page 4

There are a number of segments to a typical drainage plan:

1.6 Principles and Objectives of Drainage

Austroads 2023 | page 5

1.7 Geometry and Drainage Relationship

Austroads 2023 | page 6

1.8 Use of Software

• input parameters have been selected to represent the actual conditions

1.8.1 Validation of Software and Predetermined Criteria

Austroads 2023 | page 7