Msma Drquek7

1
EVALUATION OF THE CHANGES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND EDITIONS OF THE
URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR MALAYSIA (MSMA)
Ir. Dr. Quek Keng Hong B.E. (civil), M.Eng.Sc, Ph.D. (NSW), PE
Managing Director, MSMAware Sdn Bhd
Note: Condensed versions of this paper are submitted for publication in the IEM Journal and Bulletin.
(This paper may be download from http://paper.msmam.com)
Abstract
This paper investigated the changes between the first and second editions of MSMA on five
key parameters as follows: (i) Design Average Recurrence Interval, (ii) Design Storm, (iii)
Rational Method, (iv) On-Site Detention and (v) Total volume of sedimentation basins. The
magnitudes of changes were quantified using case studies and the results are as follows:
(i) Design Average Recurrence Interval: For medium density residential and
commercial and city area, the storm intensity has increased by up to 122% for
minor system for an ARI increase from 5 to 10 years, and up to 133% for major
system for an ARI increase from 50 year to 100 years between MSMA (2000)
and (2011). It is emphasised that the changes in the storm intensity is not only
due to changes in the ARI but also the higher IDF data in MSMA (2011).
(ii) Design Storm: For durations of between 15 to 700 min, the IDF estimates
using MSMA (2011) were mostly higher than those estimated using MSMA
(2000). In the study, out of 14 stations, 10 of them (or 71%) were higher than
the MSMA (2000) curve, while the remaining 4 stations (or 29%) were lower
than the first edition estimates. It is concluded that the design storms estimated
based on MSMA (2011) for Kuala Lumpur can be up to about 26% higher than
MSMA (2000) for duration below 700 minutes, for 71% of the stations.
(iii) Rational Method: For commercial and city area, the peak discharge from
MSMA (2011) is about 31% higher than the peak discharge from MSMA (2000).
The discharge has increased from 16.9 to 22.1 m
3
/s. The runoff coefficient C
has increased from 0.905 to 0.95 while the storm intensity has increased from
224.3 mm/hr to 279.4. The increase in C for commercial and city area and
storm intensity in MSMA (2011) has attributed to a significantly higher peak
discharge. In conclusion, the peak discharge computed using the Rational
Method in MSMA (2011) is up to 31% higher than that in MSMA (2000). This
increase is caused principally by the higher storm intensity in MSMA (2011) and
by the higher C for commercial and city area in MSMA (2011). In general, it is
concluded that 71% of the stations in Kuala Lumpur will have up to 26% higher
storm intensity and up to 31% higher peak discharges for commercial and city
area.
(iv) On-Site Detention: The result shows that for Kuala Lumpur, the PSD and SSR
using MSMA (2011) are about 20% and 190% of MSMA (2000). The PSD and
SSR using the ESM Method for Kuala Lumpur is about 55% and 103%,
respectively, of those using MSMA (2000). For Pulau Pinang, the PSD and SSR
using MSMA (2011) are about 18% and 180% of MSMA (2000), while the PSD
and SSR using the ESM Method is about 55% and 129%, respectively, of those
using MSMA (2000). The approximate Swinburnes Method in MSMA (2011)
results in underestimate of PSD and over estimate of the SSR. The ESM
Method appeared to give slightly higher estimate of SSR compared to MSMA
(2000) but a lot lower estimate compare to MSMA (2011). The ESM Method
may be used instead of MSMA (2011) to give a better estimate of the PSD and
SSR.
2

(v) Total volume of Sedimentation Basin: The dry sediment basin volume using
MSMA (2011) is half of that using MSMA (2000) for 6 month ARI design (for
projects taking more than two years) as MSMA (2011) does not cover 6 month
ARI. The wet sediment basin volume was 65% higher using MSMA (2011)
compared to MSMA (2000) because of it was based on 50 mm of rainfall for
temporary BMP in MSMA (2011), compared to the 75
th
percentile storm of
36.75 mm in MSMA (2000) which is lower.

3

1. Introduction
1.1 Evolution of Drainage Guidelines in Malaysia
Before 2001, engineers in Malaysia applied the Planning and Design Procedure
No. 1 (DID, 1975) published by the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) in
1975 for their drainage design. This is a relatively simple document to use- with
only 242 pages covering ten chapters.
But this has changed with the introduction of the Urban Stormwater Management
Manual for Malaysia (Manual Saliran Mesra Alam Malaysia) in 2000 (DID,
2000- referred to herein after as MSMA, 2000). The new Manual is much more
thorough in its coverage of subject matters compared to the old procedure. It
contains 48 chapters spanning more than 1,100 pages.
In 2011, the Department published an updated version of the same manual, known
as MSMA 2
nd
Edition (DID, 2011- referred to herein after as MSMA, 2011). This
document was launched by the Department in early 2012 and enforced on 1 July,
2012. The document is roughly half the thickness of the first edition. There are
many significant changes in computational procedures between the two editions of
MSMA (2000, 2011).
1.2 Overall Changes in MSMA (2011) from MSMA (2000)
The overall layout of MSMA (2011) has changed from MSMA (2000) as follows:
- The number of chapters has reduced from 48 in the first edition to 20 in the
second edition.
- The number of pages has reduced by roughly half.
- The topics are now more focused compared to the previous edition with
chapters named after specific drainage elements such as detention pond and
On-Site Detention.
- New chapters namely, on Rainwater Harvesting and Pavement Drainage are
included.
The content of the 20 chapters are as follows:

- Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
- Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
- Chapter 3- Quality Design Fundamentals
- Chapter 4- Roof and Property Drainage
- Chapter 5- On-Site Detention
- Chapter 6- Rainwater Harvesting
- Chapter 7- Detention Pond
- Chapter 8- Infiltration Facilities
- Chapter 9- Bioretention System
- Chapter 10- Gross Pollutant Traps
- Chapter 11- Water Quality Ponds and Wetlands
- Chapter 12- Erosion and Sediment Control
- Chapter 13- Pavement Drainage
- Chapter 14- Drains and Swales
4

- Chapter 15- Pipe Drain
- Chapter 16- Engineered Channel
- Chapter 17- Bioengineered Channel
- Chapter 18- Culvert
- Chapter 19- Pump and Tidal Gate
- Chapter 20- Hydraulic Structures
Table 1.1 is a comparison of the various chapters in MSMA (2000, 2011) given
by DID.
Table 1.1 Comparison of Chapters in MSMA (2000, 2011) (After DID Seminar Paper, 2012)
MSMA (2000) MSMA (2011)
Part A: Introduction
Chapter 1: Malaysian Perspective Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 2: Environment Processes Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 3: Stormwater Management Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Part B : Administration
Chapter 4: Design Acceptance Criteria Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 5: Institutional and Legal Framework Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 6: Authority Requirement and
Documentation
Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Part C : Planning
Chapter 7: Planning Framework Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 8: Strategic Planning Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 9: Master Planning Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Chapter 10: Choice of Management Chapter 1- Design Acceptance Criteria
Part D : Hydrology and Hydraulics
Chapter 11: Hydrologic Design Concepts Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Chapter 12: Hydraulic Fundamentals Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Chapter 13: Design Rainfall Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Chapter 14: Flow Estimation and Routing Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Chapter 15: Pollutant Estimation, Transport and
Retention
Chapter 3- Quality Design Fundamentals
Chapter 16: Stormwater System Design Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Chapter 17: Computer Models and Softwares Chapter 2- Quantity Design Fundamental
Part E : Runoff Quantity Control
Chapter 18: Principle of Quantity Control Chapter 5- On-Site Detention/Chapter 7-
Detention Pond
Chapter 19: On-site Detention Chapter 5- On-Site Detention
Chapter 20: Community and Regional Detention Chapter 7- Detention Pond
Chapter 21: On-site and Community Retention Chapter 8- Infiltration Facilities
Chapter 22: Regional Retention Chapter 8- Infiltration Facilities
Nil Chapter 6- Rainwater Harvesting
Part F : Runoff Conveyance
Chapter 23: Roof and Property Drainage Chapter 4- Roof and Property Drainage
Chapter 24: Stormwater Inlets Chapter 13- Pavement Drainage
Chapter 25: Pipe Drains Chapter 15- Pipe Drain
Chapter 26: Open Drains Chapter 14- Drains and Swales
Chapter 27: Culvert Chapter 18- Culvert
5

Chapter 28: Engineered Waterways Chapter 16- Engineered Channel
Chapter 29: Hydraulic Structures Chapter 20- Hydraulic Structures
Part G : Post Construction Runoff Quality
Controls

Chapter 30: Stormwater Quality Monitoring Chapter 3- Quality Design Fundamentals
Chapter 31: Filtration Chapter 9- Bioretention System
Chapter 32: Infiltration Chapter 8- Infiltration Facilities
Chapter 33: Oil Separators Chapter 10- Gross Pollutant Traps
Chapter 34: Gross Pollutant Traps Chapter 10- Gross Pollutant Traps
Chapter 35: Constructed Ponds and Wetlands Chapter 11- Water Quality Ponds and
Wetlands
Chapter 36: Housekeeping Practices Nil
Chapter 37: Community Education Nil
Part H : Construction Runoff Quality Controls
Chapter 38: Action to Control Erosion and
Sediment
Chapter 12- Erosion and Sediment Control
Chapter 39: Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures
Chapter 12- Erosion and Sediment Control
Chapter 40: Contractor Activity Control Measures Chapter 12- Erosion and Sediment Control
Chapter 41: Erosion and Sediment Control Plans Chapter 12- Erosion and Sediment Control
Part I : Special Application
Chapter 42: Landscaping Annex 1: Ecological Plants
Chapter 43: Riparian Vegetation and
Watercourse Management
Chapter 17- Bioengineered Channel
Chapter 44: Subsoil Drainage Nil
Chapter 45: Pumped Drainage Chapter 19- Pump and Tidal Gate
Chapter 46: Lowland, Tidal and Small Island
Drainage
Nil
Chapter 47: Hillside Drainage Nil
Chapter 48: Wet Weather Wastewater Overflows Nil
Nil Annex 2: Maintenance
Nil Annex 3: IDF Curves

6

2. Changes in the Design ARI.
The design storm ARI is covered in Chapter 4 of the first edition and Chapter 1 of the
second edition.
2.1 Major and Minor Design ARI (MSMA, 2000)
The design storm ARIs for MSMA (2000) is covered in
Table 2.1.
2.2 Major and Minor Design ARI (MSMA, 2011)
The design storm ARIs for MSMA (2011) is covered in Table 2.2.
2.3 Comparison
The changes in major/minor design storm ARI. for various types of development are
evaluated by comparing
Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 as follows:

1. For Major System, the ARI. for most types of development is fixed at 100 year
ARI. in MSMA (2011), unlike MSMA (2000) where the ARI. is defined as up to
100 year for all development types- subject to cost benefit analysis by the
engineer.
2. For residential development, the types of development have been combined into
two types namely, bungalow/Semi-D and link houses/apartment with higher ARI.
of 5 and 10 years for minor systems compared to 2, 5 and 10, respectively, for
low, medium and high density residential classifications in the first edition. For
major system, the ARI. has increased to mostly 100 years compared with up to
100 years in the first edition.
3. In the first edition, for commercial, business and industrial are grouped according
to whether these are located in CBD or non-CBD areas. But in the second
edition, these are divided into: commercial and business centers, industry, and
institutional building/complex with ARI. of 10 for minor system compared to 5 for
non-CBD in the first edition. For major system, the ARI. is fixed at 100 years in
the Second edition compared to up to 100 in the first edition.
4. The term open space in the first edition has been replaced by sport fields in
the second edition. The ARI. for minor system is now 2 years compared to 1 year
previously, while the ARI. for major system has reduced to 20 years from up to
100 years previously. Interestingly, this is the only reduction in ARI. in the
second edition.
5. There is a new category called infrastructure/utility in the new publication with
ARI. of 5 and 100 years for minor and major systems, respectively.
2.4 Evaluation
In summary, the major changes are as follows:

1. For Major Systems, the ARI. for most types of development is fixed at 100 year
ARI. in MSMA (2011) from up to 100 year in MSMA (2000).
7

2. MSMA (2011) has eliminated the subjectivity in the determination of ARI for
major system via cost benefit analysis by the engineer.
3. For minor systems, the ARI has increased from 2 to 5 years to 10 years for low
and medium density residential developments and commercial, business and
industrial development in non-CBD areas.
4. For parks and sport fields, the ARI for major system has reduced to 20 years
from up to 100 years previously. This reflects D.I.Ds effort in promoting the use
of these amenities for storage.
5. The effect of changes in design ARI on storm intensities is covered in the
following case study.

Table 2.1 Design Storm ARIs for Urban Stormwater System Adoption (MSMA, 2000)
Type of Development Average Recurrence interval (ARI) of Design Storm
(Year)
Quantity Quality
Minor System Major System
Open Space, Parks and Agricultural Land
in urban areas
1 Up to 100 3 month ARI.
(for all types
of
development)
Residential:
- Low density 2 Up to 100
- Medium density 5 Up to 100
- High density 10 Up to 100
Commercial, Business and Industrial-
Other than CBD
5 Up to 100
Commercial, Business, Industrial in
Central Business District (CBD) areas of
Large Cities
10 Up to 100
Source: Table 4.1 of MSMA (2000)

Table 2.2 Design Storm ARI Adoption (MSMA, 2011)
Type of Development Minimum Average Recurrence interval (ARI)
of Design Storm (Year)
Residential Minor System Major System
- Bungalow and Semi-D 5 50
- Link Houses/Apartment 10 100
Commercial and Business
Centers
10 100
Industry 10 100
Sport Fields, Parks and
Agricultural Land
2 20
Infrastructure/utility 5 100
Institutional Building/Complex 10 100
8

Source: Table 1.1 of MSMA (2011)

2.5 Case Study on Design ARI
In this case study, the changes in the design ARI. on rainfall intensities is
assessed. Using the design storm ARI. for the old and new procedures, the
rainfall intensities for both minor and major systems are compared. The
quantum of increase is assessed. The location of the study is in Sg. Batu,
Kuala Lumpur.
2.5.1 Methodology
1. The ARI for three types of landuses: park, medium density residential and
commercial area were determined based on MSMA (2000) and MSMA (2011)
as shown in Table 2.3 and plotted in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, respectively,
for minor and major systems.
2. For park, the ARI have changed from 1 and <100 for minor and major systems
to 2 and 20 years for minor and major systems, respectively.
3. For medium density residential and commercial area, the ARI have increased
from 5 and <100 for minor and major systems to 10 and 100 years for minor
and major systems, respectively.
4. The ARI for <100 year for MSMA (2000) is assumed to be 50 year.
5. The minor and major storm intensities for MSMA (2000) and MSMA (2011)
computed and summarized as shown in Table 2.3.
2.5.2 Evaluation

To compare the increase in storm intensity, a ratio R is defined as follows:
1
2
i
i
R =
where
i
2
is the storm intensity based on MSMA (2011)
i
1
is the storm intensity based on MSMA (2000)

The ratio R is tabulated as shown in the table.
1. The ratio R has increased by up to 110% for minor system and up to 103%
for major system for the first type of landuse i.e., park. This increase in
design storm intensity was due to higher IDF data in MSMA (2011), which
negates the effect of the reduction of ARI in the new guideline to 20 year.
2. For the second and third types of landuses i.e., medium density residential
and commercial and city area, the ratio R has increased up to 122% for
minor system for an ARI increase from 5 to 10 years, and up to 133% for
major system for an ARI increase from 50 year to 100 years.
3. It is emphasised that the changes in the storm intensity is not only due to
changes in the ARI but also the higher IDF data in MSMA (2011). For
changes in IDF data between MSMA (2000) and (2011), please refer to the
case study on Design Storm.
4. Due to the linear nature of the discharge and storm intensity in the Rational
Method, it is expected the same proportional increase in the design
discharge is observed.
9

5. This case study only serves to determine the changes in storm intensities
with changes in ARI. It is not suggesting that all medium density residential
and commercial and city areas are currently designed for a 50 years ARI for
major system.

Table 2.3 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Major and Minor System for Sg
Batu, Kuala Lumpur
Landuse ARI
(Minor)
ARI
(Major)
ARI
(Minor)
ARI
(Major)
i
(Minor)
i
(Major)
i
(Minor)
i
(Major)
R
(Minor)
R
(Major)
MSMA (2000) MSMA (2011) MSMA (2000) MSMA (2011)
Park

1 <100 2 20 64.8 100.5 71.2 103.4 1.10 1.03
Medium
Density
Residential
5 <100 10 100 75.7 100.5 92.4 134.1 1.22 1.33
Commercial
and City Area
5 <100 10 100 75.7 100.5 92.4 134.1 1.22 1.33
Note1: i in mm/hr for duration of 60 minutes
Note 2: ARI for <100 year is assumed to be 50 year

Figure 2.1 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Minor System for Sg. Batu, Kuala
Lumpur

Figure 2.2 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Major System for Sg. Batu, Kuala
Lumpur
0
20
40
60
80
100
Park Medium Density
Residential
Commercial and
City Area
S
t
o
r
m

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

Development Types
i (Minor) (MSMA, 2000) i (Minor) (MSMA, 2011)
10

3. Changes in Design Storm, Temporal Pattern and Areal Reduction Factor
3.1 Design Storm Computation
3.1.1 Evolution of Methods of Computation for Design Storm
With the publication of second edition of MSMA, Chapter 2 of MSMA (2011) now
supersedes Chapter 13 of MSMA (2000).
In this section, the theories of design storm in both editions of MSMA (2000 and
2011) are covered.
3.1.2 Derivation of IDF Curves using MSMA (2000)
In the second edition, the following polynomial equation (Equation 13.2 in MSMA,
2000) has been fitted to the published IDF curves for the 35 major urban centres
in Malaysia:
3 2
)) (ln( )) (ln( ) ln( ) ln( t d t c t b a I
t
R
+ + + = (Equation 3.1)
where
R
I
t
is the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr) for ARI R and duration t
R is the average return interval (years)
t is the duration (minutes)
a to d are fitting constants dependent on ARI.

The fitted coefficients for the IDF curves for all the major cities are given in
Appendix 13.A of MSMA (2000). Equation 3.1 is strictly applicable to rainfall
duration of 6 hours or less.

For short duration of less than 30 minutes in MSMA (2000), the intensities are
computed as follows:
The design rainfall depth P
d
for a short duration d (min) is given by:
0
50
100
150
Park Medium Density
Residential
Commercial and
City Area
S
t
o
r
m

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

Development Types
i (Major) (MSMA, 2000) i (Major) (MSMA, 2011)
11

) (
30 60 30
P P F P P
D d
=
(Equation 3.2)
where
P
30
and P
60
are the 30 min and 60 min rainfall depths, respectively,
obtained from the published polynomial curves.
F
D
is the adjustment factor for storm duration based on Table 13.3 and
Figure 13.3 of MSMA (2000).

3.1.3 Derivation of IDF Curves using MSMA (2011)
In MSMA (2011) (Equation 2.2), the following empirical equation was fitted to the IDF data for 135
major urban centres in Malaysia:
( )
q
k
u
=
d
T
i (Equation 3.3)
where
i is the Average rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
T is the Average return interval (years) for ARI of between 0.5 and 12 months and 2 and
100 years.
d is the Storm duration (hours) where d is between 0.0833 and 72 hours
, , and are the fitting constants dependent on the raingauge location. Refer Table
2.B1 in Appendix 2.B of MSMA (2011).

3.1.4 Comparison
The following changes were noted:
1. In the Second Edition, the formula for computing the IDF data has
changed from a polynomial based formula to an empirical equation.
2. The storm intensities have changed due to the changes in the formula
used.
3. In the first edition, the data used were up to about 1983 or 1990. For
instance, the data used for the Federal Territory was only up to 1983 in
MSMA (2000). However, in the Second Edition, the data used were
more up-to-date.
4. In the first edition, the IDF data were available only for 35 major urban
centers. In the second edition, however, this has been increased to 135
major urban centers in Malaysia.
5. In MSMA (2000) the IDF formula is applicable for storm duration of 30
minutes to 6 hours, whereas in MSMA (2011), the formula is applicable
between 5 min and 72 hours. In MSMA (2000), for duration of less than
30 minutes, a short duration formula is required.
6. In MSMA (2000) the storm ARI is available for 2 to 100 years, whereas
in MSMA (2011), it is available for 2 to 100 years, plus 0.5 to 12 months.
7. IDF curves were plotted in Annex 3 of MSMA (2011) for the 135 major
urban centers for ARI. from 2 to 100 years and duration of 5 min to 72
hours. However, these were not provided for ARI of between 0.5 to 12
months. So it is necessary to compute them.
12

8. In MSMA (2000) the whole of Kuala Lumpur is represented by one IDF
curve. But in MSMA (2011), it involves 14 stations covering different
parts of Kuala Lumpur. The same is noted for the stations in all states.
For example, in Selangor there are now ten stations.
9. MSMA (2011) covers the IDF data of 12 states and federal territory in
Peninsular Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak are not covered. In MSMA
(2000), the two East Malaysian states are covered.
3.1.5 Evaluation
1 Overall, the quality of the storm data in MSMA (2011) is better as the
new data is more up-to-date.
2 The IDF data in MSMA (2011) covers longer storm durations from 5
minutes to 72 hours, and the lower range ARI of 0.5 to 12 months.
3 There are now 135 stations in MSMA (2011) compared to only 35
previously.
4 IDF curves are plotted in Annex 3 of MSMA (2011) for 135 major
urban centres.
5 No IDF data is provided for East Malaysian states of Sabah and
Sarawak.
6 The changes in the IDF data is expected to change the magnitudes
of design storm.
7 The magnitude of changes in the design rainfall is covered in the
following case study.
3.2 Storm Temporal Pattern
This is covered in Chapter 13 of the first edition and Chapter 2 of the second
edition.

3.2.1 Temporal Pattern in MSMA (2000)
In MSMA (2000), the temporal pattern is covered in Section 13.3 of Chapter 13.

Table 3.1 (Table 13.4 of MSMA, 2000) gives the recommended time steps for
durations of up to 360 minutes. Appendix 13.B gives the design temporal patterns
for East and West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.

For east Malaysia, it recommends the use of temporal patterns for East Coast of
Peninsula.

Table 3.1 Standard Durations for Urban Stormwater Drainage
Standard Duration (minutes) No. of Time Intervals Time Interval (minutes)
10 2 5
15 3 5
30 6 5
60 12 5
120 8 15
180 6 30
360 6 60

13

3.2.2 Temporal Pattern in MSMA (2011)
In MSMA (2011), the temporal patterns to be used for a set of durations are given in
Appendix 2.C for the following five regions:

- Region 1- Terengganu and Kelantan
- Region 2- Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Selangor and Pahang
- Region 3- Perak, Kedah, Pulau Pinang and Perlis
- Region 4- Mountainous Area
- Region 5- Urban Area (Kuala Lumpur)

Table 3.2 (Table 2.4 of MSMA, 2011) provides the recommended time intervals for
the above design rainfall temporal pattern.

Table 3.2 Recommended Intervals for Design Rainfall Temporal Pattern (Table 2.4 in MSMA, 2011)
Storm Duration (minutes) Time Interval (minutes)
< 60 5
60-120 10
121-360 15
>360 30

3.2.3 Evaluation
1 MSMA (2011) provides the temporal pattern for storm duration of up to 72
hour compared to MSMA (2000) at only 6 hour.
2 MSMA (2000) divides the temporal pattern for east and west cost of
Peninsular Malaysia. MSMA (2011), on the other hand, divides the whole
peninsula into five regions as described above.
3 In MSMA (2011), no mention of temporal pattern for East Malaysia- but in
MSMA (2000), it is recommended that the temporal pattern for East Coast of
Peninsula be used for Sabah and Sarawak.
4 MSMA (2011) recommends smaller time intervals.
3.3 Areal Reduction Factor
Areal reduction factor (ARF) is given in Table 13.1 of MSMA (2000) but not in
MSMA (2011). Literature in hydrology state that ARF should be applied to
convert point intensity to catchment average and it is not correct to ignore ARF
for larger catchments. Hence the following procedure as given in MSMA (2000)
should be applied for MSMA (2011):

The IDF curves give the rainfall intensity at a point. For larger catchment, the
uneven spatial distribution of a storm is important.

Areal reduction factors are applied to design point rainfall intensities to account
for the fact that it is not likely that rainfall will occur at the same intensity over the
entire catchment area of a storm.

The point estimates of design storms are adjusted for the catchment area by
following the procedure recommended in HP1 (DID, 1982), which is similar to the
United States Weather Bureau's method.

14

The design rainfall is calculated from the point rainfall intensity as follows
(Equation 13.1 in MSMA, 2000):
p c
I F I = (Equation 3.4)
where
F is the areal reduction factor which is expressed as a factor less than
1.0.
I
c
is the average rainfall over the catchment, and
I
p
is the point rainfall intensity.

The values of F for catchment areas of up to 200 km
2
and durations of up to 24 hours
are given in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1 below (Table 13.1 and Figure 13.1 of MSMA
2000, respectively). Note that the range of applicability is limited to catchment areas
of up to 200 km
2
only.
Table 3.3 Areal Reduction Factors

Figure 3.1 Plot of Areal Reduction Factors
15

3.4 Case Study on Design Storm
The design storm estimates are compared using the IDF formulas from the first
and second edition for a major urban center in Malaysia. The objective is to
determine the changes in design rainfall due to differences in the IDF formulas.
The urban center selected in the case study is Kuala Lumpur.

3.4.1 Methodology
1. The IDF curves were computed using Equation 3.1 for Kuala Lumpur for
duration of more than 30 minutes as tabulated in Table 3.4 and plotted as
shown in Figure 3.2.
2. For duration of less than 30 minutes, the short duration curve of Equation 3.2
was applied. The results for 5 and 15 minutes are tabulated as shown in
Table 3.5 and Table 3.6, respectively.
3. Equation 3.3 was applied to the 14 stations in Kuala Lumpur (Table 2.B1)
(see Table 3.9). The results for Station No. 3116004 was tabulated as shown
in Table 3.7 and plotted as shown in Figure 3.3 for ARI of 2 to 100 years and
0.5 to 12 months.
4. Table 3.8 is a summary of the storm intensities for ARI of 100 years for Kuala
Lumpur based on MSMA (2000) and the 14 stations in MSMA (2011).
5. Figure 3.4 to Figure 3.9 are plots of the IDF data for MSMA (2000) and the 14
stations in MSMA (2011) for ARI of 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 and 2, respectively. It
shows the scattering of values above and below the MSMA (2000) curve.

3.4.2 Evaluation
The results from above are evaluated as follows:
1 Lower half of Table 3.8 summarises the ratios of the design storms for MSMA
(2011) to MSMA (2000) for ARI of 100 years.
2 It is noted the design storms estimated using MSMA (2011) scattered on both
sides of the IDF curve using MSMA (2000).
3 It can be seen that for shorter durations, the design storms for MSMA (2011)
can be 26% (Station 13) higher than the estimate based on MSMA (2000).
4 For long duration of say 72 hours, the reverse is true: the MSMA (2011)
estimates can be up to 36% (Station 6) lower than those using MSMA (2000).
5 For medium durations of between 15 to 700 min, the estimates using MSMA
(2011) were mostly higher than those estimated using MSMA (2000). In the
study, out of 14 stations, 10 of them (or 71%) were higher than the MSMA
(2000) curve, while the remaining 4 stations (or 29%) were lower than the first
edition estimates.
6 It is concluded that the design storms estimated based on MSMA (2011) for
Kuala Lumpur can be up to about 26% higher than MSMA (2000) for duration
below 700 minutes, for 71% of the stations.
7 Each state has about a dozen stations with different IDF constants as shown
in Appendix 2.B. There is a need to know which of the dozen or so stations to
use in your design. In Kuala Lumpur, for instance, there are 14 stations- but
none of the station names appeared familiar.
8 MSMA (2011) does not cover Sabah and Sarawak like in MSMA (2000).
16

Table 3.4 IDF for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2000)
ARI a b c d 30 60 90 120 150 180 200 250 300 360 480 600 720 1080 1440 2880 4320
LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 4.4998 4.7875 5.0106 5.1930 5.2983 5.5215 5.7038 5.8861 6.1738 6.3969 6.5793 6.9847 7.2724 7.9655 8.3710
2 5.3255 0.1806 -0.1322 0.0047 99.0 64.8 48.9 39.5 33.2 28.7 26.3 21.8 18.7 15.9 12.3 10.0 8.4 5.7 4.3 2.1 1.4
5 5.1086 0.5037 -0.2155 0.0112 117.9 75.7 56.4 45.1 37.7 32.5 29.8 24.7 21.1 18.0 14.0 11.5 9.8 6.9 5.4 3.0 2.2
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 62.5 50.1 42.0 36.2 33.2 27.6 23.7 20.4 16.0 13.3 11.5 8.3 6.7 4.1 3.2
20 4.9781 0.7533 -0.2796 0.0166 142.4 91.3 68.0 54.5 45.7 39.4 36.2 30.2 26.0 22.4 17.8 14.9 12.9 9.5 7.8 5.1 4.2
50 4.8047 0.9399 -0.3218 0.0197 156.6 100.5 74.7 59.8 50.1 43.2 39.7 33.1 28.6 24.7 19.6 16.5 14.4 10.8 9.0 6.2 5.4
100 5.0064 0.8709 -0.3070 0.0186 172.2 110.2 81.8 65.4 54.7 47.2 43.3 36.1 31.1 26.8 21.3 17.9 15.6 11.6 9.6 6.5 5.4

Table 3.5 Short Duration IDF for Kuala Lumpur (Duration= 5 min) (MSMA 2000)
ARI a b c d 30 60
LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 tc (min) P30 (mm) P60 (mm) FD Pd (mm) Id (mm/hr)
2 5.3255 0.1806 -0.1322 0.0047 99.0 64.8 5 49.51 64.8 2.08 17.7 212.5
5 5.1086 0.5037 -0.2155 0.0112 117.9 75.7 5 58.93 75.7 2.08 24.0 288.1
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 5 65.18 83.9 2.08 26.3 315.3
20 4.9781 0.7533 -0.2796 0.0166 142.4 91.3 5 71.22 91.3 2.08 29.4 352.4
50 4.8047 0.9399 -0.3218 0.0197 156.6 100.5 5 78.32 100.5 2.08 32.1 385.3
100 5.0064 0.8709 -0.3070 0.0186 172.2 110.2 5 86.12 110.2 2.08 36.0 432.3

Table 3.6 Short Duration IDF for Kuala Lumpur (Duration= 15 min) (MSMA 2000)
ARI a b c d 30 60
LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 tc (min) P30 (mm) P60 (mm) FD Pd (mm) Id (mm/hr)
2 5.3255 0.1806 -0.1322 0.0047 99.0 64.8 15 49.51 64.8 0.8 37.3 149.1
5 5.1086 0.5037 -0.2155 0.0112 117.9 75.7 15 58.93 75.7 0.8 45.5 182.0
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 15 65.18 83.9 0.8 50.2 200.9
20 4.9781 0.7533 -0.2796 0.0166 142.4 91.3 15 71.22 91.3 0.8 55.1 220.5
50 4.8047 0.9399 -0.3218 0.0197 156.6 100.5 15 78.32 100.5 0.8 60.5 242.2
100 5.0064 0.8709 -0.3070 0.0186 172.2 110.2 15 86.12 110.2 0.8 66.9 267.4

17

Table 3.7 IDF Data for Kuala Lumpur (Station No. 3116004) (MSMA 2011)
Location:3 Ibu Pejabat JPS 1 Station No: 3116004 Duration (min): 5 15 30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 600 720 1080 1440 2160 2880 4320
ARI (T) YRARI (T) MTH (lambda) (kappa) (theta) (eta) 0.083333 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 18 24 36 48 72
0.04 0.5 65.9923 0.2857 0.1604 0.8341 86.405 55.949 37.624 23.511 17.438 14.000 11.768 10.194 8.105 6.772 5.842 4.621 3.849 3.313 2.371 1.869 1.335 1.051 0.750
0.5 6 65.9923 0.2857 0.1604 0.8341 175.737 113.792 76.522 47.819 35.466 28.474 23.935 20.733 16.484 13.773 11.882 9.398 7.828 6.738 4.822 3.801 2.715 2.138 1.526
1 12 65.9923 0.2857 0.1604 0.8341 214.224 138.713 93.281 58.291 43.233 34.710 29.177 25.273 20.094 16.790 14.484 11.456 9.542 8.214 5.878 4.633 3.310 2.606 1.860
2 24 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 223.408 147.088 99.792 62.715 46.602 37.445 31.488 27.280 21.691 18.122 15.631 12.359 10.290 8.855 6.332 4.987 3.559 2.800 1.996
5 60 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 256.090 168.606 114.390 71.889 53.419 42.923 36.095 31.270 24.864 20.773 17.917 14.167 11.795 10.150 7.258 5.716 4.079 3.210 2.288
10 120 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 283.952 186.950 126.836 79.711 59.231 47.593 40.022 34.673 27.569 23.033 19.867 15.708 13.079 11.254 8.048 6.338 4.523 3.559 2.537
20 240 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 314.846 207.290 140.636 88.384 65.675 52.771 44.376 38.445 30.569 25.539 22.028 17.417 14.502 12.479 8.923 7.028 5.015 3.946 2.813
50 600 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 360.904 237.614 161.209 101.313 75.282 60.491 50.868 44.069 35.041 29.275 25.251 19.965 16.623 14.304 10.229 8.056 5.749 4.523 3.225
100 1200 64.689 0.149 0.174 0.837 400.171 263.466 178.748 112.336 83.473 67.072 56.402 48.864 38.853 32.461 27.998 22.137 18.431 15.861 11.341 8.932 6.375 5.016 3.576

Table 3.8 Summary of IDF Data for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA, 2000) and 14 Stations in Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2011) for ARI of 100 YR
KL 5 15 30 60 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 480 600 720 1080 1440 2160 2880 4320 Duration (min)
ARI (T) YR0.083333 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 18 24 36 48 72 Duration (hr)
Stn 0 432.310 267.416 172.244 110.206 81.759 65.388 54.726 47.221 36.112 31.112 26.825 21.297 17.880 15.556 11.590 9.558 7.493 6.457 5.444 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2000) (A)
Stn 1 395.431 269.801 185.729 116.946 86.495 69.122 57.820 49.848 39.298 32.595 27.938 21.862 18.051 15.424 10.854 8.449 5.929 4.610 3.231 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 2 441.196 271.343 178.198 109.984 81.358 65.305 54.927 47.619 37.937 31.762 27.450 21.783 18.193 15.699 11.298 8.941 6.426 5.082 3.650 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 3 400.171 263.466 178.748 112.336 83.473 67.072 56.402 48.864 38.853 32.461 27.998 22.137 18.431 15.861 11.341 8.932 6.375 5.016 3.576 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 4 384.224 245.872 164.731 103.009 76.565 61.605 51.887 45.024 35.907 30.078 26.002 20.640 17.239 14.875 10.703 8.468 6.083 4.809 3.451 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 5 344.150 236.902 165.239 106.156 79.666 64.389 54.362 47.234 37.714 31.600 27.314 21.665 18.079 15.584 11.184 8.830 6.322 4.985 3.565 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 6 326.773 232.073 164.818 107.094 80.618 65.210 55.050 47.811 38.124 31.896 27.532 21.781 18.134 15.602 11.144 8.767 6.245 4.906 3.489 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 7 339.034 252.147 184.338 122.080 92.365 74.786 63.100 54.736 43.511 36.285 31.222 24.561 20.350 17.434 12.328 9.625 6.780 5.283 3.714 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 8 348.841 241.830 168.695 107.763 80.392 64.640 54.329 47.021 37.297 31.082 26.744 21.056 17.467 14.983 10.634 8.328 5.895 4.610 3.259 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 9 348.150 254.023 183.554 120.752 91.285 73.967 62.487 54.281 43.273 36.183 31.210 24.654 20.499 17.614 12.543 9.844 6.987 5.474 3.879 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 10 328.113 230.955 164.005 107.379 81.483 66.376 56.379 49.228 39.610 33.386 28.998 23.176 19.454 16.850 12.222 9.722 7.034 5.589 4.039 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 11 353.107 235.097 160.538 101.368 75.467 60.702 51.078 44.270 35.221 29.436 25.395 20.085 16.726 14.395 10.296 8.109 5.788 4.554 3.247 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 12 486.768 300.551 196.180 119.472 87.453 69.612 58.147 50.117 39.547 32.857 28.217 22.164 18.363 15.740 11.160 8.738 6.186 4.839 3.423 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 13 507.188 326.983 217.871 134.141 98.415 78.351 65.410 56.329 44.366 36.792 31.541 24.699 20.411 17.456 12.313 9.603 6.760 5.267 3.704 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 14 295.879 215.078 154.744 101.189 76.175 61.524 51.839 44.932 35.691 29.758 25.607 20.152 16.705 14.319 10.141 7.927 5.595 4.366 3.076 I (mm/hr) (MSMA, 2011) (B)
Stn 1 0.91 1.01 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.99 0.94 0.88 0.79 0.71 0.59 B/A
Stn 2 1.02 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.97 0.94 0.86 0.79 0.67 B/A
Stn 3 0.93 0.99 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.08 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.93 0.85 0.78 0.66 B/A
Stn 4 0.89 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.89 0.81 0.74 0.63 B/A
Stn 5 0.80 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.92 0.84 0.77 0.65 B/A
Stn 6 0.76 0.87 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.06 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.83 0.76 0.64 B/A
Stn 7 0.78 0.94 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.20 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.14 1.12 1.06 1.01 0.90 0.82 0.68 B/A
Stn 8 0.81 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.87 0.79 0.71 0.60 B/A
Stn 9 0.81 0.95 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.20 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.08 1.03 0.93 0.85 0.71 B/A
Stn 10 0.76 0.86 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.10 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.05 1.02 0.94 0.87 0.74 B/A
Stn 11 0.82 0.88 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.60 B/A
Stn 12 1.13 1.12 1.14 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.10 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.63 B/A
Stn 13 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.22 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.23 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.12 1.06 1.00 0.90 0.82 0.68 B/A
Stn 14 0.68 0.80 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.87 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.57 B/A
0.876 0.955 1.023 1.017 1.023 1.030 1.035 1.040 1.081 1.047 1.047 1.041 1.031 1.019 0.975 0.929 0.843 0.768 0.647
NB. Station 0 denotes the Kuala Lumpur station used in MSMA (2011). For Stations 1 to 14, refer to Table 3.9 for Station ID and Name

18

.
Table 3.9 Summary of Stations in Kuala Lumpur (After Table 2.B1 in MSMA, 2011)
Station No. Station ID Station Name
1 3015001 Puchong Drop, Kuala Lumpur
2 3116003 Ibu Pejabat JPS
3 3116004 Ibu Pejabat JPS1
4 3116005 SK Taman Maluri
5 3116006 Ladang Edinburgh
6 3216001 Kg. Sg. Tua
7 3216004 SK Jenis Keb, Kepong
8 3217001 Ibu Bek. KM16, Gombak
9 3217002 Emp Genting Kelang
10 3217003 Ibu Bek. KM11, Gombak
11 3217004 Kg. Kuala Seleh, H. Klg
12 3217005 Kg. Kerdas, Gombak
13 3317001 Air Terjun, Sg Batu
14 3317004 Genting Sempah

19

Figure 3.2 IDF for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2000)

Figure 3.3 IDF For Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2011) (Station No. 3116004)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
m
m
/
h
r
)
Storm Duation (min)
Rainfall Intensity Frequency Duration Curve for KL
(Station No: 3116004) (MSMA, 2011
0.05 YR (0.5 MTH) 0.5 YR (6 MTH) 1 YR (12 MTH) 2 YR 5 YR 10 YR 20 YR 50 YR 100 YR

1
10
100
1000
10 100 1000 10000
I N
T
E
N
S
I T
Y

(
M
M
/
H
R
)

DURATION (MINUTES
IFD CURVE FOR KUALA LUMPUR (1951-1990) (MSMA 2000)
2 5 10 20 50 100
20

Figure 3.4 Comparison of Estimated Rainfall Intensity Frequency Duration Curves for Kuala Lumpur between MSMA
2000 & 2011 (ARI. =100 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

Storm Duration (min)
Comparison of Estimated Rainfall Intensity Frequency Duration Curves
for Kuala Lumpur between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (A.R.I. =100 YR)
0 (MSMA 2000) 1 (MSMA 2011) 2 (MSMA 2011) 3 (MSMA 2011) 4 (MSMA 2011)

2000 & 2011 (ARI. =50 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

StormDuration (min)
for Kuala Lumpur Between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (A.R.I. =50 YR)

21

2000 & 2011 (ARI. =20 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)


2000 & 2011 (ARI. =10 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

StormDuration (min)

22

2000 & 2011 (ARI. =5 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)


2000 & 2011 (ARI. =2 YR)
1
10
100
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
m
m
/
h
r
)

StormDuration (min)

23

4. Changes in the Rational Method
Rational Method is covered in Chapter 14 of the first edition and Chapter 2 of the
second edition.

4.1 Rational Method in MSMA (2000)
MSMA relates the peak discharge to the rainfall intensity and catchment area via
the Rational Method:
360
A I C
Q
t
y
y

=
(Equation 4.1)

where
Q
y
is the y year ARI peak discharge (m
3
/s)
C is the dimensionless runoff coefficient
y
I
t
is the average intensity of the design rainstorm of duration equal to
the time of concentration t
c
and of ARI of y year (mm/hr)
A is the drainage area (ha)

Recommended values of C may be obtained from Design Chart 14.3 for urban
areas and Design Chart 14.4 of MSMA (2000) for rural areas.

The steps of computation are shown in Figure 4.1.

24

Figure 4.1 Steps of Computation in the Rational Method in MSMA (2000)

25

4.2 Rational Method in MSMA (2011)
In MSMA (2011), the peak discharge is related to the rainfall intensity and
catchment area via the Rational Method:
360
A i C
Q

=
(Equation 4.2)

where
Q is the peak flow (m
3
/s)
C is the runoff coefficient given in Table 4.1 (Table 2.5 of MSMA, 2011).
I is the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr)

The steps of computation are shown in Figure 4.2.

4.3 Evaluation
The changes in design discharge using the Rational Method are as follows:

1. The major change in the Rational Method is the coefficient of runoff. In the
second edition, it is read from a design chart and varies according to the
types of landuse, the rainfall intensities and whether it is urban or rural
catchments. But in the second edition, it is fixed according to the landuse- like
in the P&DP No. 1 (DID, 1975), as shown in Table 4.1 (Table 2.5 of MSMA,
2011).
2. There is no change in the size of catchment area where the Rational Method
can be applied. Both editions specify that the Rational Method should not be
used for catchment area greater than 80 ha.
3. The magnitude of changes in the design discharge is covered in the following
case study.

26

Figure 4.2 Steps of Computation in the Rational Method in MSMA (2011)

Calculate T
c

Calculate I

Calculate Q
p

Calculate C
Table 2.5 (MSMA, 2011)

27

Table 4.1 Recommended Runoff Coefficients for Various Landuses (DID, 1980; Chow et al., 1988; QUDM, 2007 and
Darwin Harbour, 2009) (After Table 2.5 of MSMA, 2011)
Landuse Runoff Coefficient (C)
For Minor System
(10 year ARI)
For Major System
(>10 year ARI)
Residential
- Bungalow
- Semi-detached Bungalow
- Link and Terrance House
- Flat and Apartment
- Condominium

0.65
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.75

0.70
0.75
0.90
0.85
0.80
Commercial and Business Centres 0.90 0.95
Industrial 0.90 0.95
Sport Fields, Park and Agriculture 0.30 0.40
Open Spaces
- Bare Soil (No Cover)
- Grass Cover
- Bush Cover
- Forest Cover

0.50
0.40
0.35
0.30

0.60
0.50
0.45
0.40
Roads and Highways 0.95 0.95
Water Body (Pond)
- Detention Pond (with outlet)
- Retention Pond (no outlet)

0.95
0.00

0.95
0.00
Note: The runoff coefficients in this table are given as a guide for designers. The near-field
runoff coefficient for any single or mixed landuse should be determined based on the
imperviousness of the area.

4.4 Case Study on Rational Method
The Rational Method for the second edition has changed from the first edition.
For comparison, the method is applied to a typical catchment and the results
compared. The changes in the design discharge due to changes in the runoff
coefficient C are assessed.

In this case study, the Rational Methods in both editions of MSMA are applied to
compute the peak discharge for a major system in the study area.

Figure 4.3 shows a map of the catchment area. The study area is located in Sg.
Batu, Kuala Lumpur.

The catchment data are as follows:
- Area= 30 hectares.
- Length of Overland flow= 300 m
- Slope= 0.3%, paved surface.
- Length of Open Drain= 600 m

Three types of landuses were studied:
- Park
28

- Semi-D Houses
- Commercial and city area

4.4.1 Rational Method (MSMA, 2000)
The three types of landuses were studied according to Table 2.1 (Table 4.1 of
MSMA, 2000):
- Park, ARI= 20 years
- Semi-D Houses, ARI= 50 years
- Commercial and city area, ARI= 100 years

Step 1- Calculate T
c

Overland flow time (T
o
) is estimated using Friends Formula:
2 . 0
3 / 1
107
S
L n
t
o

=

where
n= 0.011 from (Table 14.2 of MSMA, 2000) for paved surface
S= 0.3%
L (Overland sheet flow path length in m) = 300 m.

Applying the Friends Formula, T
o
= 10 min.

Average velocity in the open drain is assessed using Mannings Equation where V
is found to be 1 m/s.

T
d
=L/V= 600/1= 600 s= 10 min.

Hence, T
c
= T
o
+ T
d
= 10+10 = 20 min

Step 2- Calculate I
The values of the coefficients for a, b, c and d in (Table 13.A1 of MSMA, 2000)
for ARI of 100 years for Kuala Lumpur are as follows:

a= 5.0064, b= 0.8709, c= -0.3070, d= 0.0186

Substituting the above coefficients into:
3 2
t
R
+ + + =

For t= 30 min,
5
I
30
= 172.2 mm/hr
For t= 60 min,
5
I
60
= 110.2 mm/hr

Convert to rainfall depths,

100
P
30
= 172.2/2 = 86.12 mm
100
P
60
= 110.2/1 = 110.2 mm
29

Step 3- Calculate C
According to MSMA (2000), the design rainfall depth P
d
for a short duration d (min)
is given by:

) (
30 60 30
P P F P P
D d
=

where
P
30
and P
60
F
D
is the adjustment factor for storm duration based on Table 13.3 of
MSMA (2000).

From Figure 13.3 (MSMA, 2000)
2
P
24h
= 100 for Kuala Lumpur. From Table 13.3
(MSMA, 2000) for a duration of 20 min, the F
D
=0.47.

Hence
100
P
20
= 86.12-0.47*(110.2-86.12)= 74.8 mm
Therefore
100
I
20
= 224.3 mm/hr

50
I
20
= 203.6 mm/hr
20
I
20
= 185.2 mm/hr

The C is determined from Design Chart 14.3 (MSMA, 2000), for the following
landuses:
- Park (Curve No. 7), C=0.61
- Semi-D Houses (Curve No. 3), C=0.9
- Commercial and city area (Curve No. 2), C=0.905

Step 4- Calculate Q
p

The peak discharge for ARI=100 years is computed using the Rational Method:
360
A I C
Q
t
y
y

=

The peak discharges are determined for the three types of landuses:

Park (Curve No. 7), ARI= 20 years
Q
p
= 0.61*185.2*30/360 = 9.4 m
3
/s

Semi-D Houses (Curve No. 3), ARI= 50 years
Q
p
= 0.9*203.6*30/360 = 15.3 m
3
/s

Commercial and city area (Curve No. 2), ARI= 100 years
Q
p
= 0.905*224.3*30/360 = 16.9 m
3
/s

The computations were carried out on a spreadsheet and tabulated as shown in
Table 4.2.

30

4.4.2 Rational Method (MSMA, 2011)
The three types of landuses were studied according to Table 1.1 of MSMA
(2011):
- Park, ARI= 20 years
- Semi-D Houses, ARI= 50 years
- Commercial and city area, ARI= 100 years

The catchment data are the same as the previous case study using MSMA
(2000).

Step 1- Calculate T
c

The storm duration is the same as the time of concentration of 20 min as
determined earlier.

Step 2- Calculate I
For the study area of Sg. Batu, the following fitting constants were taken from
Table 2.B1 of MSMA (2011):
, , and = 72.992, 0.162, 0.171 and 0.871.
Substituting the above into the following equation:
( ) ( )
hr mm
d
T
i / 4 . 279
171 . 0 60 / 20
100 992 . 72
871 . 0
162 . 0
=
+
=
+
=
q
k
u

For ARI= 50 years, i= 249.7 mm/hr
For ARI= 20 years, i= 215.3 mm/hr

Step 3- Calculate C
The C is determined from Table 3.2 of MSMA (2011) for the following landuses:

- Park, C=0.4
- Semi-D Houses, C=0.75
- Commercial and city area, C=0.95

Step 4- Calculate Q
p

The peak discharges are determined for the following three types of landuses:

For Park, ARI= 20 years
Q
p
= 0.4*215.3*30/360 =7.2 m
3
/s
For Semi-D Houses, ARI= 50 years
Q
p
= 0.75*249.7*30/360 = 15.6 m
3
/s
For Commercial and city area, ARI= 100 years
Q
p
= 0.95*279.4*30/360 = 22.1 m
3
/s
The computations were carried out on a spreadsheet and tabulated as shown in
Table 4.3.

31

4.5 Evaluation
Table 4.3 is a summary of the peak discharges computed using MSMA (2000) and
(2011).

To find out the magnitude of increase in discharge, we define a ratio R:
1
2
p
p
Q
Q
B
A
R = =
where
A= Q
p2
which is the peak discharge based on MSMA (2011)
B= Q
p1
which is the peak discharge based on MSMA (2000)

The ratio R is tabulated as shown in the last column of the table.

It can be seen that:
1. For park, the ratio R is 0.76 indicating that the peak discharge from MSMA
(2011) is lower than the peak discharge from MSMA (2000). This is due
principally to the lower C of 0.4 in MSMA (2011) compared to a higher C of
0.61 in MSMA (2000). The lower C in MSMA (2011) reflects DIDs effort in
promoting more storage in parks.
2. For Semi-D houses, the ratio R is 1.02 indicating that the peak discharge from
MSMA (2011) is about 2% higher than the peak discharge from MSMA (2000).
The Q has increased from 15.3 to 15.6 m
3
/s.The C has reduced from 0.9 to
0.75 but the i has increased from 203.6 mm/hr to 249.7. The reduction in C is
only for Semi-D houses, while the increase in storm intensity is generally
associated with MSMA (2011). In this case, the effect of the increasing storm
intensity is more prominent, thus giving a higher peak discharge.
3. For commercial and city area, the ratio R is 1.31 indicating that the peak
discharge from MSMA (2011) is about 31% higher than the peak discharge
from MSMA (2000). The Q has increased from 16.9 to 22.1 m
3
/s. The C has
increased from 0.905 to 0.95 while the storm intensity has increased from
224.3 mm/hr to 279.4. The increase in C for commercial and city area and
storm intensity in MSMA (2011) has attributed to a significantly higher peak
discharge.
4. In conclusion, the peak discharge computed using the Rational Method in
MSMA (2011) is up to 31% higher than that in MSMA (2000). This increase is
caused principally by the higher storm intensity in MSMA (2011), and by the
higher C for commercial and city area in MSMA (2011).
5. The magnitude of increase in peak discharge associated with the Rational
Method in MSMA (2011) varies depending on the station used for the IDF
computation. MSMA (2011) has provided 14 stations with different IDF data for
Kuala Lumpur. In the case study for storm, it was found that 71% of these
stations have higher storm intensities under MSMA (2011).
6. In general, it is concluded that 71% of the stations in Kuala Lumpur will have up
to 26% higher storm intensity and up to 31% higher peak discharges for
commercial and city area.

32

Figure 4.3 Catchment Map

Ld
Rive
r
Catchment Area= 30 hectares
Lo
33

Table 4.2 Computation of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2000)
ARI 30 60 Calculate Tc Using Friends Formula>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Design Chart 14.3
LN(T) a b c d 3.4012 4.0943 n Lo (m) S (%) to (min) Ld (m) Vd (m/s) td (min) tc (min) P30 (mm) P60 (mm) FD Pd (mm) Id (mm/hr) C A (ha) Qp (m3/s) Type Curve No.
20 4.9781 0.7533 -0.2796 0.0166 142.4 91.3 0.011 300 0.3 10.01 600 1 10.00 20 71.22 91.3 0.47 61.8 185.2 0.61 30 9.4 Park 7
50 4.8047 0.9399 -0.3218 0.0197 156.6 100.5 0.011 300 0.3 10.01 600 1 10.00 20 78.32 100.5 0.47 67.9 203.6 0.9 30 15.3 Semi-D 3
100 5.0064 0.8709 -0.3070 0.0186 172.2 110.2 0.011 300 0.3 10.01 600 1 10.00 20 86.12 110.2 0.47 74.8 224.3 0.905 30 16.9 Commercial 2

Table 4.3 Computation of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2011)
Location:13 3317001 Station Name: Air Terjun, Sg Batu Duration (min): 20 A (ha) C (Table 2.5) Landuse Q (m3/s) (A)
ARI (T) YR (lambda) (kappa) (theta) (eta) 0.3 MSMA (2011)
20 72.992 0.162 0.171 0.871 215.3 30 0.4 park 7.2
50 72.992 0.162 0.171 0.871 249.7 30 0.75 Semi-D 15.6
100 72.992 0.162 0.171 0.871 279.4 30 0.95 Commercial 22.1

Table 4.4 Comparison of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2000, 2011)
Landuse Q (m3/s) (A) Q (m3/s) (B) A/B
MSMA (2011) MSMA (2000)
park 7.2 9.4 0.76
Semi-D 15.6 15.3 1.02
Commercial 22.1 16.9 1.31

msma_drquek7.docx 34
5. Changes in On-Site Detention
5.1 OSD Sizing using MSMA (2000)
5.1.1 Theory
In MSMA (2000), the method of estimating Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) and
Site Storage Requirement (SSR) is the Swinburne Method developed at the
Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

The method is basically site-based, but considers the position of a site within the
catchment. Refer to Figure 5.1, the peak flow time of concentration from the top
of the catchment to the development site, t
cs
, is compared to the total time of
concentration for the catchment, t
c
. The PSD varies with this ratio and may be
less than or greater than the peak pre-development site discharge depending on
the position of the site within the catchment.

The method uses the Rational Method to calculate site flows, and utilizes a non-
dimensional triangular site hydrograph based on the triangular design storm
method as shown in Figure 5.2. The site discharges are calculated using the total
catchment time of concentration t
c
(not the time of concentration to the
development site) for the design storm ARI under consideration as shown in
Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Relationship Between tc and tcs for the Swinburne Method

Figure 5.2 Swinburne Method Assumptions tf= Time for Storage to Fill

5.1.2 Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)
The PSD is the maximum allowable post-development discharge from a site for the
selected discharge design storm and is estimated on the basis that flows within the
downstream stormwater drainage system will not be increased. PSD is dependent
on the following criteria:
- The time of concentration of the catchment to its outlet, or a point of concern
either within or downstream of the catchment.
- The position of the site, time-wise from the uppermost reach of the catchment.
- The original or adopted ARI of the public drainage system within the catchment
and rainfall data.
- The area of the development site.
- The proportion of impervious area of the development site.
- The type of OSD storage facility.
- The extent of development or redevelopment within the catchment.
- Local and/or regional drainage policies.

The Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) for the site in l/s is given by (Equation 19.1 of
MSMA, 2000):
2
4
2
b a a
PSD

= (Equation 5.1)
The factors a and b are different for above-ground and below-ground storages due
to differences in storage geometry and outflow characteristics.

For above-ground storage:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 25 . 0 75 . 0 333 . 0 4 (Equation 5.2)
p a
Q Q b 4 = (Equation 5.3)

For below-ground storage:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 65 . 0 35 . 0 333 . 0 548 . 8 (Equation 5.4)
p a
Q Q b 548 . 8 = (Equation 5.5)
where
t
c
is Peak flow time of concentration from the top of the catchment to a
designated outlet or point of concern (min)
t
cs
is peak flow time of concentration from the top of the catchment to the
development site (min)
Q
a
is the peak post-development flow from the site for the discharge design
storm with a duration equal to t
c
(l/s)
Q
p
is the peak pre-development flow from the site for the discharge design
c
(l/s).

5.1.3 Site Storage Requirement (SSR)
The SSR is the total amount of storage required to ensure that the required PSD is
not exceeded and the OSD facility does not overflow during the storage design
storm ARI.

As stated earlier, the storage design storm for estimating the SSR is 10 year ARI.
In sizing the volume of the storage facility, the method assumes a triangular inflow
hydrograph and an outflow hydrograph shape related to the type of storage
adopted. These simplifications are acceptable providing the site catchment is small.

Typically, the critical storm duration that produces the largest required storage
volume is different from the time of concentration used for peak flow estimation.
Therefore, storage volumes must be determined for a range of storm durations to
find the maximum storage required as shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3 Typical Relationship of Storage Volume to Storm Duration

The Site Storage Requirement (SSR) for the site in m
3
is calculated using the
formula:

( ) d c Q t SSR
d d
= 06 . 0 (Equation 5.6)

The factors c and d are different for above-ground and below-ground storages due

For above-ground storage:
|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 459 . 0 1 875 . 0 (Equation 5.7)
d
Q
PSD
d
2
214 . 0 = (Equation 5.8)

|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 392 . 0 1 675 . 0 (Equation 5.9)
d
Q
PSD
d
2
117 . 0 = (Equation 5.10)
where

t
d
= selected storm duration (min)
Q
d
= the peak post-development flow from the site for a storm duration equal
to t
d
(l/s)

5.1.4 OSD Sizing Procedure
A simplified design procedure for determining the required volume of detention
storage is as follows (see Figure 5.4):

1. Select storage type(s) to be used within the site, i.e. separate above and/or
below-ground storage(s), or a composite above and below-ground storage.
2. Determine the area of the site that will be drained to the OSD storage system.
As much of the site as possible should drain to the storage system.
3. Determine the amount of impervious and pervious areas draining to the OSD
storage system.
4. Determine the times of concentration, t
c
and t
cs
.
5. Calculate the pre and post-development flows, Q
p
and Q
a
, for the area
draining to the storage for the discharge design storm with time of
concentration t
c
.
6. Determine the required PSD for the site using Equation 5.1 for the discharge
design storm.
7. Determine the required SSR for the site using Equation 5.6 for the storage
design storm over a range of durations to determine the maximum value.


Figure 5.4 Steps of Computation in OSD Design in MSMA (2000)
Determination of PSD

Discharge/Storage
Design Storm
Determination of SSR

Design OSD
Determination of Pre & Post Development Flows
Determination of t
c
and t
cs

Determination of
Impervious & Pervious Areas
5.2 OSD Sizing using MSMA (2011)
5.2.1 Limiting Catchment Areas for OSD in MSMA (2011)
Table 5.1 lists the limiting catchment areas for OSD in MSMA (2011). OSD is to be
used for areas less than 5 ha. For areas above 5 ha, the use of detention pond is
required.

Table 5.1 Limiting Catchment Areas for OSD or Dry/Wet Detention Pond in MSMA (2011)
Type of Storage Facility

Limiting Area (ha)
Individual OSD 0.1
Community OSD >0.1, 5
Dry Detention Pond 5 to 10
Wet Detention Pond >10

5.2.2 Method for OSD Design in MSMA (2011)
Below are the steps involved in OSD design based on MSMA (2011).
1. Figure 5.A1 (MSMA, 2011) divides peninsula into 5 design regions.
2. Determine project area, terrain steepness, and percentage imperviousness.
3. Table 5.A1 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD) and minimum
Site Storage Requirement (SSR) values in accordance with the five regions in
Peninsular Malaysia.
4. Table 5.A2 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD), minimum Site
Storage Requirement (SSR) and inlet values in accordance with the major
towns in Peninsular Malaysia.
5. Adopt smaller PSD value from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2 for subsequent sizing of
outlet pipe.
6. Table 5.A3 gives the OSD volume, inlet size and outlet size for 5 different
regions in Peninsular Malaysia.
7. Table 5.A4 gives the discharge and pipe diameter relationship for low lying, mild
and steep slopes.
8. Adopt the SSR is the larger from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2.
9. Sizing of OSD tank based on the SSR.
10. Adopt inlet pipe: Inlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4.
11. Adopt outlet pipe: Outlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4.




5.3 Case Study on On-Site Detention for Kuala Lumpur
The case study looks at the design of a below-ground, on-site detention (OSD)
facility using the guidelines described in MSMA (2000) and MSMA (2011) for a
proposed factory site in SK Taman Maluri, Kuala Lumpur as shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5 Location of OSD in the Project Site

5.3.1 OSD in MSMA (2000)
5.3.1.1 Design Criteria
The proposed single storey factory can be classified as low density development.

According to Chapter 11 of the Manual, on-site facilities are minor drainage
structures provided on individual housing, industrial and infrastructure sites. For
quantity design they are based on peak inflow estimates using the Rational Method
with design storms between 2 and 10 year ARI.

The design rainfall is based on Chapter 13 of the Manual. The design storm for
Kuala Lumpur is used in the calculation.

River
OSD

Factory Site
5.3.1.2 Determination of Impervious and Pervious Areas
For the purpose of hydrological calculation, the area is shown in Table 5.2.

It is estimated that 70% of the areas may be considered as impervious. Hence the
impervious area is computed by multiplying the total area by 70% as shown in the
table.

The remaining 30% of the areas is assumed pervious. Hence the pervious area is
computed by multiplying the total area by 30% as shown in the table.

Table 5.2 Pervious and Impervious Areas
Total area (m
2
) Pervious Area (m
2
) Impervious Area (m
2
)
30162 9048.6 21113.4

5.3.1.3 Determination of Time of Concentration, t
c
and t
cs

For small catchments of up to 0.4 hectare in area, it is acceptable to use the
minimum times of concentration given in Table 14.3 of MSMA (2000) instead of
performing detailed calculation.

The times of concentration adopted are as follows:
- t
c
= 10 min (factory site outlet)
- t
cs
= 5 min (roof and property drainage)

5.3.1.4 Determination of Pre and Post Development Flows
Calculate I
The values of the coefficients for a, b, c and d in Table 13.A1 (MSMA, 2000) for
ARI of 2 years for Kuala Lumpur are as follows:

a=5.3255, b=0.1806, c=-0.1322, d=0.0047

3 2
t
R
+ + + =

where
R
I
t
R is average return interval (years)
t is duration (minutes)

For t= 30 min,
2
I
30
= 99.0 mm/hr
For t= 60 min,
2
I
60
= 64.8 mm/hr

2
P
30
= 99/2 = 49.51 mm
2
P
60
= 64.8/1 = 64.8 mm
Calculate C
According to DID (2000), the design rainfall depth P
d
for a short duration d (min) is
given by:

) (
30 60 30
P P F P P
D d
=

where
P
30
and P
60
F
D
is the adjustment factor for storm duration from Table 13.3 (MSMA,
2000).

Hence
2
P
10
= 49.51-1.28*(64.8-49.51)= 29.94 mm
Therefore
2
I
10
= 179.63 mm/hr

From Design Chart 14.3, for category 7 (park lawns and meadows) the runoff
coefficient is 0.59.

For category 1 (impervious roof and concrete), the runoff coefficient is 0.91.

Calculate Q
p

360
A I C
Q
t
y
y

=

where
Q
y
3
/s)
y
I
t
c

For pre-development,
Q
p
= 1.7796*179.63/360 *1000= 888.0 l/s (Q
p
)

For post-development,
Q
p
= 2.4552*179.63*/360 *1000= 1225.1 l/s (Q
a
)

The results are tabulated in Table 5.3.

5.3.1.5 Determination of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)
As stated in Section 19.3.1 of the Manual, the discharge design storm for estimating
the PSD is the minor system design ARI of the municipal stormwater system to
which the site is or will be connected. In this case, it is the 2 year ARI storm.

The Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) for the site in l/s is given by (from Equation
19.1 of MSMA, 2000):

2
4
2
b a a
PSD

=

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 65 . 0 35 . 0 333 . 0 548 . 8
p a
Q Q b 548 . 8 =
where
t
c
= Peak flow time of concentration from the top of the catchment to a
t
cs
= peak flow time of concentration from the top of the catchment to the
Q
a
= the peak post-development flow from the site for the discharge design
c
(l/s)
Q
p
= the peak pre-development flow from the site for the discharge design
c
(l/s)

2 . 9596 5 65 . 0 10 35 . 0
1 . 1225
0 . 888
10 333 . 0
10
1 . 1225
548 . 8 = |
.
|
\
|
- + - + - |
.
|
\
|
= a
1 . 9298824 0 . 888 1 . 1225 548 . 8 = - - = b
6 . 1093
2
1 . 9298824 4 2 . 9596 2 . 9596
2
=
-
= PSD
5.3.1.6 Determination of Site Storage Requirement (SSR)
As stated in Section 19.3.1 of MSMA (2000), the storage design storm for
estimating the SSR is 10 year ARI.

adopted. These simplifications are acceptable providing the site catchment is
small.

Therefore storage volumes must be determined for a range of storm durations to
find the maximum storage required.

3
formula:

( ) d c Q t SSR
d d
= 06 . 0


|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 392 . 0 1 675 . 0
d
Q
PSD
d
2
117 . 0 =
where
t
d
Q
d
to td (l/s)

The values of the coefficients for a, b, c and d in Table 13.A1 for ARI of 10 years
for Kuala Lumpur are as follows:

a=4.9696, b=0.6796, c=-0.2584, d=0.0147

The magnitudes of 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes short duration design storms are
computed as shown in Table 5.5 to be 315.3, 247.4, 200.9 and 169.2 mm/hr,
respectively.

The C values are read from Design Chart 14.3 of the Manual.

For impervious area, the C values are based on Category 1 (Impervious roof and
concrete) catchment for the range of rainfall intensities corresponding to t
c
of 5, 10,
15 and 20 min.

For pervious area, the C values are based on Category 7 (park lawns and
meadows) catchment for the range of rainfall intensities corresponding to t
c
of 5, 10,
15 and 20 min.

For the area, for t
c
= 5 min, the peak post-development flow:

Q
p
= 2.6452*315.3/360 *1000= 2317.0 l/s (Q
d
)

The results and those for t
c
=10, 15 and 20 min are tabulated in Table 5.5.

The corresponding SSR are computed using the above formula for below-ground
storage.
6 . 601
0 . 2317
6 . 1093
392 . 0 1 6 . 1093 675 . 0 = |
.
|
\
|
- = c
4 . 60
2317
6 . 1093
117 . 0
2
= = d

( ) 5 . 496 4 . 60 6 . 601 0 . 2317 5 06 . 0 = - = SSR

The results for t
c
=5, 10, 15 and 20 min are tabulated in Table 5.6 and plotted as
shown in Figure 5.6. It can be seen that the maximum SSR is 700.9 m
3
for a storm
duration of 15 min. The SSR is therefore 700.9 m
3
.

Figure 5.6 Plot of SSR Versus Storm Duration

400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
0 5 10 15 20 25
S
S
R

(
M
3
)

Table 5.3 Computation of Pre/Post Development Peaks
Develop
ment
ARI a b C D 30 60 Impervious
Area
Pervious Area Sum Pre/Post
Dev
LN(T) LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 tcs
(min)
tc
(min)
P30
(mm)
P60
(mm)
FD Pd
(mm)
Id
(mm/hr)
C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Qp (l/s)
Pre 2 5.3255 0.1806 -0.1322 0.0047 99.0 64.8 5 10 49.51 64.8 1.28 29.94 179.63 0 0 0.59 3.0162 1.7796 887.9
Post 2 5.3255 0.1806 -0.1322 0.0047 99.0 64.8 5 10 49.51 64.8 1.28 29.94 179.63 0.91 2.1113 0.59 0.9049 2.4552 1225.0

Table 5.4 Computation of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)
Development Pre/Post Dev Below Ground Storage
Tcs (min) tc (min) Qp (l/s) a b PSD (l/s)
Pre-Development

5 10 887.964
Post-Development

5 10 1225.090 9596.223 9298824.1 1093.6

Table 5.5 Computation of Peak Post-Development Flow (QD)
ARI a b C D 30 60 Impervious
Area
Dev
LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 tcs
(min)
tc
(min)
P30
(mm)
P60
(mm)
FD Pd
(mm)
Id
(mm/hr)
C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Qp (l/s)
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 5 65.18 83.9 2.08 26.28 315.33 0.91 2.1113 0.8 0.9049 2.6452 2317.0
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 10 65.18 83.9 1.28 41.24 247.43 0.91 2.1113 0.7 0.9049 2.5547 1755.9
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 15 65.18 83.9 0.80 50.21 200.86 0.91 2.1113 0.63 0.9049 2.4914 1390.0
10 4.9696 0.6796 -0.2584 0.0147 130.4 83.9 20 65.18 83.9 0.47 56.39 169.16 0.91 2.1113 0.58 0.9049 2.4461 1149.4

Table 5.6 Computation of Site Storage Requirements (SSR)
Pre/Post Dev Below Ground Storage
tc (min) Qp (l/s) PSD (l/s) C d SSR (m
3
)
5 2317.0 1093.6 601.6201 60.3980 496.5
10 1755.9 1093.6 557.9707 79.6987 670.9
15 1390.0 1093.6 510.5355 100.6735 700.9
20 1149.4 1093.6 462.868 121.7509 677.7

5.3.2 OSD in MSMA (2011)
In this section, an OSD is designed based on MSMA (2011) for the same site as in the
previous section.

The design is presented below and tabulated in a spreadsheet as shown in Figure 5.7.

Project Data
The project area is located in Kuala Lumpur.

So from Figure 5.A1 which divides peninsula into 5 design regions, the project area is
located in Region 1- West Coast.

The Project area is 3.0162 ha.

The Terrain is mild.

The % imperviousness is 70 per cent.

Table 5.A1
Table 5.A1 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD) and minimum Site
Storage Requirement (SSR) values in accordance with the five regions in Peninsular
Malaysia.

From Table 5.A1, the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)/ha= 78.54 l/s/ha.

For the project area, PSD= 3.0162 x 78.54=236.9 l/s=0.237m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A1, the Site Storage Requirement (SSR)/ha= 432.24 m
3
/ha.

For the project area, SSR= 3.0162 x 432.24= 1303.7 m
3
.

Table 5.A2
Table 5.A2 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD), minimum Site
Storage Requirement (SSR) and inlet values in accordance with the major towns in

From Table 5.A2, the inlet flow/ha is 214 l/s/ha.

For the project area, inlet flow=3.0162 x 214= 645.5 l/s= 0.645 m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A2, PSD/ha= 72.96 l/s/ha.

For the project area, PSD= 2.0162 x 72.96 = 220.1 l/s = 0.220 m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A2, SSR/ha= 423.28 m
3
/ha.

For the project area, SSR= 3.0162 x 423.28 = 1276.7 m
3
.

Adopt smaller PSD value from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2 for subsequent sizing of outlet
pipe= 0.220 m
3
/s.

Table 5.A3:
Table 5.A3 gives the OSD volume, inlet size and outlet size for 5 different regions in

From Table 5.A3, the inlet pipe= 714 mm diameter.

From Table 5.A3, the outlet pipe= 380 mm diameter.

Table 5.A4:
Table 5.A4 gives the discharge and pipe diameter relationship for low lying, mild and
steep slopes.

From Table 5.A4, the inlet pipe for the inlet flow of 0.645 m
3
/s computed in Table
5.A2= 920 mm diameter.

From Table 5.A4, the outlet pipe for the adopted PSD of 0.220 m
3
/s= 474 mm
diameter

Adopt PSD and SSR:
Adopt the PSD value which is the lower from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 0.220 m
3
/s.

Adopt the SSR is the larger from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 1303.7 m
3
.

Sizing of OSD tank:
The required storage is 1303.7 m
3
.
Adopt depth= 1.2 m.
Adopt width= 25 m.
Length= 43.46 m.
Adopt length= 45 m.
Tank Storage= 1.2 x 25 x 45= 1350.0 m
3
> 1303.7 OK

Adopt inlet pipe: Inlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 714 mm, adopted=
750 mm.

Adopt outlet pipe: Outlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 380 mm,
adopted= 350 mm.


Figure 5.7 Summary of OSD Computation using MSMA (2011) for Kuala Lumpur
Location= Kuala Lumpur
Figure 5.A1 Region 1- West Coast
Project area (ha) 3.0162
Terrain= mild
% imperviousness= 70
Table 5.A1 Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)/ha= 78.54 l/s/ha
For the project area, PSD= 236.9 l/s 0.237 m3/s
Table 5.A1 Site Storage Requirement (SSR)/ha= 432.24 m3/ha
For the project area, SSR= 1303.7 m3
Table 5.A2 Inlet Flow/ha= 214 l/s/ha
For the project area, Inlet Flow= 645.5 l/s 0.645 m3/s
Table 5.A2 PSD/ha= 72.96 l/s/ha
Table 5.A2 SSR/ha= 423.28 m3/ha
Adopt smaller PSD value for subsequent sizing of outlet pipe= 0.220 m3/s
Table 5.A3 Inlet pipe= 714 mm dia
Table 5.A3 Outlet pipe= 380 mm dia
Table 5.A4 Inlet pipe for the inlet flow (Table 5.A2)= 920 mm dia
Table 5.A4 Outlet pipe for the adopted PSD= 474 mm dia
Adopt PSD is the lower from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 0.220 m3/s
Adopt SSR is the larger from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 1303.7 m3
Sizing of OSD tank:
Required storage 1303.7 m3
Adopt depth= 1.2 m
Adopt width= 25 m
Length= 43.46 m
Adopt length= 45 m
Tank Storage= 1350.0 m3 > 1303.7 OK
Adopt inlet pipe Inlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 714 Adopted= 750 mm
Adopt outlet pipe Outlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 380 Adopted= 350 mm

5.3.3 Exact Swinburne Method (ESM) Applied to MSMA2 Data

The design rainfall is based on MSMA (2011) for Station 4 (SK Taman Maluri).

The OSD design is based on peak inflow estimates using the Rational Method with
design storms between 2 and 10 year ARI.

The pervious and impervious areas are shown in Table 5.2.

5.3.3.3 Determination of Time of Concentration, tc and tcs

- t
c
- t
cs

Calculate I
In MSMA (2011), the storm intensity for SK Taman Maluri for 2 years ARI is as
follows:
( )
q
k
u
=
d
T
i
where
T is the Average return interval (years) for ARI of between 0.5 and 12
months and 2 and 100 years.
, , and are the fitting constants= 62.765, 0.132, 0.147 and 0.820,
respectively.

The rainfall intensities are summarised as shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 IDF Data for SK Taman Maluri Kuala Lumpur
(ARI of 2 and 10 Year and Durations of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 minutes) (MSMA, 2011)
ARI YR 5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min 35 min
2 62.765 0.132 0.147 0.82 229.256 177.971 146.705 125.484 110.056 98.291 88.995
10 62.765 0.132 0.147 0.82 283.521 220.097 181.430 155.186 136.107 121.556 110.060

Calculate C

From Table 4.1, the runoff coefficients for minor system for ARI of 10 years or
less are:

Sport fields= 0.3
Commercial and business centres= 0.9

Calculate Q
p

In MSMA (2011), the peak discharge is related to the rainfall intensity and
catchment area via the Rational Method:

360
A i C
Q

=

where
3
/s)

The pre and post development peaks for ARI of 2 years are shown in Table 5.8.

ARI tcs tc Id Impervious Area Pervious Area Sum Pre/Post Dev
LN(T) (min) (min) (mm/hr) C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s)
2 5 10 177.97 0 0 0.3 3.0162 0.9049 447.33
2 5 10 177.97 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1073.59


19.1 of MSMA, 2000):

2
4
2
b a a
PSD

=

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 65 . 0 35 . 0 333 . 0 548 . 8
p a
Q Q b 548 . 8 =
where
t
c
t
cs
Q
a
c
(l/s)
Q
p
c
(l/s)


ARI Development
tcs (min) tc (min)
Qp (l/s) a b PSD (l/s)
2 Pre-
Development
5 10 447.33
2 Post-
Development
5 10 1073.59 7467.841 4105181.8 597.5


adopted. These simplifications are acceptable providing the site catchment is small.


3
formula:

( ) d c Q t SSR
d d
= 06 . 0


|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 392 . 0 1 675 . 0
d
Q
PSD
d
2
117 . 0 =
where
t
d
Q
d
to td (l/s)

The results for t
c
= 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 min are tabulated in Table 5.10 and
plotted as shown Table 5.8. It can be seen that the maximum SSR is 723.3 m
3
for a
storm duration of 30 min.

Table 5.10 Computation of Post Development Peaks and Site Storage Requirements (SSR)
ARI tc Id Impervious
Area
Pervious
Area
Sum Pre/Post
Dev
Below Ground Storage
(YR) (min) (mm/hr) C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s) PSD
(l/s)
c d SSR
(m3)
10 5 283.52 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1710.3 597.5 348.0925 24.4243 401.3
10 10 220.10 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1327.7 597.5 332.1753 31.4625 578.4
10 15 181.43 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1094.5 597.5 317.0109 38.1678 665.4
10 20 155.19 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 936.1 597.5 302.4133 44.6226 706.9
10 25 136.11 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 821.0 597.5 288.267 50.8777 722.9
10 30 121.56 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 733.3 597.5 274.4936 56.9680 723.3
10 35 110.06 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 663.9 597.5 261.0369 62.9183 713.9

Figure 5.8 Plot of SSR versus Storm Duration
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
S
S
R

(
M
3
)


5.4 Case Study on On-Site Detention for Pulau Pinang
The case study looks at the design of a below-ground, on-site detention (OSD)
facility using the guidelines described in MSMA (2000) and MSMA (2011) for a
proposed factory site in Pulau Pinang at Klinik Bukit Bendera as shown in Figure
5.9.

Figure 5.9 Location of OSD in the Project Site

5.4.1 OSD in MSMA (2000)
The proposed single storey factory can be classified as low density development.

According to Chapter 11 of the Manual, on-site facilities are minor drainage
structures provided on individual housing, industrial and infrastructure sites. For
quantity design they are based on peak inflow estimates using the Rational Method
with design storms between 2 and 10 year ARI.

The design rainfall is based on Chapter 13 of the Manual. The design storm for
Pulau Pinang at Klinik Bukit Bendera is used in the calculation.
River
OSD

Factory Site

For the purpose of hydrological calculation, the area is shown in Table 5.11 .

It is estimated that 70% of the areas may be considered as impervious. Hence the
impervious area is computed by multiplying the total area by 70% as shown in the
table.

The remaining 30% of the areas is assumed pervious. Hence the pervious area is
computed by multiplying the total area by 30% as shown in the table.

Table 5.11 Pervious and Impervious Areas
Total area (m
2
) Pervious Area (m
2
) Impervious Area (m
2
)
30162 9048.6 21113.4

5.4.1.3 Determination of Time of Concentration, t
c
and t
cs


- t
c
- t
cs

Calculate I
The values of the coefficients for a, b, c and d in Table 13.A1 (MSMA, 2000) for
ARI of 2 years for Pulau Pinang are as follows:

a=4.5140, b=0.6729, c=-0.2311, d=0.0118

3 2
t
R
+ + + =

where
R
I
t
R is average return interval (years)
t is duration (minutes)

For t= 30 min,
2
I
30
= 98.8 mm/hr
For t= 60 min,
2
I
60
= 67.0 mm/hr

2
P
30
= 98.8/2 = 49.4 mm
2
P
60
= 67/1 = 67.0 mm
Calculate C
According to DID (2000), the design rainfall depth P
d
for a short duration d (min) is
given by:

) (
30 60 30
P P F P P
D d
=

where
P
30
and P
60
F
D
is the adjustment factor for storm duration from Table 13.3 (MSMA,
2000).

Hence
2
P
10
= 49.4-1.04*(67-49.4)= 31.1 mm
Therefore
2
I
10
= 186.8 mm/hr

From Design Chart 14.3, for category 7 (park lawns and meadows) the runoff
coefficient is 0.61.

For category 1 (impervious roof and concrete), the runoff coefficient is 0.91.

Calculate Q
p

360
A I C
Q
t
y
y

=

where
Q
y
3
/s)
y
I
t
c

For pre-development,
Q
p
= 954.5 l/s (Q
p
)

For post-development,
Q
p
= 1283 l/s (Q
a
)



19.1 of MSMA, 2000):

2
4
2
b a a
PSD

=

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 65 . 0 35 . 0 333 . 0 548 . 8
p a
Q Q b 548 . 8 =
where
t
c
t
cs
Q
a
c
(l/s)
Q
p
c
(l/s)

97 . 10119 5 65 . 0 10 35 . 0
1 . 1225
0 . 888
10 333 . 0
10
1 . 1225
548 . 8 = |
.
|
\
|
- + - + - |
.
|
\
|
= a
10468173 = b
6 . 1169 = PSD

adopted. These simplifications are acceptable providing the site catchment is
small.


3
formula:

( ) d c Q t SSR
d d
= 06 . 0


|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 392 . 0 1 675 . 0
d
Q
PSD
d
2
117 . 0 =
where
t
d
Q
d
to td (l/s)

The values of the coefficients for a, b, c and d in Table 13.A1 for ARI of 10 years
for Pulau Pinang are as follows:

a=3.7277, b=1.4393, c=-0.4023, d=0.0241

The magnitudes of 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes short duration design storms are
computed as shown in Table 5.14 to be 319.9, 257.0, 209.6 and 177.0 mm/hr,
respectively.

The C values are read from Design Chart 14.3 of the Manual.

For impervious area, the C values are based on Category 1 (Impervious roof and
concrete) catchment for the range of rainfall intensities corresponding to t
c
of 5, 10,
15 and 20 min.

For pervious area, the C values are based on Category 7 (park lawns and
meadows) catchment for the range of rainfall intensities corresponding to t
c
of 5, 10,
15 and 20 min.

For the area, for t
c
= 5 min, the peak post-development flow:

Q
p
= 2366.6 l/s (Q
d
)

The results and those for t
c
=10, 15 and 20 min are tabulated in Table 5.14.

The corresponding SSR are computed using the above formula for below-ground
storage.
5 . 636 = c
6 . 67 = d
7 . 498 = SSR

The results for t
c
=5, 10, 15 and 20 min are tabulated in Table 5.15 and plotted as
shown in Figure 5.10. It can be seen that the maximum SSR is 728.7 m
3
for a storm
duration of 15 min. The SSR is therefore 728.7 m
3
.

Figure 5.10 Plot of SSR Versus Storm Duration

400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
0 5 10 15 20 25
S
S
R

(
M
3
)

Plot of SSR Vs Storm Duration
Develop
ment
ARI a b c d 30 60 Impervious
Area
Dev
3.4012 4.0943 tcs
(min)
tc
(min)
P30
(mm)
P60
(mm)
FD Pd
(mm)
Id
(mm/hr)
C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s)
Pre 2 4.5140 0.6729 -
0.2311
0.0118 98.8 67.0 5 10 49.42 67.0 1.04 31.13 186.76 0 0 0.61 3.0162 1.8399 954.4
Post 2 4.5140 0.6729 -
0.2311
0.0118 98.8 67.0 5 10 49.42 67.0 1.04 31.13 186.76 0.91 2.1113 0.61 0.9049 2.4733 1283.0

Development Pre/Post Dev Below Ground Storage
tcs (min) tc (min) Q (l/s) a b PSD (l/s)
Pre
5 10 954.468
Post
5 10 1283.055 10119.97 10468173 1169.6

Table 5.14 Computation of Peak Post-Development Flow (QD)
ARI a b c d 30 60 Impervious
Area
Dev
LN(T) 3.4012 4.0943 tc
(min)
P30
(mm)
P60
(mm)
FD Pd
(mm)
Id
(mm/hr)
C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s)
10 3.7277 1.4393 -0.4023 0.0241 136.6 92.8 5 68.32 92.8 1.70 26.66 319.90 0.91 2.1113 0.82 0.9049 2.6633 2366.6
10 3.7277 1.4393 -0.4023 0.0241 136.6 92.8 10 68.32 92.8 1.04 42.83 257.01 0.91 2.1113 0.71 0.9049 2.5638 1830.3
10 3.7277 1.4393 -0.4023 0.0241 136.6 92.8 15 68.32 92.8 0.65 52.39 209.57 0.91 2.1113 0.65 0.9049 2.5095 1460.9
10 3.7277 1.4393 -0.4023 0.0241 136.6 92.8 20 68.32 92.8 0.38 59.01 177.03 0.91 2.1113 0.59 0.9049 2.4552 1207.3

Table 5.15 Computation of Site Storage Requirements (SSR)
tc (min) Q (l/s) PSD (l/s) c d SSR (m3)
5 2366.6 1169.6 636.5261 67.6256 498.7
10 1830.3 1169.6 591.7092 87.4426 690.7
15 1460.9 1169.6 541.7028 109.5543 728.7
20 1207.3 1169.6 489.6754 132.5596 702.1

5.4.2 OSD in MSMA (2011)
In this section, an OSD is designed based on MSMA (2011) for the same site as in the
previous section.

The design is presented below and tabulated in a spreadsheet as shown in Figure 5.11

Project Data
The project area is located in Kuala Lumpur.

So from Figure 5.A1 which divides peninsula into 5 design regions, the project area is
located in Region 3- Nothern Region.

The Project area is 3.0162 ha.

The Terrain is mild.

The % imperviousness is 70 per cent.

Table 5.A1
Table 5.A1 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD) and minimum Site
Storage Requirement (SSR) values in accordance with the five regions in Peninsular
Malaysia.

From Table 5.A1, the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)/ha= 69.76 l/s/ha.

For the project area, PSD= 3.0162 x 69.76=210.4 l/s=0.210 m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A1, the Site Storage Requirement (SSR)/ha= 435.26 m
3
/ha.

For the project area, SSR= 3.0162 x 435.26= 1312.8 m
3
.

Table 5.A2
Table 5.A2 gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD), minimum Site Storage
Requirement (SSR) and inlet values in accordance with the major towns in Peninsular
Malaysia.

For Alor Setar, from Table 5.A2, the inlet flow/ha is 214 l/s/ha.

For the project area, inlet flow=3.0162 x 214= 645.5 l/s= 0.645 m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A2, PSD/ha= 69.76 l/s/ha.

For the project area, PSD= 2.0162 x 69.76 = 210.4 l/s = 0.210 m
3
/s.

From Table 5.A2, SSR/ha= 435.26 m
3
/ha.

For the project area, SSR= 3.0162 x 425.26 = 1312.8 m
3
.

Adopt smaller PSD value from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2 for subsequent sizing of outlet pipe=
0.210 m
3
/s.

Table 5.A3:
Table 5.A3 gives the OSD volume, inlet size and outlet size for 5 different regions in

From Table 5.A3, the inlet pipe= 714 mm diameter.

From Table 5.A3, the outlet pipe= 355 mm diameter.

Table 5.A4:
Table 5.A4 gives the discharge and pipe diameter relationship for low lying, mild and steep
slopes.

From Table 5.A4, the inlet pipe for the inlet flow of 0.645 m
3
/s computed in Table 5.A2=
927 mm diameter.

From Table 5.A4, the outlet pipe for the adopted PSD of 0.210 m
3
/s= 474 mm diameter

Adopt PSD and SSR:
Adopt the PSD value which is the lower from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 0.210 m
3
/s.

Adopt the SSR is the larger from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 1312.8 m
3
.

Sizing of OSD tank:
The required storage is 1312.8 m
3
.
Adopt depth= 1.2 m.
Adopt width= 25 m.
Length= 43.76 m.
Adopt length= 45 m.
Tank Storage= 1.2 x 25 x 45= 1350.0 m
3
> 1312.8 OK

Adopt inlet pipe: Inlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 714 mm, adopted= 750
mm.

Adopt outlet pipe: Outlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 355 mm, adopted=
350 mm.

Figure 5.11 Summary of OSD Computation using MSMA (2011) for Pulau Pinang
Location= Penang
Figure 5.A1 Region 3- West Coast
Project area (ha) 3.0162
Terrain= mild
% imperviousness= 70
Table 5.A1 Permissible Site Discharge (PSD)/ha= 69.76 l/s/ha
Table 5.A1 Site Storage Requirement (SSR)/ha= 435.26 m3/ha
Alor Setar
Table 5.A2 Inlet Flow/ha= 214 l/s/ha
For the project area, Inlet Flow= 645.5 l/s 0.645 m3/s
Table 5.A2 PSD/ha= 69.76 l/s/ha
Table 5.A2 SSR/ha= 435.26 m3/ha
Adopt smaller PSD value for subsequent sizing of outlet pipe= 0.210 m3/s
Table 5.A3 for 3 Inlet pipe= 714 mm dia
Table 5.A3 Outlet pipe= 355 mm dia
Table 5.A4 Inlet pipe for the inlet flow (Table 5.A2)= 927 mm dia
Table 5.A4 Outlet pipe for the adopted PSD= 474 mm dia
Adopt PSD is the lower from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 0.210 m3/s
Adopt SSR is the larger from Table 5.A1 and 5.A2= 1312.8 m3
Sizing of OSD tank:
Required storage 1312.8 m3
Adopt depth= 1.2 m
Adopt width= 25 m
Length= 43.76 m
Adopt length= 45 m
Tank Storage= 1350.0 m3 > 1312.8 OK
Adopt inlet pipe Inlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 714 Adopted= 750 mm
Adopt outlet pipe Outlet pipe is the smaller of Table 5.A3 and 5.A4= 355 Adopted= 350 mm

5.4.3 Exact Swinburne Method (ESM) Applied to MSMA2 Data

The design rainfall is based on MSMA (2011) for Pulau Pinang at Klinik Bukit Bendera.

The OSD design is based on peak inflow estimates using the Rational Method with
design storms between 2 and 10 year ARI.

The pervious and impervious areas are shown in Table 5.11.

5.4.3.3 Determination of Time of Concentration, tc and tcs
For small catchments of up to 0.4 hectare in area, it is acceptable to use the minimum
times of concentration given in Table 14.3 of MSMA (2000) instead of performing
detailed calculation.

- t
c
- t
cs

Calculate I
In MSMA (2011), the storm intensity for Pulau Pinang for 2 years ARI is as follows:
( )
q
k
u
=
d
T
i
where
T is the Average return interval (years) for ARI of between 0.5 and 12 months
and 2 and 100 years.
, , and are the fitting constants= 62.765, 0.132, 0.147 and 0.820,
respectively.

The rainfall intensities are summarised as shown in Table 5.16.

Table 5.16 IDF Data for Pulau Pinang (ARI of 2 and 10 Year and Durations of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60
minutes) (MSMA, 2011)
ARI (T)
YR
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
2 64.504 0.196 0.149 0.723 212.2 170.0 143.5 125.1 111.5 101.0 92.55 85.61 79.80 74.84 70.5 66.8
10 64.504 0.196 0.149 0.723 290.9 233.1 196.8 171.6 152.9 138.4 126.8 117.3 109.4 102.6 96.7 91.6

Calculate C

From Table 4.1, the runoff coefficients for minor system for ARI of 10 years or less
are:

Sport fields= 0.3
Commercial and business centres= 0.9

Calculate Q
p

In MSMA (2011), the peak discharge is related to the rainfall intensity and catchment
area via the Rational Method:

360
A i C
Q

=

where
3
/s)

The pre and post development peaks for ARI of 2 years are shown in Table 5.17.

ARI tcs tc Id Impervious Area Pervious Area Sum Pre/Post Dev
LN(T) (min) (min) (mm/hr) C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s)
2 5 10 170.08 0 0 0.3 3.0162 0.9049 427.489
2 5 10 170.08 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1025.974

As stated in Section 19.3.1 of the Manual, the discharge design storm for estimating the
PSD is the minor system design ARI of the municipal stormwater system to which the
site is or will be connected. In this case, it is the 2 year ARI storm.

The Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) for the site in l/s is given by (from Equation 19.1
of MSMA, 2000):

2
4
2
b a a
PSD

=
The factors a and b are different for above-ground and below-ground storages due to
differences in storage geometry and outflow characteristics.

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
cs c
a
p
c
c
a
t t
Q
Q
t
t
Q
a 65 . 0 35 . 0 333 . 0 548 . 8
p a
Q Q b 548 . 8 =

where
t
c
t
cs
Q
a
c
(l/s)
Q
p
= the peak pre-development flow from the site for the discharge design storm
with a duration equal to t
c
(l/s)


ARI Development tcs (min) tc (min) Q (l/s) a b PSD (l/s)
2 Pre 5 10 427.489
2 Post 5 10 1025.974 7136.607 3749089.9 571.0

As stated in Section 19.3.1 of MSMA (2000), the storage design storm for estimating
the SSR is 10 year ARI.

hydrograph and an outflow hydrograph shape related to the type of storage adopted.
These simplifications are acceptable providing the site catchment is small.

Typically, the critical storm duration that produces the largest required storage volume is
different from the time of concentration used for peak flow estimation. Therefore storage
volumes must be determined for a range of storm durations to find the maximum
storage required.

3
is calculated using the formula:

( ) d c Q t SSR
d d
= 06 . 0

The factors c and d are different for above-ground and below-ground storages due to
differences in storage geometry and outflow characteristics.

|
|
.
|
\
|
- =
d
Q
PSD
PSD c 392 . 0 1 675 . 0
d
Q
PSD
d
2
117 . 0 =
where
t
d
Q
d
= the peak post-development flow from the site for a storm duration equal to
td (l/s)

The results for t
c
= 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 min are tabulated in

Table 5.19 and plotted as shown Figure 5.12. It can be seen that the maximum SSR is
938.1 m
3
for a storm duration of 45 min.

Table 5.19 Computation of Post Development Peaks and Site Storage Requirements (SSR)
ARI tc Id Impervious Area Pervious Area Sum Pre/Post Dev PSD Below Ground Storage
LN(T) (min) (mm/hr) C A (ha) C A (ha) CA Q (l/s) (l/s) c d SSR (m3)
10 5 291.00 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1755.4 571.0 336.2902 21.7326 419.2
10 10 233.15 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1406.5 571.0 324.0971 27.1242 633.2
10 15 196.83 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1187.3 571.0 312.7751 32.1305 758.2
10 20 171.60 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 1035.2 571.0 302.0947 36.8531 835.5
10 25 152.93 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 922.5 571.0 291.9163 41.3538 883.9
10 30 138.46 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 835.3 571.0 282.1465 45.6738 913.4
10 35 126.88 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 765.4 571.0 272.7191 49.8423 930.0
10 40 117.37 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 708.0 571.0 263.5849 53.8812 937.4
10 45 109.40 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 659.9 571.0 254.7062 57.8072 938.1
10 50 102.61 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 619.0 571.0 246.0528 61.6335 933.9
10 55 96.74 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 583.6 571.0 237.6008 65.3708 926.0
10 60 91.62 0.9 2.1113 0.3 0.9049 2.1717 552.7 571.0 229.33 69.0280 915.5

400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
S
S
R

(
M
3
)

Figure 5.12 Plot of SSR versus Storm Duration

5.5 Evaluation
The following changes in the design procedure for On-Site Detention between MSMA
(2000) and (2011) are noted:

1. The new method is based on nomograph and not based on formulas as in the first
edition.
2. The result in Table 5.20 shows that for Kuala Lumpur, MSMA (2011) gives PSD of
about 20% of MSMA (2000) and SSR of about 190% of MSMA (2000).
3. The result in Table 5.20 shows that for Kuala Lumpur, the PSD using ESM Method
gives PSD of about 55% of MSMA (2000) and SSR of about 103% of MSMA
(2000) using MSMA (2011) storm and discharge data.
4. The result in Table 5.21 shows that for Pulau Pinang, MSMA (2011) gives PSD of
18% of MSMA (2000) and SSR of about 180% of MSMA (2000).
5. The result in Table 5.21 shows that for Pulau Pinang, the PSD using ESM Method
gives PSD of about 49% of MSMA (2000) and SSR of about 129% of MSMA
(2000) using MSMA (2011) storm and discharge data.
6. Problems using Table 5.A2 outside the 17 major towns in Peninsular Malaysia
listed in the table which gives the maximum permissible site discharge (PSD),
minimum Site Storage Requirement (SSR) and inlet values.
7. Method is suitable only for Peninsula. No guidance for towns in East Malaysia e.g.,
Figure 5.A.1 and Table 5.A2 are for Peninsula.
8. For East Malaysia, it may be necessary to apply the OSD method in MSMA (2000)
since MSMA (2011) provides no guidance on this.

Table 5.20 Comparison of OSD Requirements using MSMA (2000, 2011) for Kuala Lumpur
MSMA 2000 (A) MSMA 2011 (B) ESM (C) R=B/A R=C/A
PSD (L/S) 1093.6 220 597.5 0.2 0.55
SSR (M
3
) 700.9 1303.7 723.3 1.9 1.03

Table 5.21 Comparison of OSD Requirements using MSMA (2000, 2011) for Pulau Pinang
MSMA 2000 (A) MSMA 2011 (B) ESM (C) R=B/A R=C/A
PSD 1169.6 210 571.0 0.18 0.49
SSR 728.7 1312.8 938.1 1.80 1.29

6. Changes in Sediment Basins
6.1 Criteria for Sizing of Wet and Dry Sediment Basins
Table 6.1 (Table 39.4 of MSMA, 2000) summarises the sizing criteria for wet/dry
sediment basins. Listed in the table are the three different soil types and the design
considerations which apply to sediment basin design and operation for each soil
type.
Table 6.1 Sediment Basin Types and Design Considerations
Soil Description Soil
Type
Basin
Type
Design Considerations
Coarse-grained sand, sandy loam: less
than 33%<0.02 mm
C Dry Settling velocity, sediment storage.
Fine-grained loam, clay: more than
33%<0.02 mm
F Wet Storm impoundment, sediment
storage.
Dispersible fine-grained clays as per type
F, more than 10% of dispersible material.

D Wet Storm impoundment, sediment
storage, assisted flocculation.

6.2 Sediment Basins in MSMA (2000)
6.2.1 Dry Sediment Basin
Dry Sediment basins should be used on Type C soil- which is characterized by a high
percentage of coarse particles, where less than one-third of particles are less than
0.02 mm in size. Table 6.2 (Table 39.5 of MSMA, 2000) summarises the dry
sediment basin sizing guidelines.

For construction projects lasting two years or less to complete, a three month design
ARI is required, and for those taking two years or more, a six month design ARI is
required.

Table 6.2 Dry Sediment Basin Sizing Guidelines in MSMA (2000) (After Table 39.5 of MSMA, 2000)
Parameter Design Storm
(mth ARI)
Time of Concentration of Basin Catchment (min)
10 20 30 45 60
Surface Area
(m
2
/ha)
3 333 250 200 158 121
6 n/a 500 400 300 250
Total Volume
(m
3
/ha)
3 400 300 240 190 145
6 n/a 600 480 360 300

6.2.2 Wet Sediment Basin
Wet sediment basins should be used on Type F or Type D soils. The duration of the
design event should be 5 days- time needed to achieve effective flocculation, settling
and pumpout of the stormwater.

The 75
th
percentile 5-day rainfall event should be used as the design event. The 80
th

percentile 5-day event should be used if the construction site is upstream of an
environmentally sensitive area, or if the construction period is more than 2 years.

Sizing guidelines for wet sediment basins for normal situations are given in Table 6.3
(Table 39.6 of MSMA, 2000).

Table 6.3 Wet Sediment Basin Sizing Guidelines in MSMA (2000) (Table 39.6 of MSMA, 2000)
Parameter Site Runoff Potential Magnitude of Design Storm Event in mm
20 30 40 50 60
Settling Zone Volume
(m
3
/ha)
Moderate-high runoff 70 127 200 290 380
Very high runoff 100 167 260 340 440
Total Volume
(m
3
/ha)
Very high runoff 150 250 390 510 660

6.3 Sediment Basin Theory in MSMA (2011)
6.3.1 Criteria for Sizing of Sediment Basins
Table 6.4 (Table 1.3 in MSMA, 2011) requires temporary or permanent BMPs to be
designed based on 50 and 40 mm, respectively, of rainfall applied to the catchments
draining to the BMPs.

Table 6.4 Quality Control Design Criteria (Table 1.3 in MSMA, 2011)
Variables Criteria
Water Quality Volume - Temporary BMPs- 50 mm of rainfall applied to
catchments draining to the BMPs.
- Permanent BMPs- 40 mm of rainfall applied to
catchments draining to the BMPs.
Primary Outlet Sizing Based on the peak flow calculated from the 3 month
ARI event.
Secondary Outlet (Spillway) Sizing As per the ARIs recommended in the respective
chapters of the individual BMPs.

There is a change of approach in MSMA (2011) where temporary or permanent BMPs
are designed based on 50 or 40 mm of rainfall on the catchment, compared to MSMA
(2000) where these were based on the 75
th
or 80
th
percentile 5 day storm for wet ponds.

Overall, the approach is MSMA (2011) is a lot simpler than MSMA (2000) as it does
away with the need to compute the 75
th
and 80
th
percentile 5 day storm, and adopt 50 or
40 mm for temporary or permanent BMPs.

The changes in between design requirements for MSMA (2000 and 2011) are
summarised in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Comparison of Design Requirements for Sediment Basins between MSMA (2000 and 2011)
DURATION

MSMA (2000) MSMA (2011)
Construction
Period
Dry
Sedimentation
Basin
Wet
Sedimentation
Basin
Construction
Period
Dry
Sedimentation
Basin
Wet
Sedimentation
Basin
<2 YEARS 3 Month ARI 75
th
Percentile
5 Day Rain
Temporary
<18 mths
3 Month ARI 50 mm
>2 YEARS 6 Month ARI 80
th
Percentile
5 Day Rain
Permanent
>18 mths
3 Month ARI 40 mm

6.3.2 Design of Dry Sediment Basins
In MSMA (2011), Table 6.6 (Table 12.18) summarises the dry sediment basin sizing
guidelines. Note this is the same as Table 6.2 for 3 month ARI.

Table 6.6 Dry Sediment Basin Sizing Criteria in MSMA (2011) (Table 12.18 in MSMA, 2011)
Parameter Time of Concentration of Basin Catchment (min)
10 20 30 45 60
Surface Area (m
2
/ha) 333 250 200 158 121
Total Volume (m
3
/ha) 400 300 240 190 145

6.3.3 Design of Wet Sediment Basins
In MSMA (2011), Table 6.7 (Table 12.19) summarises the wet sediment basin sizing
guidelines. Note this is the same as Table 6.3.

Instead of using the 75
th
or 80
th
percentile 5-day rainfall event for the magnitude of
design storm in the above table, we can use the 50 and 40 mm rainfall depths for
temporary and permanent BMPs according to Table 6.4.

Table 6.7 Wet Sediment Basin Sizing Volume (m
3
/ha) in MSMA (2011) (TABLE 12.19)
Parameter Site Runoff Potential Magnitude of Design Storm Event in mm
20 30 40 50 60
Settling Zone Volume
(m
3
/ha)
Very high runoff 100 167 260 340 440
Total Volume
(m
3
/ha)
Very high runoff 150 250 390 510 660

6.4 Case Study on Design of a Dry Sediment Basin
This worked example uses a spreadsheet to size a dry sediment basin.
Problem: To design a dry sediment basin and outlet structures required for a
construction site in Kuala Lumpur.

Relevant data are as follows:
- Basin type= earth embankment and perforated outlet.
- Soil type= sandy loam. Type C.
- Construction period more than 2 years.
- Area= 7.8 ha.
- Compute overland flow time using Friends Formula where n=0.011, Lo= 50
m, S=0.3%.
- Compute drain flow time for Ld= 870 m and V=1 m/s.

6.4.1 MSMA (2000)
The construction period is more than 2 years, hence the design storm= 6 month ARI.
1. Determine Tc

Overland flow time (T
o
) is estimated using Friends Formula:
2 . 0
3 / 1
107
S
L n
t
o

=

where
n= 0.011 from Table 14.2 (MSMA, 2000) for paved surface

S= 0.3%
L (Overland sheet flow path length) = 50 m.
Applying the Friends Formula, T
o
= 5.5 min.

T
d
=L/V= 870/1= 870 s= 14.5 min.
Hence, T
c
= T
o
+ T
d
= 5.5+14.5 = 20 min

2. Sizing of Sediment Basin

From Table 6.1 (Table 39.4 of MSMA, 2000), Soil Type= C
Construction time > 2 years
Design storm= 6 mth ARI

From Table 6.2 (Table 39.5 of MSMA, 2000), for the above T
c
,
Required surface area= 500 m
2
/ha
Required total volume = 600 m
3
/ha

Catchment area= 7.8 ha

Surface area required= 500 x 7.8= 3900 m
2

Total volume required= 600 x 7.8= 4680 m
3

6.4.2 MSMA (2011)
1. Determine T
c

Applying the same method of computation, T
c
= T
o
+ T
d
= 5.5+14.5 = 20 min

From Table 6.6 (Table 12.18 of MSMA, 2011), for the above T
c
,
Required surface area= 250 m
2
/ha
3
/ha

Catchment area= 7.8 ha
Surface area required= 250 x 7.8= 1950 m
2

Total volume required= 300 x 7.8= 2340 m
3

6.5 Case Study on Design of a Wet Sediment Basin
This worked example uses a spreadsheet to size a wet sediment basin in Ipoh.

Problem: To design a wet sediment basin and outlet structures required for a
construction site in Ipoh. Relevant data are as follows:

- Basin type= earth embankment and perforated outlet.
- Soil type= sandy loam. Type F.
- Construction period less than 2 years.
- Area= 8 ha.

6.5.1 MSMA (2000)

From Table 6.3 (Table 39.6 of MSMA, 2011), Soil Type= F

Construction time < 2 years

The 75
th
percentile 5-day storm for Ipoh is 36.75 mm from analysis.

From Table 6.3, for the 75
th
percentile 5-day storm with moderate-high runoff,
Required settling zone volume= 176 m
3
/ha
3
/ha

Catchment area= 8 ha
Settling zone volume required= 176 x 8= 1408 m
3

Total volume required= 264 x 8= 2112 m
3

6.5.2 MSMA (2011)

From Table 6.7 (Table 12.19 of MSMA, 2011), Soil Type= F
Construction time < 2 years
Temporary BMP- 50 mm of Rainfall applied to catchment area.
From Table 6.7, for the 50 mm storm, with moderate-high runoff,
Required settling zone volume= 290 m
3
/ha
3
/ha

Catchment area= 8 ha
Settling zone volume required= 290 x 8= 2320 m
3

Total volume required= 435 x 8= 3480 m
3
6.6 Evaluation
The results are summarized in Table 6.8. Below is an evaluation:

1. The dry basin is to be used for more than 2 years, so it should be designed for 6
month ARI. In Table 6.2, there is data for 6 month ARI but not in Table 6.6 where the
data is based on 3 month ARI.
2. The results showed that the dry sediment basin volume using MSMA (2011) is half
of that using MSMA (2000) for 6 month ARI design (for projects taking more than
two years).
3. The 75th percentile 5-day storm for Ipoh is 36.75 mm. This was used to determine
the volumes in Table 6.3. But for temporary BMP- 50 mm of rainfall applied to
catchment area and was used to read the volumes in Table 6.7. Hence the volumes
are about 1.65 times higher using MSMA (2011).
4. The wet sediment basin volume was 65% higher using MSMA (2011) compared to
MSMA (2000) because of it was based on 50 mm of rainfall for temporary BMP in
MSMA (2011), compared to the 75th percentile storm of 36.75 mm in MSMA (2000)
which is lower.
5. For locations where the 75th percentile 5-day storms are lower than 50 mm, it is
expected the wet sedimentation basin volume will decrease compared to MSMA
(2000) using MSMA (2011).

Table 6.8 Summary of Dry and Wet Sediment Basin Volumes based on MSMA (2000 and 2011)
Dry Sediment Basin Wet Sediment Basin
Total Volume (m
3
) Settling Volume (m
3
) Total Volume (m
3
)
MSMA (2000) (A) 4680 1408 2112
MSMA (2011) (B) 2340 2320 3480
B/A 0.5 1.65 1.65

7. Conclusions

Below are the results of investigation:

Case Study 1- Design ARI:

1. For medium density residential and commercial and city area, the storm intensity has
increased by up to 122% for minor system for an ARI increase from 5 to 10 years, and
up to 133% for major system for an ARI increase from 50 year to 100 years between
MSMA (2000) and (2011).
2. It is emphasised that the changes in the storm intensity is not only due to changes in the
ARI but also the higher IDF data in MSMA (2011).
3. Due to the linear nature of the discharge and storm intensity in the Rational Method, it is
expected the same proportional increase in the design discharge is observed.

Case Study 2- Design Storm:

1. For durations of between 15 to 700 min, the IDF estimates using MSMA (2011) were
mostly higher than those estimated using MSMA (2000). In the study, out of 14
stations, 10 of them (or 71%) were higher than the MSMA (2000) curve, while the
remaining 4 stations (or 29%) were lower than the first edition estimates.
2. It is concluded that the design storms estimated based on MSMA (2011) for Kuala
Lumpur can be up to about 26% higher than MSMA (2000) for duration below 700
minutes, for 71% of the stations.

Case Study 3- Design Discharge using Rational Method:

1. For commercial and city area, the peak discharge from MSMA (2011) is about 31%
higher than the peak discharge from MSMA (2000). The Q has increased from 16.9 to
22.1 m
3
/s. The C has increased from 0.905 to 0.95 while the storm intensity has
increased from 224.3 mm/hr to 279.4. The increase in C for commercial and city area
and storm intensity in MSMA (2011) has attributed to a significantly higher peak
discharge.
2. In conclusion, the peak discharge computed using the Rational Method in MSMA
(2011) is up to 31% higher than that in MSMA (2000). This increase is caused
principally by the higher storm intensity in MSMA (2011) and by the higher C for
commercial and city area in MSMA (2011).
3. In general, it is concluded that 71% of the stations in Kuala Lumpur will have up to 26%
higher storm intensity and up to 31% higher peak discharges for commercial and city
area.

Case Study 4- On-Site Detention:

1. The result shows that for Kuala Lumpur, the PSD and SSR using MSMA (2011) are about
20% and 190% of MSMA (2000).
2. The PSD and SSR using the ESM Method for Kuala Lumpur is about 55% and 103%,
respectively, of those using MSMA (2000).
3. For Pulau Pinang, the PSD and SSR using MSMA (2011) are about 20% and 180% of
MSMA (2000).
4. The PSD and SSR using the ESM Method for Pulau Pinang is about 55% and 129%,
respectively, of those using MSMA (2000).
5. The approximate Swinburnes Method in MSMA (2011) results in underestimate of PSD
and over estimate of the SSR.
6. The ESM Method appeared to give slightly higher estimate of SSR compared to MSMA

(2000) but a lot lower estimate compare to MSMA (2011).
7. The ESM Method uses more up-to-date storm data in MSMA (2012) to compute the
discharges and applied the exact Swinburnes Method to compute the SSR.
8. This suggestS the ESM Method may be used instead of MSMA (2011) to give a better
estimate of PSD and SSR.

Case Study 5- Sedimentation Basins:

1. The dry sediment basin volume using MSMA (2011) is half of that using MSMA
(2000) for 6 month ARI design (for projects taking more than two years) as MSMA
(2011) does not cover 6 month ARI.
2. The wet sediment basin volume was 65% higher using MSMA (2011) compared to
MSMA (2000) because of it was based on 50 mm of rainfall for temporary BMP in
MSMA (2011), compared to the 75
th
percentile storm of 36.75 mm in MSMA (2000)
which is lower.
3. For locations where the 75
th
percentile 5-day storms are lower than 50 mm, it is
expected the wet sedimentation basin volume will decrease compared to MSMA
(2000) using MSMA (2011).

8. References

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1974) Rational Method of Flood Estimation for Rural
Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia. Hydrological Procedure No. 5. Ministry of Agriculture,
Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1975) Urban Drainage Design Standards and
Procedures for Peninsular Malaysia. Planning and Design Procedure No. 1. Ministry of
Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1976) Flood Estimation for Urban Areas in Peninsular
Malaysia. Hydrological Procedure No. 16. Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1980) Design Flood Hydrograph Estimation for Rural
Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia. Hydrological Procedure No. 11. Ministry of Agriculture,
Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1982) Estimation of the Design Rainstorm in
Peninsular Malaysia (Revised and Updated). Hydrological Procedure No. 1. Ministry of
Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1987) Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Peninsular Malaysia. Hydrological Procedure No. 4. Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1988) Mean Monthly, Mean Seasonal and Mean
Annual Rainfall Maps for Peninsular Malaysia. Water Resources Publication No. 19.
Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1989) Rational Method of Flood Estimation for Rural
Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia (Revised and Updated). Hydrological Procedure No. 5.
Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1991) Hydrological Data- Rainfall and Evaporation
Records for Malaysia 1986-1990 Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (1995) Hydrological Data- Streamflow and River
Suspended Sediment Records 1986-1990 Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (2000) Urban Stormwater Management Manual for
Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (2010) Review and Updated the Hydrological
Procedure NO. 1- Estimation of Design Rainstorm in Peninsular Malaysia December,
Prepared by NAHRIM.

Drainage and Irrigation Department (2011) Urban Stormwater Management Manual for
Malaysia (Manual Saliran Mesra Alam Malaysia), Second edition.

Quek, K.H. (1993) "Assessment of flood Estimation Techniques for Urbanizing Areas
using DID Hydrological Procedures" Seminar on Drainage and Flood Issues in Urban
Development, organised by Water Resources Technical Division, the Institution of
Engineers Malaysia, Regent Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, 18th January.

Quek K. H. (1999) Water Quality Modelling of Wetlands and Lake Journal of the
Institution of Engineers Malaysia, Vol. 60, No. 3, September 1999, pp 11-19.

Quek K. H. and Carroll D. (1999) Flood Hydrology Study of Multi-Cell Multi-Stage
Wetlands and Lake in Putrajaya Journal of the Institution of Engineers Malaysia, Vol
60, No. 1, March.


Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Evolution of Drainage Guidelines in Malaysia ........................................................................... 3
1.2 Overall Changes in MSMA (2011) from MSMA (2000) .............................................................. 3
2. Changes in the Design ARI. ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Major and Minor Design ARI (MSMA, 2000) ............................................................................. 6
2.2 Major and Minor Design ARI (MSMA, 2011) ............................................................................. 6
2.3 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Case Study on Design ARI........................................................................................................... 8
2.5.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 8
3. Changes in Design Storm, Temporal Pattern and Areal Reduction Factor ................................... 10
3.1 Design Storm Computation ...................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Evolution of Methods of Computation for Design Storm ............................................... 10
3.1.2 Derivation of IDF Curves using MSMA (2000) ................................................................. 10
3.1.3 Derivation of IDF Curves using MSMA (2011) ................................................................. 11
3.1.4 Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.5 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Storm Temporal Pattern .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Temporal Pattern in MSMA (2000) ................................................................................. 12
3.2.2 Temporal Pattern in MSMA (2011) ................................................................................. 13
3.2.3 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.3 Areal Reduction Factor ............................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Case Study on Design Storm .................................................................................................... 15
3.4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 15
3.4.2 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 15
4. Changes in the Rational Method .................................................................................................. 23
4.1 Rational Method in MSMA (2000) ....................................................................................... 23
4.2 Rational Method in MSMA (2011) ....................................................................................... 25
4.3 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 25

4.4 Case Study on Rational Method .......................................................................................... 27
4.4.1 Rational Method (MSMA, 2000) ..................................................................................... 28
4.4.2 Rational Method (MSMA, 2011) ..................................................................................... 30
4.5 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 31
5. Changes in On-Site Detention ....................................................................................................... 34
5.1 OSD Sizing using MSMA (2000) ................................................................................................ 34
5.1.1 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 34
5.1.2 Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) ..................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 Site Storage Requirement (SSR) ...................................................................................... 36
5.1.4 OSD Sizing Procedure ...................................................................................................... 38
5.2 OSD Sizing using MSMA (2011) ................................................................................................ 40
5.2.1 Limiting Catchment Areas for OSD in MSMA (2011) ...................................................... 40
5.2.2 Method for OSD Design in MSMA (2011) ....................................................................... 40
5.3 Case Study on On-Site Detention for Kuala Lumpur ................................................................ 50
5.3.1 OSD in MSMA (2000) ....................................................................................................... 50
5.3.2 OSD in MSMA (2011) ....................................................................................................... 57
5.3.3 Exact Swinburne Method (ESM) Applied to MSMA2 Data ............................................. 60
5.4 Case Study on On-Site Detention for Pulau Pinang ................................................................. 64
5.4.1 OSD in MSMA (2000) ....................................................................................................... 64
5.4.2 OSD in MSMA (2011) ....................................................................................................... 71
5.4.3 Exact Swinburne Method (ESM) Applied to MSMA2 Data ............................................. 74
5.5 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 78
6. Changes in Sediment Basins ......................................................................................................... 79
6.1 Criteria for Sizing of Wet and Dry Sediment Basins ................................................................. 79
6.2 Sediment Basins in MSMA (2000) ............................................................................................ 79
6.2.1 Dry Sediment Basin ......................................................................................................... 79
6.2.2 Wet Sediment Basin ........................................................................................................ 79
6.3 Sediment Basin Theory in MSMA (2011) ................................................................................. 80
6.3.1 Criteria for Sizing of Sediment Basins ............................................................................. 80
6.3.2 Design of Dry Sediment Basins ........................................................................................ 81
6.3.3 Design of Wet Sediment Basins ...................................................................................... 81
6.4 Case Study on Design of a Dry Sediment Basin ....................................................................... 81
6.4.1 MSMA (2000) .................................................................................................................. 81
6.4.2 MSMA (2011) .................................................................................................................. 82

6.5 Case Study on Design of a Wet Sediment Basin ...................................................................... 82
6.5.1 MSMA (2000) .................................................................................................................. 82
6.5.2 MSMA (2011) .................................................................................................................. 83
6.6 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 83
7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 84
8. References .................................................................................................................................... 86

Table 1.1 Comparison of Chapters in MSMA (2000, 2011) (After DID Seminar Paper, 2012) ................ 4
Table 2.1 Design Storm ARIs for Urban Stormwater System Adoption (MSMA, 2000) .......................... 7
Table 2.2 Design Storm ARI Adoption (MSMA, 2011) ............................................................................. 7
Table 2.3 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Major and Minor
System for Sg Batu, Kuala Lumpur .......................................................................................................... 9
Table 3.1 Standard Durations for Urban Stormwater Drainage ........................................................... 12
Table 3.2 Recommended Intervals for Design Rainfall Temporal Pattern (Table 2.4 in MSMA, 2011) 13
Table 3.3 Areal Reduction Factors ........................................................................................................ 14
Table 3.4 IDF for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2000) .................................................................................... 16
Table 3.5 Short Duration IDF for Kuala Lumpur (Duration= 5 min) (MSMA 2000) ............................... 16
Table 3.6 Short Duration IDF for Kuala Lumpur (Duration= 15 min) (MSMA 2000) ............................. 16
Table 3.7 IDF Data for Kuala Lumpur (Station No. 3116004) (MSMA 2011) ........................................ 17
Table 3.8 Summary of IDF Data for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA, 2000) and 14 Stations in Kuala Lumpur
(MSMA 2011) for ARI of 100 YR ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 3.9 Summary of Stations in Kuala Lumpur (After Table 2.B1 in MSMA, 2011) ........................... 18
Table 4.1 Recommended Runoff Coefficients for Various Landuses (DID, 1980; Chow et al., 1988;
QUDM, 2007 and Darwin Harbour, 2009) (After Table 2.5 of MSMA, 2011) ....................................... 27
Table 4.2 Computation of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2000) ................... 33
Table 4.3 Computation of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2011) ................... 33
Table 4.4 Comparison of Peak Discharges using the Rational Method in MSMA (2000, 2011) .......... 33
Table 5.1 Limiting Catchment Areas for OSD or Dry/Wet Detention Pond in MSMA (2011) ............... 40
Table 5.2 Pervious and Impervious Areas ............................................................................................. 51
Table 5.3 Computation of Pre/Post Development Peaks ..................................................................... 56
Table 5.4 Computation of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) ................................................................ 56
Table 5.5 Computation of Peak Post-Development Flow (QD) ............................................................ 56
Table 5.6 Computation of Site Storage Requirements (SSR) ................................................................ 57
Table 5.7 IDF Data for SK Taman Maluri Kuala Lumpur (ARI of 2 and 10 Year and Durations of 5, 10,
15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 minutes) (MSMA, 2011) ..................................................................................... 60
Table 5.8 Computation of Pre/Post Development Peaks ..................................................................... 61
Table 5.9 Computation of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) ................................................................ 62
Table 5.10 Computation of Post Development Peaks and Site Storage Requirements (SSR) .............. 63
Table 5.11 Pervious and Impervious Areas ........................................................................................... 65
Table 5.12 Computation of Pre/Post Development Peaks ................................................................... 70
Table 5.13 Computation of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) .............................................................. 70
Table 5.14 Computation of Peak Post-Development Flow (QD) .......................................................... 70
Table 5.15 Computation of Site Storage Requirements (SSR) .............................................................. 71
Table 5.16 IDF Data for Pulau Pinang (ARI of 2 and 10 Year and Durations of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35,
40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 minutes) (MSMA, 2011) ..................................................................................... 74
Table 5.17 Computation of Pre/Post Development Peaks ................................................................... 75
Table 5.18 Computation of Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) .............................................................. 76
Table 5.19 Computation of Post Development Peaks and Site Storage Requirements (SSR) .............. 77
Table 5.20 Comparison of OSD Requirements using MSMA (2000, 2011) for Kuala Lumpur .............. 78
Table 5.21 Comparison of OSD Requirements using MSMA (2000, 2011) for Pulau Pinang ............... 78
Table 6.1 Sediment Basin Types and Design Considerations ................................................................ 79
Table 6.2 Dry Sediment Basin Sizing Guidelines in MSMA (2000) (After Table 39.5 of MSMA, 2000) . 79

Table 6.3 Wet Sediment Basin Sizing Guidelines in MSMA (2000) (Table 39.6 of MSMA, 2000) ......... 80
Table 6.4 Quality Control Design Criteria (Table 1.3 in MSMA, 2011) .................................................. 80
Table 6.5 Comparison of Design Requirements for Sediment Basins between MSMA (2000 and 2011)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 80
Table 6.6 Dry Sediment Basin Sizing Criteria in MSMA (2011) (Table 12.18 in MSMA, 2011) ............. 81
Table 6.7 Wet Sediment Basin Sizing Volume (m
3
/ha) in MSMA (2011) (TABLE 12.19) ...................... 81
Table 6.8 Summary of Dry and Wet Sediment Basin Volumes based on MSMA (2000 and 2011) ...... 83

Figure 2.1 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Minor System for
Sg. Batu, Kuala Lumpur ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.2 Effect of Changes in ARI for Various Landuses on the Storm Intensity for Major System for
Sg. Batu, Kuala Lumpur ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.1 Plot of Areal Reduction Factors ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.2 IDF for Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2000) .................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.3 IDF For Kuala Lumpur (MSMA 2011) (Station No. 3116004) ............................................... 19
Figure 3.4 Comparison of Estimated Rainfall Intensity Frequency Duration Curves for Kuala Lumpur
between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (ARI. =100 YR) ....................................................................................... 20
between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (ARI. =50 YR) ......................................................................................... 20
between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (ARI. =5 YR) ........................................................................................... 22
between MSMA 2000 & 2011 (ARI. =2 YR) ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 4.1 Steps of Computation in the Rational Method in MSMA (2000) ......................................... 24
Figure 4.2 Steps of Computation in the Rational Method in MSMA (2011) ......................................... 26
Figure 4.3 Catchment Map ................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5.1 Relationship Between tc and tcs for the Swinburne Method .............................................. 34
Figure 5.2 Swinburne Method Assumptions tf= Time for Storage to Fill ............................................. 35
Figure 5.3 Typical Relationship of Storage Volume to Storm Duration ................................................ 37
Figure 5.4 Steps of Computation in OSD Design in MSMA (2000) ........................................................ 39
Figure 5.5 Location of OSD in the Project Site ...................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.6 Plot of SSR Versus Storm Duration ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 5.7 Summary of OSD Computation using MSMA (2011) for Kuala Lumpur .............................. 59
Figure 5.8 Plot of SSR versus Storm Duration ....................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.9 Location of OSD in the Project Site ...................................................................................... 64
Figure 5.10 Plot of SSR Versus Storm Duration .................................................................................... 69
Figure 5.12 Summary of OSD Computation using MSMA (2011) for Pulau Pinang .............................. 73
Figure 5.13 Plot of SSR versus Storm Duration ..................................................................................... 77

Msma Drquek7

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Msma Drquek7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like