Storm drainage design

in small urban
catchments:
a handbook for Australian practice

This Special Report was originally published in 1986. While the fundamental
design approach described is relevant and current, reference to recent
publications, such as the current revisions of Australian Rainfall and Runoff
and the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 5: Drainage: General and
Hydrology Considerations is suggested to ensure the most recent design
inputs and considerations, are applied.
ARRB Group Ltd would like to acknowledge and thank John R. Argue AO,
Adjunct Professor of Water Engineering, University of South Australia,
for allowing this reproduction of Storm Drainage Design in Small Urban
Catchments - a handbook for Australian practice, 1986.
ARRB Group 2013

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN

IN SMALL URBAN
CATCHMENTS:
A HANDBOOK FOR AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE
By

John R. Argue
Principal Lecturer,
School of Civil Engineering,
South Australian Institute of Technology

South Australian
Institute of Technology

Australian Road
Research Board

CONTENTS
1.

2.

3.

4.

INTRODUCTION
1.1

Drainage Planning

1.2

Scope of this Handbook

1.3

The Goals of Urban Drainage (Quantity) Management

1.4

The Handbook and Goals 1, 2 and 3

1.5

This Handbook and Other Urban Drainage Publications

FREQUENCY AND THE MAJOR/MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM

DESIGN CONCEPT
2.1

Introduction

2.2

Flood Classification

2.3

The Major/Minor Flood Management Concept

2.4

Towards Design ARI: the Water Resources Approach

2.5

Design ARI- Major Drainage Systems

2.6

Design AAI- Minor Drainage Systems

RETENTION, DETENTION AND RETARDATION MEASURES IN

URBAN CATCHMENTS

6.

5
5
5
6
8
8
9

3.4

Detention Measures

3.5

Retardation Measures

11
11
12
13
15
16

3.6

Implementation of Retention/Detention/Retardation
Measures in the Urban Environment

18

3.1

The Natural Catchment 8nd Urban Development

3.2

Terminal Retention Measures

3.3

Non-Terminal Retention Measures

RAINFALL/RUNOFF MATHEMATICAL MODELS

4.1

5.

1
1
2
2
3
3

Background

4.2

Rational Method

4.3

Time-Area Representation

4.4

Why a_ 'New' Rational Method?

4.5

The TwoNalue Rational Method

HYDROLOGICAL DATA BASE

5.1

Ultimate Development Assessment

5.2

Storm Rainfalllntensity-Frequency-Duration Data

5.3

Australian Climatic Zones - Urban Drainage

5.4

Design Average Recurrence Interval- Major/Minor Systems

5.5

Travel Time Determination

5.6

Runoff Coefficients for Developed Catchments

HYDRAULIC DATA BASE

6.1

Open Channel Stormwater Drains

6.2

Gutter and Sag Inlets

19
19
19
22
22
23
25
25
25
25
27
28
31
33
33
36

1986
ENGINEERING

AWARD
'STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS'
Submitted by

J.R.K. Argue, Esq., F.I.E.Aust.

'for excellence of engineering, in particular for providing the first comprehensive

manual on current storm drainage techniques. Its use in local government engineering

offices will reduce costs and enhance the effectiveness of drainage works.'

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DIVISION

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The contents of this Report have been strongly influenced by input from engineers and
technical officers employed in local government, consulting practices and government
authorities- Commonwealth and State- and from researchers and academic colleagues.
Each Australian state and territory is represented in this array. In addition, contact has
been made with a number of overseas researchers and authorities active in the urban
storm drainage field, the majority of whom have responded generously to appeals for data
and advice.
To the following go the author's special thanks:

Australian Road Research Board and Professor A.P. Mead, Director of S.A. Institute
of Technology for permission to publish the Handbook. Dr M.G. Lay, Executive
Director and Dr J.B. Metcalf, Deputy Director of ARRB for their encouragement and
help throughout the project.

Mr D.P. Ritchie (Biacktown Council, N.S.W.), Mr R.B. Saunders (S.A. Highways

Department), Messrs B.C. Tonkin and P.K. Read (B.C. Tonkin & Associates,
Adelaide), Mr M.N. Clarke (N.S.W. Public Works Department), Assoc. Professor
D.H. Pilgrim (U.N.S.W.), Dr G.G. O'Loughlin (N.S.W.I.T.), Mr R.J. Taylor (Techsearch
Inc.), and members of S.E. Queensland Local Government Engineers' Group for
support and technical advice.

Mr J. Fox (Plantae Drafting Services, Adelaide) who was responsible for drafting the
bulk of the graphics and tables and an army of long-suffering ladies who helped with
typing, library searches or final editing/production - Mesdames C. Wilson,
R. Mielnik, S. Swann, L. Folland, P. Buxton, A. Girard, M. Holdsworth and J. Symons.

Finally to my wife Jan and members of the Argue family go my heartfelt thanks for
their patience and support through the many vicissitudes of the 'drains' project.

Cover
The photograph shows Elizabeth Street, Melbourne during the major storm which struck the city in February
1972. The assistance of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd in providing the photograph is gratefully
acknowledged.

CONTENTS

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

continued

6.3

Guidelines for the Management of Surface-Moving Flows in Minor Systems

39

6.4

Underground Networks: An Overview

39

6.5

Guidelines for the Management of Underground-Moving Flows

41

6.6

Minimum Grade Analysis Hydraulic Data

44

6.7

Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis Hydraulic Data

44

6.8

Tests for Pit Overflow and Pit Obvert Depth

48

URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: STRUCTURE

51

7.1

Introduction

51

7.2

General Properties of Small Urban Catchments

7.3

Simple Urban Catchments

52
52

7.4

Complex Urban Landscapes

54

THE MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM- DESIGN

PROCEDURE OUTLINE
8.1

Introduction

8.2

Major System Planning Procedure

THE MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM- CASE STUDY

APPLICATIONS
9.1

Introduction

9.2

Case 1 and Case 2 Developments: Steps 1-8

9.3

Non-Isolated Development Catchments

9.4

Concluding Comments and Summary

THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM- DESIGN

PROCEDURE OUTLINE

57
57
58
63
63
63
71
71

10.1

Introduction

10.2

Minor System Design Procedure

73
73
74

THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMCASE STUDY APPLICATIONS

83

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

105

12.1

Resume

105

12.2

Data Quality and Error in the Design of Minor Drainage Systems

105

12.3

Stormwater Management Measures and the Illustrative Cases

107

12.4

Research Needs

107

12.5

Future Perspectives

108

REFERENCES

109

APPENDIX A Additional Hydraulic Data

115

APPENDIX B Forms for Use by Designers

125

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

129

AUSTRALIAN ROAD
RESEARCH BOARD
The Australian Road Research Board is the focal point of road research in Australia. It
regularly undertakes and arranges road and road transport research over a comprehensive range of subjects. The results of that research are disseminated to appropriate
organisations and to the scientists, engineers and associated specialists involved with the
design, location, construction, upkeep and use of roads. The need for a national research
centre was realised by NAASRA, the National Association of Australian State Road
Authorities, who founded the Board in 1960. In 1965 ARRB was registered as a non-profit
making company financed by Australia's Federal and State Government Road Authorities.
Each member authority is represented by its permanent head on ARAB's Board of
Directors, whose policies are administered by the Executive Director.
All research is controlled from the Australian Road Research Centre at Vermont in
Victoria, but, since its inception, the Board has sponsored research conducted at
universities and other centres. The 1986-1987 overall program of the Board was budgeted
at $6.4m. The Board also relies on advice from its technical committees in Road
Technology, Road User Behaviour, Road Transport and Local Government and its
overseeing Steering Committee.

ARRB disseminates road research information through conferences and symposia and
through its publications. ARRB also maintains a unique library of road literature and
operates an expanding computer-based information service called Australian Road Index
which collects and collates all Australian road research findings. It also operates the
international lARD data base of OECD in Australia.

DIRECTORS 1986-1987
M.J. Knight, B.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.Sc., F.I.E.Aust., A.F.A.I.M., M.C.I.T., Commissioner of
Highways, South Australia
I.F.X. Stoney, A.A.S.A., Dip.Bus.Studies, M.A.G.I., F.A.I.M., Chairman and Managing
Director, Road Construction Authority, Victoria
D.H. Aitken, I.S.O., B.E., F.I.E.Aust., F.C.I.T., F.A.I.M., Commissioner of Main Roads,
Western Australia
A.S. Blunn, LL.B., Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction
E.F.F. Finger, B.E., M.Eng.Sc., F.I.E.Aust., Commissioner of Main Roads, Queensland
B.G. Fisk, A.R.S.M., B.Sc.(Eng.)(Met.), C.E., M.I.M.M., Commissioner for Main Roads,
New South Wales
C.W.M. Freeland, B.E.(Hons), M.I.E.Aust., Secretary, Commonwealth Department of
Transport
I. D. Gordon, B. E., M.Eng.Sc., M.I.E.Aust., M.C.I.T., Secretary, Department of Transport
and Works, Northern Territory
P.J. Wettenhall, Director of Main Roads, Tasmania
M.G. Lay, B.C.E., M.Eng.Sc., Ph.D., F.I.E.Aust., F.C.I.T., M.ASCE, Executive Director,
Australian Road Research Board
Chairman:

M.J. Knight

Deputy Chairman:

I.F.X. Stoney

Executive Director:

M.G. Lay

J.B. Metcalf, B.Sc., Ph.D., F.G.S .. F.I.E.Aust., F.I.C.E.,

Deputy Director, Australian Road Research Board
R.J. Membrey, A.A.S.A., A.C.I.S., Secretary, Australian Road Research Board

PREFACE
In June 1979 Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Project 1093 'Urban Stormwater
Collection Systems: A Review' was commenced. The aims of the project were:
(a) to identify those practices about which there is general consensus among
practitioners and for which there exists a satisfactory data base;
(b) to identify new procedures to replace existing practices where such new procedures
are considered necessary and/or appropriate; and
(c) to indicate directions for new or continuing research to improve and/or expand the
existing data base to a generally satisfactory level.
The report on Project 1093 (Argue 1981) recommended that a handbook be devised
by ARRB for Australia-wide use, bringing together best data and information available on
storm drainage design in small urban catchments. It recommended, also, that the
presentation of this material recognise the parlicular needs of an expected audience made
up of technical officers, newly graduated engineers and practitioners whose work does
not keep them in constant touch with the problems of urban drainage.
'Storm drainage design in small urban catchments: a handbook for Australian
practice' is the outcome of these recommendations.
The Handbook presentation reflects master drainage planning principles which have
been developed by leading practitioners in North America since the early 1970's. These
include an array of stormwater management options as well as the 'major/minor'
approach to flood mitigation and stormwater control in urban landscapes. In keeping with
the 'teaching' role recommended for the Handbook from its conception, lhis material is
presented in step-by-step form wherever possible, and includes detailed case study
illustrations. By this means, it is hoped, concepts and principles employed at present only
by leaders in the field of urban drainage design will penetrate Australian practice to its
'grassroots' level.
An important aspect of the Handbook's preparation, and a necesary condition for its
success, has been continued liaison with the compilers of other documents on urban

drainage and with potential users- engineers and technical support staff employed in
municipal engineering departments and consulting practices. Draft versions of the
Handbook's main design procedures have been subject to extensive review and revision.

The outcome is a document which offers drainage designers an approach that is in

harmony in all major respects with 'best' Australian practice and which is included among
the Rational Method and hydraulic design procedures adtocated in Chapter 14 (Urban
Drainage Design) of the third edition of 'Australian Rainflal and Runoff' (Institution of
Engineers, Australia 1987).
The procedures offered in the Handbook have wide application and if widely adopted
will introduce a measure of uniformity into small area urban drainage design practice in

Australia. Such standardisation, however, stops with the procedures: no altempt is made
in the Handbook to press for uniformity in the selection of roadside channel forms or
ancillary drainage network components. Nevertheless, hydraulic data for a range of
widely-used channel forms and components are included providing designers with the
opportunity to make their own assessments and comparisons of alternatives.

Such considerations may lead, in time, to some reduction in the variety of channels

and components presently used in Australian practice. While some economies may follow
this outcome, the main advantage would be an eventual improvement in the quality of
hydraulic data available for the most popular channel forms and components as a
consequence of more concentrated and effective research effort.

INFORMATION
RETRIEVAL
AND ABSTRACT
The abstracts and keywords on this page are provided in the interests of improved Information retrieval. Each
reference card is designed so that it can be cut out and Incorporated In the reader's own fife.
Keywords, unless carrying an asterisk, are from the 'International Road Research Documentation (lARD)
Thesaurus, 1983'.

ARGUE, J.R. (1986) : STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN

CATCHMENTS : A HANDBOOK FOR AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE. Australian
Road Research Board. Special Report SR 34. 130 pages including 90 figures and 2
appendices.
KEYWORDS : Drainage/urban area/run off/planning/design(overall
design)/discharge(flow)lhydrologylhydraulics*/mathematical modeVdata base
ABSTRACT : The Handbook is the outwms of ARRB Project 391 and Feasibility
Study 1093 relating to storm drainage flow estimation. collection and disposal in
Australian urban (small) catchments. It reflects master drainage (runoff
quantity) planning principles including on-site stormwaWr retention/detention
and the 'major/minor' approach to drainage design. Flow estimation procedures
are based on the Two-Va1ue Rational Method introduced in the Handbook. The
hydrological and hydraulic data bases include information and guidelines needed
to estimate runoff flows and plan/design surface drainage systems and
underground pipe networks for Australian urban sub-divisions. An eight-step
procedure is described for managing major storm runoff flows using such items
as roadway reserves, open space and floodway channels. The procedure is
applied to two 40 ha residential sub-divisions. An eleven-step procedure for
managing minor or nuisance flows is also described. This procedure is applied to
a 6 ha mixed development catchment and to a 12 ha residential sub-division, The
major and minor system design procedures are directly applicable to developed
catchments up to 20 ha. Larger catchments can be accommodaU!d by appropriaW
linking. The appendiGCS of the Handbook include hydraulic data applicable to a
range of gutter/pavenlent geometries and inlet types widely used in Australian
practice.

*Non IRRD Keywords

ISBN 0 86910 263 X Report

ISBN 0 86910 266 4 Microfiche
ISSN 0572- 144X
DECEMBER 1986 (Reprinted June 1987 with minor alterations) Reprinted 1997, 2000

Although this report is believed to be correct at the time of itspubiication, the Australian
Road Research Board does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of the information contained in it. People using the information contained in the
report should apply, and rely upon, their own skill and judgment to the particular issue
which they are considering.
Reference to, or reproduction of this report must include a precise reference to the report.

Wholly set up, designed and printed at the Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Victoria, 1986

Introduction

1.1 DRAINAGE PLANNING

When urban development takes place in a

forested or rural catchment significant areas
of land and vegetation which once absorbed
incident rainfall and impeded its movement
through
the
catchment
are
replaced
by
impervious surfaces interconnected by formal
networks of man-made surface and

drainage 1 ines.
increased flood

under~round

These changes
peak flows and

lead to
increased

volumes of surface runoff within the catchment

area itself and in the downstream flow paths
taken by floodwater on its way to disposal.

Where such flooding occurs in an unprepared urban landscape, distress ranging

from 1nconvenience and financial loss to
serious injury, possibly death, is experienced
by members of the genera 1 pub 1 i c and there is
damage to private property and community
facilties and installations.

New approaches to reducing the social,

financial
and environmental
impacts of
flooding
resulting
from
unbridled
urban
of
a basin centre on the
development
preparation of a Master Drainage Plan which
sets out appropriate and en vi romenta llycompatible measures to confine these impacts
within acceptable limits.
It identifies
existing prob 1ems and provides a framework
anticipating solutions to problems likely to
arise in the future. To these ends, the Plan
should indicate existing drainage systems,
areas subject to development pressure, drainage channels subject to erosion, the location
and nature of receiving waters, areas of high
recreational value, unique natural environments. significant heritage or cultural locations. installations of strategic importance
for the n3tion or the local communit.Y,
potential groundwater recharge areas. areas
containing soils of high permeability, areas
containing soils which are highly reactive to
water (expansive clays). and any other factors
deemed necessary or appropriate (Environment
Canada, 1980a).

The five action segments of the Master

Drainage Plan are:
1. Major/minor drainage networks:
storm
drainage systems for existing development
should be shown together with systems for
proposed or likely development, at least in
outline.
These networks should be based on
ARAB SR 34, 1986

the major/minor concept which recognises the

dua 1 requirements of the drainage system to
provide convenience on a day-to-day basis and
protection for life and property in major
storm events:
2. Development plan:
plans of all existing
and proposed developments should be shown and
their relationships to the major/minor networks and present or likely runoff characteristics, both in quantity and quality;
3. Stormwater retention/detention measures:
these should be identified for each 1and -use
and group of such areas and should take
account
of
land-use,
drainage
networks,
terrain and soil characteristics. The retention and detention measures adopted in each
basin sub-catchment should aim to retain,
where appropriate, as much incident storm
rainfall as possible;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures:
these should be incorporated into the planning
and construction phases of an urban development to minimise soil loss and ensure minimum
downstream environmental damage from waterborne sediment;
5. Pollution control strategy: this strategy
should be matched to the particular land-use,
drainage and runoff quality characteristics
experienced or likely to be experienced in the
basin in the course of future development.
The purpose of the strategy is to ensure that
runoff entering the receiving water domain
from the basin meets acceptable water quality
criteria.
Master Drainage Planning principles appear
to have been app 1i ed first in the Denver Area
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
U.S.A., when an agglomeration of 29 municipalities sought to resolve their common
problems of urban storm runoff quantity
management (Wright-Mclaughlin Engineers 1969).
Concern for the rapid degradation of water
quality in the Great Lakes in the late 1960's,
early 1970'st caused the governments of the
U.S. and Canada to act on this problem and to
incorporate
water
quality
aspects
into
basin~wide
major drainagP. planning.
The
result is the comprehensive Master Ura i nage
Plan outlined above and well described in
Environment Canada (l980b).

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

1ocated

1.2 SCOPE OF THIS HANDBOOK

in

flood-prone

landscapes

occurs on rare occasions only and

that in such events, velocity/depth

conditions in all readily accessible

This Handbook concerns itse 1f with the water

quantity aspects of master drainage planning
and considers the water quality aspect only to
offer
the
following
list
of
selected

open

references:
(i l

sediment and erosion control : Burton

et
al
(1976);
Environment
Canada
(1980b): Guy and Jones (1972); Hannam
and Hicks (1980); U.S. Environment
Protection Administration (1972); U.S.
Oept. of Transportation ( 1978); Weber
and Reed (1976); Whipple et al (1983);
Wolman and Schick (1967).

channels

are

below

prescribed

limits. This goal is identified with

the major drainage networks of the
Master Drainage Plan and is aimed at
achieving a satisfactory level of
safety

and

security

in

communities

faced with potential devastation in

the wake of major storms.
Goal 2:

to provide convenience and safety for

pedestrians and traffic in frequent
or nuisance
stormwater flows
by

control] ing such flows within pres(ii)

the

pollution control strategy:

American
Society of Civil Engineers (1982); Bell
et al (1979); Bliss et al (1979); Bliss
et al (1983); Cordery (1976a); Cordery
(1976b); Cordery (1977); Cullen et al
(1978); Fin 1ayson (1983); Goy en and
Mclaughlin (1978); Goyen et al (1985):
Gutteridge Haskins and Davey (1981);
Karr
and
Schlosser
(1978);
Moodie
(1979); Sator et al (1974); Walker
(1979); Wanielista (1979); Whipple et al
(1983).
The main emphasis of this document lies in
direction of new networks for sma 11

catchment

developments

but

the

concepts,

technology and procedures described may be

applied with equal force in the design of
rehabilitation and augmentation works for
established systems.
The descriptor 'small' is used because the

procedures described are based on peak flow or

the Ration a 1 Method ra i nfa 11/runoff catchment
model in which the runoff coefficient, C,
embodies an allowance for hydrograph attenua-

cribed limits. This relates to minor

drainage networks whose presence in

the urban landscape brings about a

reduction in minor ace i dents and
inconvenience which wou 1d be otherwise experienced by members of the

general public on a day-to-day basis.

Goal 3:

to retain within each catchment as

much incident rainfall and runoff as
is possible and appropriate given the
planned use of the catchment terrain
and
its
biotic and engineering
characteristics. This is identified
with the retention/detention measures
included in master drainage planning
and is aimed at reducing the negative
impacts
of urban development on
indigenous flora and fauna and pre-

development
groundwater
levels
without loss of structural integrity
in buildings constructed in areas of
expansive or unstable soil.
There

is

between these goals.

strong

interrelationship

Goal I is achieved in a

tion as a result of temporary storage routing.

particular case using a flood conveyance and

This approach

disposal system which embraces its Goal 2

network: it also benefits from the detention
measures which are employed to achieve Goal 3.
The extent and sizing of components of the
network developed to meet the requirements of
Goal 2 are strongly influenced by the type and

is satisfactory provided that

the drainage areas involved are not great and

their rainfall/runoff
response
times
are

relatively short i.e. less than 30 minutes.

drainage unit upper 1 imit of 20 ha which is

appropriate for most local government planning

purposes has been set to meet this requirement.
However, it is common for Rational
Method assumptions to be applied to areas much
greater than 20 ha (U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1979; Wright-Mclaughlin Engineers 1969:
City of Fort Worth 1967). Urban sub-divisions
and landscape areas greater than 20 ha are
rear:li ly amenable to procedures described in

the Handbook but they need to be divided into

sub-catchments, each not more than 20 ha, if

they are to fall

within the scope of these

procedures.

1.3 THE GOALS OF URBAN DRAINAGE (QUANTITY)

MANAGEMENT
The independent
management are:

goals

of

urban

drainage

extent of retention/detention measures adopted

under Goa 1 3.
Goals such as these have been set and
achieved overseas since the early 1q70's, have

been strongly advocated in Australian technical literature (Bonham 1974; Henkel 1981:
Thompson 1983) and have been put into practice
by various local authorities (Dandenong Valley
Authority 1980; Nation a 1 Capita 1 Deve 1opment
Commission 1981; Melbourne and Metropolitan
Board of Works 1981).
They are, however, far from 'universally
recognised in Australia and are virtually
unknown at the 'grassroots' level of practice.

This is not through any lack of willingness on

the part of novice designers to take on board
new ideas or through lack of abi 1ity to carry
them through but, rather, a lack of clear
direction on the 'why' and 'how' of the task.

Goal 1:

to ensure that floodwater inundation

of residential, commercial/industrial

and
2

important

public

buildings

The aim of ARRB project 391 which has

resulted in this publication has been to

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

bridge

this

gap

and

systematic account of
estimation,
stormwater

system

provide

design

management

full

and

urban drainage flow

procedures

measures

needed

and
by

design teams comprising junior engineers and

techni ca 1 officers super vi sed by experienced

practitioners.

1.4 THE HANDBOOK AND GOALS 1, 2 AND 3

Goals 1 and 2: The Major and Minor Systems

The major/minor drainage system concept which

is expressed in Goals 1 and 2 is not new to
Austra 1ian practice.
Orai nage has been
managed since the 1950 1 5 by many municipalities in primar.v/secondary s.vstems in
which secondary' corresponds to major and
'primary to minor. In these cases the design
of primary (underground network) systems is
completed and simulated, larger-than-design
flows are applied to them to check their
performance in great storm runoff events.
Adjustments are made where necessary to
preclude the possibility of serious injury to
members of the public or serious damage to
propert.v.
State Road Authorities 1 manuals
endorse this approach and recolffilend use of a
rare design f 1ood event such as the 1 once in
50-years flood for checking purposes (Country
Roads Board Victoria 19A2; Main Roads Department, Queensland 1980),
Despite apparent similarities between this
and the master drainage planning approach the
latter requires major flood routes through
urban landscapes to be defined ahead of their
subsidiary minor stormwater networks.
This
confronts the designer with the problem: how
can a major drainage system which takes
account of its subsidiary minor network be
p 1an ned before deta i1 s of that network are
known?
This aspect of Goal I is addressed in
Chapters 8 and 9 where a simple step-by-step
procedure is presented for planning major
flood drainage systems for small, isolated
urban catchments, The procedure is applied to
a hypothetical residential sub-division in the
Adelaide foothills, South Australia,
The
further prob 1em of major f1 ood movement
through
succes i ve,
small ,
slope-aligned
catchments is reviewed and directions for
carrying out this task indicated.
Chapters
10
and
11
present
a
non-iterative,
non-graphical,
step-by-step
minor drainage network design procedure in
which an assumed basic layout 'grows' in
response to hydrological loads and hydraulic
constraints adopted to meet the requirements
of Goal 2.
The outcome in each case is an
arrangement of surface and underground network
components sized to match the storm frequency
selected for design, i.e. 'once in 2-years'
once 1n 5 -years ' , etc.
The procedure is'
applied to a simple sub-area and to a 12ha
hypotheti ca 1 resident i a 1 catchment in the
Adelaide foothills,
'

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Goa13: Stormwater Aelentlon/Delentlon

Measures
Goals I and 2 each have readily identifiable
targets against which the success or failure
of planned or designed drainage networks can
be measured,
Goal 3 has no clearly defined target: it
is achieved in a developed landscape when
balance is struck between:
a)

the social or COI1Yllercial amenity derived

from a particular land-use

b)

the en vi ronmenta 1 amenity provided in a

development by the presence of indigenous
trees and shrubs

c)

the continued structural integrity

components of the built environment.

of

The balance which is sought in Goal 3 is

achieved in a development when its retained
indigenous vegetation is fully supported by a
stormwater retention/detention strategy that
does not cause conflict with the land-use
adopted for the area,
It is apparent that Goa 1 3 cannot be
achieved by means of a step-by-step design
approach of the type used in connection with
Goals 1 and 2. Its importance, however, must
not be underestimated:
decisions made
concerning the retention/detention strategies
used in a development have a significant
bearing on all aspects of the rainfall/runoff
processes which
take place within
that
development.
Chapter 3 of the Handbook
discusses this issue.

1.5 THIS HANDBOOK AND OTHER URBAN DRAINAGE

PUBLICATIONS
The full range of flood estimation analysis
and design methods used in Australia is
strongly influenced by the I nst i tuti on of
Engineers,
Australia
(1987)
publication
'Australian Rainfall and Runoff', Chapter 14
of AR&R is devoted to a broad coverage of the
urban drainage design topic including flow
estimation in urban catchments - small and
large
the hydraulics of urban drainage
systems, performance standards, trunk drainage
including detention and retention basins.
rehabilitation and maintenance, environmental
and socia 1 factors, computer software.
The
presentation is directed towards the needs of
the experienced practitioner.

The procedures described in later chapters

of this Handbook cover part on 1y of the range
addressed in Chapter 14 of AR&R but do so in
greater detai 1.
Users of the t-landbook must
have access to the current edition of Australian Rainfall and Runoff' (I.E. Aust., 1977 or
1987), in order to obtain rainfall intensity
frequency duration data required in the flow
estimatlon procedures.
The main aspects of the procedures presented in both the I.E. Aust. publication and
3

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

this Handbook for

urban catchments
systems to convey
ences are listed

estimating flows in small

and designing major/minor
them are similar. Differin Chapter 14 of AR&R.

Designs for catchments falling outside

the range covered by this document, i.e.
medium to large urban catchments requiring
hydrograph flow estimation procedures, should
be based on appropriate methods recommended
in Chapter 14 of AR&R.
Most State Road Authorities, some specialised construction authorities, e.g. N.S.W,
Housing Commission, as well as the works
departments of a number of councils and municipalities across Australia, have found need

in the past to produce their own manuals

giving details of design requirements, standards, local rainfall data, hydraulic performance data for approved units, etc. Publication of this Handbook and the third edition
of 'Australian Rainfall and Runoff' in 1987
is not expected to end this process and may
very well provide an impetus to it.
Both publications should be seen as resource documents providing best available procedures and data selected from local and
overseas sources, Their interpretation into
a variety of local contexts - municipal,
regional or State-wide- is seen as the valid
next step in the technology transfer process.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Frequency and the major/minor

drainage system design concept
2.1 INTRODUCTION

The problems which stem from attempts to

1 imi t and/or mH i gate the effects of storm
runoff moving out of control in the urban

environment

have

occupied

the

minds

of

drainage designers since the earliest days of

civilisation (Vallentine 1967),
who

The first step which must be taken by all

wish to contribute to this field of

community service is to realise that total

control of all possible levels of flooding and
prevention of all damage and injury is not

feasible given the limited community resources

of manpower and funds normally available for
this purpose, On the other hand, by careful
planning emplo.ving modern procedures. soundly
based data and proven practices, it is
possible to use these resources to design and
install drainage systems which fully contain
all minor storm runoff and which provide a
high level of flood security for the residential,
commercial/industrial
and
public
building zones of our c1 ties and urban
landscapes.'

in the 100 years period, it could be described

as (approximately) the average 'once in 2
years' flood flow.
By a similar analytical
procedure (I.E, Aust. 1987) using data from
the 100 years record, it would also be
possible to assign flow magnitudes to the
average once in 5-years, 10-years, 20-years,
50-years, 100-years and even 200-years floods.
The relatively frequent floods have small
magnitudes: the rare floods correspond to
1arge flows.
If the flow control structure referred to
above had been installed at the beginning of
the 100 year period and if the drainage
channel and structure had been designed to
(just) convey a flow equal to the average
2-year flood magnitude determined above, then
spillage from the drain and inundation of
adjacent land would have occurred on 49
occasions in the 100 years period. i.e. once
in every 2 years ( approxi rna te 1y and on
average).
Similar situations in terms of
drain conveyance and inundation could be
associated with the other flood frequencies
1 is ted,

Before applying these procedures, data and

practices to any practical drainage task, it

is essential

that the designer possesses a

clear picture of the wa.v in which his or her

scheme will re 1ate to community needs, what
call it can reasonably make on available
resources of finance to implement and maintain
and how it will merge with and function within
the urban complex.
The following Sections are devoted to a
discussion of these issues.

2.2 FLOOD CLASSIFICATION

Average Recurrence lnlerval, ARI

If a long period flood record - say 100 years
- were available for a gauging station at the
site of a proposed control structure in a
drainage channel and an examination of that
record were conducted, it would reveal that a
few ver.v 'large' floods and a great number of
'small' floods had occurred in the 100 years
period.

Considering the 50th ranked flood in the

set, having been equalled or exceeded 50 times
ARAB SR 34, 1986

The levels of flood control and security

provided for the community, generally, or for
a particular component of a flood-prone urban
environment are usually expressed by drainage
engineers in the terms outlined above. Thus a
building or installation of strategic importance e.g. a hospital, might be located above
the l eve 1 reached by the 'average once in 200
years' or even rarer flood.
Similarly, a
community resource such as a sports field or
recreation reserve, because of its nature and
function may be protected against inundation
up to the level of the 'average once in 2
years flood' only,
The time periods mentioned in these two
illustrations are referred to in the literature of Engineering Hydrology as 'average
return periods or 'Average Recurrence Intervals', ARI, and are employed in Australian
practice to cover average recurrence periods
of 100-years or less, The terminology 'Annual
Exceedance Probabi 1ity' , AEP, is app 1i ed to
flood magnitudes which recur 1ess frequently
than once in every 100 years (Rowbottom et al
1986), Thus, the hospital example given above
would be associated with AEP of 'I in 200' or
perhaps 'I in 500'.
5

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Four Flood Classes
These concepts of flood frequency are used to
classify floods into four broad categories:
a)
b)
c)
.d)

minor stormwater flows

major floods
rare floods
extreme floods

A property, open space domain or roadway

is subject to minor stormwater flooding (also
called 'nuisance flooding') if the flow
carrying capacity of an adjacent or nearby
stormwater drain or roadside drainage channel
is frequently exceeded 1 eadi ng to overflow
across property boundaries and footpaths and
into roadway traffic lanes, The consequences

of minor stormwater flows moving out of

control in the urban landscape are. primarily,
inconvenience for members of the public and a
sharp increase in the rate of minor traffic

accidents.
The Australian community, in
general, expects such flows to be fully
controlled and overflow to occur from their
drainage channels at ARI's of not less than
two or three years,
A rare flood is a flood of great magnitude
therefore infrequent occurrence which
wi 11, if out of control, inundate premises
used by members of the genera 1 pub 1ic either
privately or corporately causing indoor damage
to residential dwellings, work premises and
buildings set aside for education, entertainment, recreation and other community act i vities.
The consequences of an uncontrolled
rare flood can be serious injury, mental
trauma and possibly death to those who suffer
its full impact as well as severe financial
loss to householders and to commercial/
industrial corporations for not only damage to
buildings, equipment and stock, but also lost
income and the cost of clean-up operations.
Reimbursement
for
these
loses
cannot,
normally, be recouped from insurance, as rare
floods are considered to be 1 acts of God'
which invalidate any claim. It is unfeasible
to control floods of rare magnitude but their
effects can be mitigated by ensuring that
floors of important premises and buildings are
placed out of flood reach and that flow depths
and velocities are held below certain adopted
limits.
Australian practice, generally,
recognises floods of ARI
50-years or
100-years as 'rare' flood events.
and

A major flood is a flood whose magnitude

falls between the limits adopted for minor
stormwater flow control on the one hand and
rare flood mitigation on the other,
The
consequences of a major flood in a wellplanned and well-maintained urban drainage
scheme may therefore be some damage to outdoor
property and installations, some traffic
ace idents, short-term disrupt ion of community
activities and of some services and, possibly,
a sizeable 'clean-up' bill.
There should be
no floor-level
inundation of residential,
commercial/industrial
or
important public
buildings and depth/velocity conditions in all
open channels should be below those likely to
result in serious injury to pedestrians or
serious damage to motor vehicles.

An extreee flood is a flood whose

magnitude exceeds the 1i mit adopted for
purposes of rare flood mitigation and, therefore, represents a potential for serious
injury, menta 1 trauma and death as well as
severe financial loss to wide sections of the
co/M\Uni ty.
Such an event is, therefore, a
community emergency calling for an immediate
and effective response from civil defence
authorities backed by the continued supply of
conmunity essential services
hospitals,
electric power, gas, water and wastewater
treatment plants. A level of flood security
higher than that provided for the general
community should therefore be incorporated
into the planning and locating of all
emergency service buildings and installations.
Before leaving this Section, attention is
drawn to the term 'stormwater' which is used
to decribe runoff from minor storms. The
terms 1 flood' or 'floodwater' are employed,
generally, in the context of greater-thanminor storm events.

Design Average Recurrence lnlerval

(Design ARI)
It is clear from these descriptions that the
limits which define the various flood
are arbitrary and fixed in a particular place
at a particular time by perceived community
expectations, current 'good practice' National
or State legislation, local government regulations or the requirements of a funding
authority,

cl""'

Frequency
limits
or
design
average
recurrence intervals (design ARI's) such as
those which place a ceiling on minor stormwater flows or define rare floods, are therefore flexible and may vary across land-use
categories even within flood classes,
Table
2.1 illustrates this for the case of a typical
urban community within whose boundaries landuse varies from sport and recreation areas to
hospitals
and
other community emergency
installations.
The community is located
outside the limits of possible mainstream
(river) flooding,

In each priority -A, Band C - listed

components would survive, without inundation,
floods of magnitude equa 1 to or smaller than
those identified in the Design Flood Frequency
column. They would sustain significant damage
in greater floods.
The task of planning/designing a single
drainage system which achieves a complex set
of storm runoff management goals such as
implied in Table 2.1 can be accomplished by
applying the major/minor flood management
concept.

2.3 THE MAJOR/MINOR FLOOD MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

An urban storm runoff management system which
has been p1an ned in accordance with the
major/minor concept may be described as a
'system within a system' for it comprises two
distinct but conjunctively-acting drainage
networks (Jones 1967):

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 2.1
A LANDUSE/FLOOD FREQUENCY HIERARCHY FOR AN URBAN COMMUNITY
Flood
Security
Levels

Classification

Design

Description of Components

Flood

Frequency
Strategic I

Floor levels of hospitals, Civil Defence HQ

Strategic II

Floor levels of police, ambulance and fire

stations: water and wastewater centres: electric
power and gas supply stations

Floor levels of convalescent homes and community

buildings which could operate as dormitory centres
in great flood events
Oormftory 1
Dormitory 11

Floor levels of high density residential

Floor levels of low-medium density residential

P/C/1* I

Floor levels of essential food, pharmaceutical,

retail and department stores; centres employing
large labour force: community administration and
education centres: centres for storage of rare
artifacts: venues for entertainment, dining or
popular indoor sports

Design AEP

= 1 in 500

Design AEP
=

1 in200

Design ARI
"" 100 years

P/C/1* II

Floor levels of factories and outlets supplying

non-essential items: premises of businesses and
institutions which involve small numbers of people; Uesign ARI
premises of sport or community activities in"" 50 years
frequently used

Open space I

Grounds of all units belonging to priority A above;

outdoor areas where rare artifacts are displayed
or stored
Grounds of all units belonging to priority B

3-5 years

Other open space areas including general parks and

outdoor sport and recreation areas

1-3

Open space I I
Open space III

Design ARI
= 5-10 years

ye~~

*Public/Commercial/Industrial

Major drainage system:

the arrange...,nt of
pavements,
roadway
reserves,
open space
floodway channels, detention basins I lagoons.
etc. planned to convey to disposal a design
rare flood of specified frequency (see Goal 1,
Section 1.3). The consequences of a flood of
magnitude equal to or less than the design
rare flood are identical to those given in the
major flood classification in Section 2.2.
Minor drainage system:
the arrangement of
soakage wells I
kerbs 1 gutters~
roadside
channels~
swales, sumps~ inlets and underground pipes and junction pits designed to
fully contain and convey to disposal a design
minor stormwater flow of specified frequency
(see Goal 2, Section 1.3),
A schematic
representation
of
the
relationship between the major and minor
systems and floor levels of buildings in an
urban landscape is presented in Fig. 2.1 (a
'freeboard' of 0.3m is suggested in I.E. Aust.
1987),
The Flood Security Levels listed in
Table 2.1 further illustrate the major/ minor
flood management concept in operation. Level C
enc001passes the components which are secure
from flooding in minor or nuisance stormwater
flow events and Level B, those protected from
serious damage in major floods,
Level A
represents an above-major standard of flood
security provided for components of strategic
importance to the community in the event of
extreme or catastrophic flooding.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

It is clear from these representations and

service descriptions that the planning of a
major system is likely to pose more difficult
problems of 'fit', given the great flows
involved, than are likely to be encountered in
the design of its nested minor system.
Also, the initial planning of a major system,
including consideration of trial flood routes,
occupies much less computation time and effort
than does the preparation of even a 1 first
approximation minor system network.
For these reasons a major-then-minor
design
sequence
is
recommended
and
is
reflected in the order and detai 1s of
procedures set out in 1 ater chapters of this
Handbook,
Only those aspects of major/minor
design concerned with benefits~ costs and
design ARI 1 s are addressed in the remaining
sections of this chapter.

Design Rare flood Stage

Major System l
Freeboard to
floor level
_
Underground network carrying
@--bulk of design nuisance
slormwater flow (Minor System)
Fig. 2.1 -Major and minor drainage systems in the urban
landscape

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

1. t

V (.~r-~~

J~

I/
1-----

I \l\/ind~s\ria~

!~m"'

local custom or on partial socio-economic

assessments based on anticipated effects of
surcharging until
further information is
available',

I I I

.
.
curve 1 - restdenhal

~------

~ 1--

ber

'

U sp ent

valle for

0
t;

10 0

10

Oesign average recurrence interval !years) - - Fig. 2.2- Cost/frequency relationships for two categories of
urban development

2.4 TOWARDS DESIGN ARI: THE WATER RESOURCES

APPROACH

The conventional method used in the water

resources field to select design ARI's is
benefit/cost analysis (Linsley and Franzini
1g79: I.E. Aust. 1g77 and 1g87) which

requires,

as

part

of

its

data

base,

compilation of likely benefits.

These are
1i sted for major systems and minor systems in
Table2,2,
TABLE 2.2: COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF MAJOR OR
MINOR SYSTEMS
MAJOR SYSTEM ONLY

A similar conclusion may be drawn from the

comprehensive investigation of urban drainage
systems, both major and minor, carried out by
Grigg et al (1g76), who stress that the
benefit/cost outcome in a particular case is
but one of the many inputs required by the
decision-making process. Other inputs include
unquantifiable
social
and
environmental
benefits, fund availability and political
pressure.
One particularly frustrating (for the
designer) social aspect of the problem is
'community view' of the importance of flood
control and mitigation works relative to other
services. This can be capricious and strongly
influenced by events - or, perhaps, 1ack of
events -of the recent past,
Should it even be possible to complete all
required ana lyses and surveys and reach
concensus among the interested parties
community representatives, planners, en vi ronmentalists, politicians as well as engirteers in one place at one time, it would be,
strictly, inappropriate to translate the
resulting design ARI findings to what might
appear to be similar developments and systems
e 1sewhere.

MINOR SYSTEM ONLY

Increased sense of
security
Improved aesthetics &
recreational benefits
1. Enhanced land values
Reduced injury & loss
of 1i fe
Reduced disruption of
normal community
activlties
Reduced loss of community services
(health, water, power
and gas, transportation, communications,
etc).
Reduced emergency services and relief costs
Reduced damage and
liabillty costs
Reduced production
time and sales losses
Reduced clean-up costs)

Improved aesthetics
Reduced minor traffic
accidents
Reduced health risks
linked with poor drain-

age (mosquitoes, flies,

etc,}
Reduced inconvenience
in performing day-today act lvit ies
Reduced roadway maintenance

On the other hand, it is quite impractical

to expect this type of enquiry to be performed
as part of every urban drainage design
programme.
This is particularly so in the
case of small projects carried out in the
smaller municipalities,
The larger local
government authorities should therefore be
encouraged to conduct such studies and
processes in typical classes of development,
at least occasionally, and publish their
findings for the benefit of all,
Despite these obstacles and the complexities of the question which has been addressed
in this section, the urban drainage planner/
designer must at some stage in his or her
project adopt design ARI's for the system as a
whole or for individual segments of it. Some
more positive suggestions as to how this may
be done are offered in the following sections.
2.5 DESIGN ARI- MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Polin and Cordery (1g7g) applied benefit/

cost analysis to determine design ARI for a
culvert on a minor waterway. Those who have
applied this approach to urban drainage
problems of broader scope have been frustrated, finally, by the high intangible benefits
content of their problems, leading to inconclusive and unsatisfactory outcomes in most
cases, O'Loughlin and Avery (1g8Q), reporting
a study of two Campbelltown, NSW, suburban
minor systems, concluded that it is 'impractical to devise a methodology for determining
design average recurrence i nterva 1s from
economic and sociological factors such as that
developed by Polin and Cordery for culvert
design floods, Designers will have to rely on

Determination of design ARI 's for major

systems following the water resources approach
referred to in Section 2,4 has been generally
avoided in developed nations by their adoption
- nationally in some, regionally in others of a common level of flood security in the
face of great floods.
This is the ARI =
100-years flood, defined in the U.S. National
Flood Insurance Act of 1g68 as ',,,the minimum
level of flooding to be used by a community in
its flood- plain management regulations,'
Federal,
State and local
government
authorities in Australia might be described as
moving slowly in the same direction with
respect to 'mainstream' flooding (Victoria,

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Flood Plain Management Act 1982; Australian
Water Resources Counci I 1985),
However,
damage to premises as a result of uncontrolled
urban storm runoff is not included in this
category of flooding.
Some argue that the entry of rna i nstream
floodwater to a dwelling is likely to be far
more damaging than inundation by urban runoff
and, hence, that lower standards of protection
should be accepted in the wholly urban
landscape.
Their case rests on the greater
uncertainty which is associated with flood
(level) prediction for rivers than for urban
runoff flows and, also, that river-derived
floodwaters are likely to stay longer.
Those who oppose such a distinction can
point to the lack of conscious flood-proofing
evident in much contemporary urban building
practice e.g. slab-on-ground construction,

and, concerning duration of inundation, floor

level damage is virtually independent of the
time parameter.
Little case can therefore be made for
distinguishing between the flood security
considerations presently afforded floodplain
properties and those situated beside roadway
reserves and other urban 1andscape flood
routes which may become, in the aftermath of
major stonn events, torrents of fast~moving,
pollution-carrying flow.
The devastation
which occurred in the Sydney storms of
November 1984 (Cameron McNamara 1985) and
August 1986 bear witness to this.
The design AR I recommended for the
planning of major storm drainage systems by
this Handbook and considered to be appropriate
in the third edition of AR&R (I.E. Aust. 1987)
is the 100-years level. Variation from this
standard should only occur in a particular

case upon the rec001mendation of a full water

resources enquiry.
2.6 DESIGN ARI- MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Of the five benefits I i sted under minor
systems in Table 2.2, only one - 'reduced

roadway maintenance'
is quantifiable in
engineering terms: the others are either
unmeasurable, unquantifiable or both.

It is

therefore not surprising to discover that even

greater uncertainty surrounds the question of
ARI

and

minor

system

design

encountered with major drainage

Unlike their major counterparts,

than

is

sys terns.
however,

flood security levels applicable to minor

systems are never 1 i kely to be the subject of
national or State legislative processes.
Nevertheless, it is common for State Road
Authorities responsible for the oversight of
drainage cost-sharing schemes, as well as
1oca 1 government bodies, to provide such
advice (MRO, Queensland 1980).
Designers
should not be dismayed to discover apparent
inconsistencies and even conflict in design
ARI advice issued by different authorities as
it represents the outcome, in each case, of
the complex technical, social, environmental,
poI it ica 1 and funding judgements made by those
authorities.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

Engineering input is important, however,

and may take one or more of the following
forms:
lnlllal Cost and Design ARI
The procedure for designing minor systems
presented in Chapter ID inc 1udes provision
(STEP lOA) for a range of approximate network
designs to be costed, each network layout
corresponding to a nominated design ARI.
In
the case of residential catchments, design ARI
= 0, I, 2, 5 and ID years are used; design ARI
= 0, 2, 5, 10 and 20 years are recommended for
commercial/industrial catchments.
With these data a graph of network initial
cost can be drawn.
This is illustrated for
the case of a 12 ha hypothetical residential
sub-division in the Adelaide foothills, South
Australia, in Fig. 2.2 curve I. Fig. 2.2
curve 2 represents the outcome for a typica I
commercial/industrial development.
This type of representation is valuable
input to the decision-making process. It
indicates, in the case of curve 1, that 'best
value for$ spent' is obtained when design ARI
in the range 2-years to 4-years is used, i.e,
where the cost/ARI curve is fairly 'flat'.
A display of even greater value to the
would be one which converts
initial cost and ongoing maintenance into
'present worth of costs' format (Grigg et al
1976),

decision~maker

lnlllal Cost/Malnlenance and Design ARI

A report into engineering standards used for a
of
residential
land
development
range
components, including stormwater drainage, was
prepared in 1984 for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction by Scott and
The general aim of the study
Furphy (1984).
was ' .. to present a case ... for the introduction of more cost appropriate alternatives
for engineering requirements based upon
performance standards that are realistic,
achievable and encourage innovation. 1
The
study applied four standards of development to
a hypothetical subdivision of 77 residential
allotments and compared their cost/maintenance
performance over a 20-year time span. Stormwater was managed in a major/minor drainage
system whose base standard minor system used
swales designed for ARI = I year.
The report concludes that the potential
maintenance cost savings associated with high
engineering standards 1 are so m1nor 1n
relation to the heavy capital cost burden
incurred that cost effectiveness improves
consistently as the base standard regime is
approached. 1
In a reference to the cost/
maintenance aspect of the base standard minor
drainage system, it states that 'the high cost
of maintaining swale drains means that this
technique is somewhat less efficient than
traditional kerbing. However, this relatively
poor performance is more than offset by
savings in underground drainage services and
maintenance thereof achieved by swa les. 1

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

If cost considerations alone are to
determine design ARI for the minor component
of a major/minor residential area drainage
system, then available evidence points to low
values of design ARI being the most costeffective,

Inconvenience and Suggesled Design ARI

The types of engineering ana lyses described
above, being totally cost-oriented, tell us
how cheaply we can 'buy' and maintain a minor
drainage system and what is the 'best buy' for
our drainage dollar. But they tell us nothing
about minor drainage system inconvenience
reduction and the relationship of this
quantity to design ARI.
To
explore
this,
consider
the
'inconvenience' suffered when a member of the
public is discouraged from crossing a street
because there is (nuisance) stormwater moving
in the roadside channel. The duration of this
inconvenience cannot be long in the types of
urban catchments which fall within the scope
of this Handbook - 10 minutes, perhaps 20
minutes at most, If the reason for making the
crossing - probably in heavy rain - is one of
extreme urgency then the presence of perhaps
100 mm depth of water near the gutter is
unlikely to deter our subject as the cover
photograph of this document demonstrates,
Alternatively, a journey of not more than 60 m
will bring him or her to a location where flow
'spread' is little more than gutter width,
Now the spread of flow which has
inconvenienced our subject results from
interaction between three main parameters (i )

the magnitude of the stormburst which

caused the runoff,

( i i ) the ARI adopted by the designer for the

street drainage system, and,
(i i i )

the

adopted

design

maximum

spread

criterion.
There is no universal practice concerning

item (iii): design maximum spreads specified

by Austral ian authorities include 'half lane
width', 2.5 m, 'shoulder plus 2.0 m', etc.
The variation between these practices is

around 10 per cent.

There is, of course, no universal practice
concerning minor system design ARI [item (ii)
above] and the different design ARI's which
are presently used yield flow spreads, in
given categories of development, which also
range up to . 10 per cent.

The process of selecting a design AR1

should therefore not be conducted in isolation
but should be paired with the adoption of an
appropriate maximum spread criterion.
There is a final aspect of design ARI
selection which must be recognised, involving
the priorities of urban drainage compared with
other calls on the community purse.
10

It is certainly possible, in engineering

terms, to totally remove inconvenience as the
immediate prospect of our kerb-side subject by
providing for his or her conveyance across the
street dry-shod. The standard of convenience
provided in this event would be regarded as
'very high' and its cost could be prodigious,
Under normal circumstances it would also be
totally unwarranted. The use of high values
of design ARI for minor drainage systems
should be questioned on the same ground.
So where does the designer draw the line
between over- i ndu 1gence in the provision of
convenience and undersupply to the point where
quality of life in the urban landscape is
degraded?
There is no clear-cut answer to
this question.
The change in emphasis which has occurred
in urban drainage planning with the introduction of the major/minor concept (see
Section 2,3) has tended to go hand-in-hand
with a lowering in the standard of convenience
provided by minor drainage systems (Jones
In what might appear to be a 'trade
1971),
off' that stems from the new goals of urban
drainage design, this reduced convenience is
balanced by a primary concern for increased
security against indoor flooding of dwellings,
business
premises and
important
public
buildings.
A table of design ARI values which reflect
this philosophy is presented in Table 2.3.
They are suggested for use in minor drainage
system components and networks ONLY where
these
are
integrated
within
correctly
planned/designed major systems.

TABLE 2.3
SUGGESTED MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN ARI

Category of Development

Design ARI

Low-medium density residental

<15 residences per ha *

1-3 years

High density residential

~15 residences per ha

3-5 years

Unit and townhouse developments

5 years

Commercial/industrial developments
city centres
suburban centres

10 years
5 years

Open space, recreational areas

1-2 years

*residential density is based on allotment area

only, i.e. excludes roadway reserves, community
buildings, open space domains, etc.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

3
Retention, detention and retardation
measures in urban catchments

3.1 THE NATURAL CATCHMENT AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

In its wild state, the natural catchment or

drainage basin is a complex environment in
which a range of fauna, flora, geological
changes and the natural processes of growth
and decay have established balance.
The
harmony which exists is not, typically,
fragile for it can withstand the ravages of
bushfires and floods and can - given time regenerate itself and restore its natural
equilibrium.

The main properties and characteristics of

a forested catchment which relate to the
changes wrought by later urban development
are:
a)

natural drainage system

The system of

drainage paths, creeks and streams present

in a natural drainage basin is well
matched to the rainfall/runoff processes
operating in that basin. Generally, less
than 20% of storm rainfall on a natural
catchment is discharged from it as surface
runoff. This discharge causes a minimum
of scour and erosion and, consequently,
carries a relatively low sediment load; it
is free of catchment-originating chemical
pollutants.
b)

water retained by catchment The surface

irregularities
and
vegetation
cover

present in the forested catchment are

responsible for retaining and retarding
overland movement of surface runoff
thereby increasing the potential
for
infiltation. The major portion of water
so absorbed is taken up by the roots of

indigenous trees and shrubs and eventually

transpires to the atmosphere or evaporates
from the surface in hot weather. In the
process,
seasonal
variation
in soil
moisture
can
lead
to
significant
volumetric
changes
(expansion
and
contrdction) in reactive soils.
c)

groundwater replenishment and dry weather

flow That part of the rainfall input
which does not leave the catchment as
direct surface runoff nor is evaporated
from it, passes to groundwater storage
and/or appears as dry weather flow in
streams. These processes provide groundwater reserves to support trees and shrubs
in the catchment particularly in time of

ARRB SR 34, 1986

drought and also provide dry weather flow

upon which the stream ecosystem depends,
The first impact of development upon such
a balanced system is usually the clearing of
1and for agriculture. This leads to a change
in the type of vegetation cover, e.g. from
forest to grassland or crop, and slightly
increased flood peak flows with attendant
increased scour and erosion. Pollution loads
- fertilisers, pesticides, etc. - originating
in the catchment and carried by streams may be
high depending on the type of agricultural
activity involved,
In the next phase of development - the
conversion of agricultural land to typical
urban landscape -much of the land is covered
by
a
substantially
impervious
surfaCe
interconnected by pipes and formal drainage
channels ,
These s true tures convert the bu 1k
of storm rainfall input to runoff which is
collected and which moves rapidly through and
beyond the catchment.

Where extensive urban development of a

va 11 ey has occurred without sound drainage
planning, riparian property owners in the
lower reaches of the valley are likely to
experience frequent inundation by floodwaters
carrying high si It loads and high concentrations of coliform, heavy metal and petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Furthermore, because of rapid
removal of stormwater from the urban landscape
and consequent limited infiltration occurring
during runoff events, supplementary watering
is conmonly undertaken to compensate for low
soil moisture levels.
The streams and
waterways of the valley are likely to dry up
completely during the sunmer months and
members of the (stream) biotic conmunities
which require year-round flow for their
survival will vanish (Karr and Schlosser
1978).
It is interesting to note that of the
three main environmental damages which follow
poor drainage planning, only the first
frequent lowland flooding by silt-laden,
polluted water - has impinged on the public
consciousness.
The loss of potential infiltration and of dry-weather flow in streams
appear to be matters about which the public at
large is largely either unaware or unconcerned
or, perhaps, both.
11

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

It is not surpr1s1ng, therefore, that
urban drainage design practice of the past has
tended to concentrate on a perceived need to
remove runoff as completely and as quickly as
possible.
This 'need' manifested itself in
networks of smooth, interconnected collector
channels within developed catchments and in
large, lined channels downstream.
The tragic loss of 1 i fe in the Woden
Valley (A.C. T.) flood of January 1971, when
seven people were swept to their deaths in a
flooded stormwater drain, led to a questioning
of
the
'remove
runoff'
philosophy
in
Australia.
Leading practitioners and local
government
authorities
now
advocate
an
approach to urban drainage practice which can
be described as a 'hold the water where it
falls' philosophy. In this, every opportunity
to retain storm runoff and delay its movement
from the catchment is explored in harmony with
acceptable levels of flood security (Poertner
1973: Tourbier and Westmacott 1980).
The broad aims of this approach as they
relate to an urban development are:

1.

to retain within the catchment as much

storm runoff as can be tolerated having
regard for other community needs such as
the struc tu ra 1 integrity of bu i ld i ng
foundations in unstable soil areas:

2.

to so manage stormwater excess flows

within the catchment that minor floods are
fully controlled and the effects of major
and rare floods mitigated: and,

3.

to regulate outflow from the catchment to

levels which approximate those of its
pre-developed state.

The measures which the drainage designer

can employ to achieve these aims may be classified broadly as retention, detention and
retardation systems (after Johnson and Putt
1977):
Retention refers to procedures and schemes
whereby stormwater is held for considerable
periods causing water to continue in the
hydrologic cycle via infiltration, percolation, evapotranspiration and not via direct

discharge to watercourses;
Detention refers to the holding of runoff for
short time periods to reduce peak flow rates
and then later releasing it into natural or
artificial watercourses to continue in the
hydrologic cycle.
The volume of surface
runoff involved in this process is relatively
unchanged;

Retardation is achieved when flow moving to

the entry point of an underground drainage
network passes along a channel
of low
hydraulic efficiency.
Retardation systems
which are most effective usually combine this
characteristic with those of retention and
detention.
3.2 TERMINAL RETENTION MEASURES

a)

12

Porous paving British research has shown

that at least 30 per cent infiltration

'1 oss' can be expected with second grade

pavements (some residential streets, car
parks, etc.) constructed on porous soils
(Makin and Kidd 1979: Kidd and Lowing
1979). Numerous materials and open space
surface finishes are available which can
abstract upwards of 50 per cent of
rainfall applied to them (van Dam and van
These include open grade
de Ven 1984).
bituminous concrete, interlocking paving
blocks - ungrounted and normally laid on
sand beds
paving slabs, similarly
constructed, and precast lattice paving
which presents a block-reinforced grass
surface to incident rainfall. In general,
suppliers recommend use of these paving
types only on soi 1s which are porous and
stable (Murphy et a 1 1981).
b)

Soakage wells and sumps Where soils are

very porous and stable and the saturated
groundwater zone at least 2m below natural
surface,
significant
quantities
of
stormwater runoff can be collected and
slowly transferred to the water table by
way of open soakage wells and sumps. The
technology leading to this approach has
reached an advanced stage in Long Island,
New York (Aranson and Pri 11 1977) and has
been successfully applied
in
Perth,
Western Australia, where much of the
terrain is sandy, similar to that of Long
Island.

Soak we 11 s and sumps are widely used

in Perth to store runoff from domestic or
industrial roofs, carparks and sections of
main roads.
Installations vary in type and
size from pipe-walled pits (perforated pipes,
diameter 1 m) used in domestic situations to
open pits or 'sumps', e.g. 0.25 ha x 2m deep
used for large industrial sites and carparks.

For

these

retention

measures

to

be

successful, site hydraulic conductivity, Kh'

should be greater than 5 x 10-5 m/s.
(Foro
field measurement of hydraulic conductivity,
Kh' see Jonasson 1984a.)
The Main Roads Department of Western
Australia operates about 30 sumps located at
interdunal low points beside main roads where
they receive runoff piped from roadway surface
drainage collection systems. Brooks and Cocks
(1983) have developed a method for sizing
sumps which has been validated by observations
made of operating installations in Western
Austra I ia.
The method appears to have wide
application in the sandy terrain, low rainfall
areas of South Australia,
Victoria and
Tasmania where significant losses to evaporation - ignored by Brooks and Cocks - can also
be expected.
Where soakage wells and sumps are employed

to control mlnor stormwater runoff in elements

and sub-areas of a developed landscape, they
should be sized to accept the entire runoff

generated in those components in storms of

design AR I equa I to that adopted for the
general minor drainage system of which they
form a part. Sump retention volumes should be
based on storms of long duration e.g. two or
more days. It follows that catchment elements

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

and sub-areas whose minor flows are so

retained should be excluded from the defined
catchment contributing to the genera 1 minor
system network.

or seepage beds (see below),

Roof
stormwater, temporarily retained by these
structures,
is
released
slowly
to
groundwater or to maintain soil moisture.

Appropriate spill provisions must be

incorporated into all sumps which receive
runoff from multi-allotment catchments and
sub-divisions. Sump spillways can be expected
to operate in all major, rare and extreme
storm events in such catchments,

The following design constraints should be

observed in planning on-site retention/
overflow we 11 s:
(i)
site soil hydraulic conductivity, Kh,
not less than 3 X 10" 6 m/s. This limn
corresponds to the Kh of very fine
sands,

The main disadvantages of the installations described here are the area which must
be set aside for their use, their decreased
performance as a result of clogging by fine
material, oil, plastic bags, etc, transported
in runoff and their role as breeding places
for mosquitoes. Those experienced in the use
of these installations stress the need for
regular, e.g. annual, maintenance.

( i i ) groundwater 1eve 1
of well

1.0 m below bottom

(iii ) well to be sited

5 m from foundation
of nearest building
( i v)

Attractive
solutions
to
stormwater
management problems can result from the
diversion of runoff to naturally occurring or
man-made 1 Sumps 1 such as limestone caverns and
abandoned gravel pits where aquifer recharge

reconmended we 11 volumes -Table3.1

TABLE 3.1
STORMWATER RETENTION/OVERFLOW WELLS:
VOLUME PER 100m 2 OF ROOF AREA DRAINED

and evaporation processes operdte to return

stored runoff to the hydrologic cycle,

MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM

DESIGN AR I

LOCATION
3.3 NON-TERMINAL RETENTION MEASURES

a)

significant

portion

of

stormwater drainage ffom

roof or rainwater tank

2.90 m3

2. 70 m3 2.40 m'

Australia *
Intermediate
Australia
Southern
Australia *

roof

runoff before overflowing to the formal

minor drainage system or to Dutch drains

5-years 2-years

Northern

Retention/overflow wells Where soils are

less porous than the limit advised for
soakage wells and sumps in Section 3,2,
retention/overflow wells of the type
illustrated in Fig. 3,1 may be used,
These wells are sized (see Table 3,1) to
retain

10-years

see Section 5.3

1.10 m'

D. 90 m' 0,7D m'

see Figure 5.2

fora ted concrete pipe, minimum diameter

m with fitted cover,100mm above
natural surface

overflow only

overflow to roadside
channel,rear of allotment
drain,seepage trench etc,

Laro,vel collar

infernal

width- 300 mm.

vet

bed 300 mm deep

1. For well volume and site constraints

see Section 3.3

2. Gravel- 20 mm nominal size

Fig. 3.1 -On-site retention/overflow welt

ARRB SR 34, 1986

13

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Stormwater from roof or
overfloW' from welt or
seepage

Gutter grating

bed.
Rear Fence

~rface
with
stormwater drainage

Flow

network
DUTCH DRAIN-Rear of Allotment Arrangement

Stormwater from
roof or overflow
from welt or seepage
bed.

DUTCH DRAIN- Roadside

SEEPAGE

NOTES

screenings- 300mm. deep

Swale Arrangement

Overflo'N to roadside channel

or rear of allotment drain

BED

1 Geotextile fabric at all gravel/soil interfaces

2 Gravel- 20mm. nominal size

3 Seepage bed volume- 3xvolume from Table 31

Fig. 3.2 ~Dutch drains and seepage beds- suggested arrangements

b)

Dutch (or French) drains and seepage beds

These operate along simllar lines to the
open wells and sumps described in Section
3.2 but differ from them in the following
respects:
(i )

they are generally non -termi na 1 ,

i.e. they convey flow as well as
promote its infiltration;

(ii)

the excavated storage volume

back-filled with crushed rock
gravel, iomm nominal size;

is
or

{iii) the drain or bed usually contains a

line of perforated pipe;

14

{iv)

there is provision for outflow of

minor storm drainage to the formal
drainage collection system;

{v)

the gravel backfill

is usually
topped with paving or grass.

A layer of graded filter or geotextile

material should be placed at all gravel/
soil interfaces {see Figs. 3.1 and 3,2).
Gravel-filled drains and beds are less
prone to clogging than open sumps but are
virtually impossible to clean.
For this
reason it is advisable that they receive only
roof stormwater or filtered runoff from
pervious and/or ground-level paved areas.
Because of the presence of backfilling,
the volume required for a Dutch drain or
seepage bed, in a given situation, is about
three times that required for a corresponding
open well or sump.
The plan area is,
correspondingly, greater by a factor of 2-3.
The disadvantage of this significantly greater
area is offset by the fact that, with
covering~ the area does not represent a total
loss to developemnt (see Fig. 3.2),
ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

The perforated pipeline usually included
is not part of an associated underground
network: its role ls, primarily, to ensure an
even distribution of stored stormwater along
the length of the trench or bed,
Nevertheless, these installations may properly be
regarded as extensions of the formal underground collection system to which they are
linked at their points of outflow.
Seepage trenches and beds, backfilled in
the manner described here, are employed in
Japan, Sweden and West Germany with soils
ranging from medium sands to loamy sandl
(hydraulic conductivity, Kh., range 5 x 10"
m/s to 5 x 106 m/s); rairitall is similar to
that experienced in Southern AustralIa (see
Fig. 5,2). See Wanlelista 1979; Ichikawa and
Yamamoto 1984; Jonasson 1984 (a and b);
Holmstrand 1984; Sieker 1984.
c)

b)

Rainwater tanks
Although any available
storage in urban rainwater tanks causes a
reduction in the runoff passing to drainage networks from individual allotments,
the uncertainty which must necessarily be
associated with this reduction disqualifies it as a dependable component of
stormwater drainage planning. The role of
the rainwater tank is, therefore, almost
totally linked to conservation:
it
enables the householder to use part of a
natural resource provided directly to him
and reduces his dependence on water
transferred from catchments outside his
own.

c)

'Microponding'
The temporary ponding of
stormwater on individual allotments and
subdivisions - residential or commercial/
industrial - is a detention measure which
has, to date, found limited application in
Australia, Some excel! ent local contri butions to this aspect of stormwater management have, however, been made by Nicholas
and Cooper (1984), Boenisch (1984) and
Phillips (1985), It is an option which,
given the right soil and topography,
should not be overlooked in the planning
of sub-divisions.
The hydraulic principles upon which micropondlng is based are
the same of those of 'macroponding (see
below): the difference is a matter of
scale.
Catchment elements suitable for
development as microponds are carparks,
sports fields, open space recreational
reserves, etc.

d)

Off-line storage This category of storage

may be added to an underground network to
remedy
system overload
in,
usually,
confined
situations
where
downstream
capacity is signi ficantl.Y less than that
required to carry upstream-generated flow.
By providing sufficient temporary off-line
storage to accommodate a major portion of
this flow, together with flow control from
storage
matched
to
the
downstream
capacity, it is possible to utilise an
existing network and thus avoid the
expense of system enlargement or duplication.

Off-stream porous storages

It is sometimes possible to exploit the advantages
of both retention and detention by
diverting portion of the flood flow
passing along a natural channel into
off-stream storage which may be a nature-

formed reservoir such as an old meander or

it may be man-made.

Where the storage is

1n porous bed rna teria 1 - common in such

situations - then floodwater disposal in

the manner described for 'sumps' in the

previous section will follow.

must

incorporate provision

lts design

for outflow

control, e.g. spillways, etc.

These
characteristics qualify off-stream porous
storages for inclusion among retention/
detention systems (see Fig. 3,3).

~
Intake ..__.___/

Control
Structure

Retention

Basin

'0:

Emergency

Spillway

Fig. 3.3- Schematic layout of an off-stream storage basin

(after Environment Canada, 1980b)

3.4 DETENTION MEASURES

a)

Roof storage

The use of -roof area for

temporary storage and slow release of

rainwater is well known overseas but rare
in Australian experience.
Main application
is
with
flat-roof
commercial
buildings and multi -storey car parks
which, normally, impose severe runoff
loads on city stormwater drainage systems.
Using roof storage, it is possible to
convert major or rare storm rainfall on a
building to minor level outflow to the
connected underground network,
The roof
storage average depth needed to achieve
this
ranges
from about
70 mm
in
Australia's most intense rainfall zones to
arounc1 35 nm in the zones of least
intensity.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Required off -1 ine storage may be provided

by a run of large-diameter pipe or storm drain
connected Into the system at the point of
overflow. Outflow control must be provided by
an appropriate 'throttle' connection between
the storage and the downstream pipeline (see
Fig. 3,4).
A patented device - the 'HydroBrake' - has been developed to control outflow
in situations of the type described here
(Matthews et al 1983; Murphy et al 1981).
Off-line storages fitted with Hydro-Brakes
and costing less than 50 per cent of
conventional remedies for overloaded systems
have been reported from the boroughs of York
and Scarborough in Metropolitan Toronto,
Canada.
e)

'Macroponding'
The use of stormwater
detention basins to temporarily store
runoff from wide areas of urban or rural
landscapes is a tool well known to

15

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

In rainfall/runoff events, storm runoff
passes from the urban landscape into the
ponding area and on through the culvert
outlet,
As inflow continues, exceeding the
restricted flow capacity of the outlet,
floodwater is stored behind the embankment.
In major storm events, the spillway operates,

present-day drainage planners,

The
typi ca 1 fonn taken by such a basin where
it is employed in an urban context is that
of a small flood control dam,
Its
embankment is normally located in the
flood plain of the main drainage path
carrying
stormwater
from
the
urban
development and it is usually provided
with an ungated cu 1vert-type outlet and
has a spillway (see Fig. 3.5),

The ponding effect of the basin, coupled

with the restriction imposed by the culvert,
combine to produce an outflow peak from the
basin which is significantly less than the
peak of the hydrograph passing to it from the
upstream urbanised catchment, The re 1 at ionship of these two peak flows, for a typical
case, is shown in Fig, 3,6,
A detailed account of the hydraulics of
detention basin design and operation and
review of case study examples are beyond the
scope of this Handbook. Infonnation on these
topics may be obtained from the proceedings of
the
Institution of Engineers,
Australia
'Seminar on Retarding Basins' held in Sydney,
NSW, April 1983 (I.E. Aust. 1983) and from
other publications which address this subject
e,g, American Society of Civil Engineers 1982;
Duru 1982; I.E. Aust, 1977 and 1987.
3.5 RETARDATION MEASURES

Certain of the devices described above, e.g.

Dutch drains (Section 3,3) fit the definition
for retardation systems stated in Section 3,1,
However, this category is co11111onl y understood
to embrace only channels carrying surface
flows to underground network entry points.

Fig. 3.4- Detention storage In an overloaded storm drainage

network
(after Environment Canada, 1980b)

embankment may act as a

spiHway in extreme floods

design rare flood stage/

spill level
Temporary Storage

system
Fig. 3.5- Main elements of typical urban detention basin
(after Robinson and O'Loughlln, 1983}

INFLOW HYOROGRAPH

volume of runoff held in temporary

~storage at peak of outflow

OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH

TIME
Fig. 3.6- Inflow and outflow hydrographs for a typical urban detention basin

16

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Four broad classes of roadside channels find

c)

swales - well-maintained These are used

in urban development as out I i ned above.
Travel times are about 4-5 times those of
concrete kerb-and-gutter channels, the
upper time limit applying to swales which
are interrupted by driveway crossing. [See
Fig. 3,7 (a)],

d)

blade-cut earth channels -well-maintained

These are used in urban development as
outlined above,
Travel times are about
2-3 times those of concrete kerb-andgutter channels, the upper limit applying
to channe Is which are interrupted by
driveway crossings. [See Fig. 3,7 (b)],

e)

stone pitcher or cobble kerb-and-gutter

channels These are found 1n many suburbs

wide use in Australian practice - swales,

blade-cut earth channels and two types of
kerb-and-gutter channels,
These are listed

below,

with

comment,

according to their
surface-moving flows:
a)

b)

arranged
retarding

in

order

effect

on

swales - poorly aa1nta1ned Urban use of

swales is confined, mainly, to low density
residential situations (density eight or
less residences per ha) where carriageway
crown levels are at or slightly above
local natural surface levels. When poorly
maintained they become irregular in both
cross-section and longitudinal grade.
Travel times in these channels are about
5-6 times I onger than those of concrete
kerb-and-gutter channe Is owing to intermittent grass, weeds, exposed tree roots,
driveway crossings, potho 1es, etc.
rsee
Fig. 3.7 (a)J,
blade-cut earth channels - poorly maintained These are channels formed and
maintained by grader operators and tend to
be
confined,
a 1 so,
to
1ow density
residential sub-divisions. They are used,

of our older cities.

They are regular in

both cross-section and longitudinal grade,

very rough and more pervious than concrete
kerb-and-gutter channels. Travel times in
these channels are about twice those of
concrete channels. [See Fig. 3.7 (c)],

mainly,
in
roadway
reserves
whose
carriageway crown levels are significantly
below local natural surface and become
irregular in time in both cross-section
and longitudinal grade. Travel times are
about
3-4 times
those of concrete
kerb-and-gutter channels. [See fig, 3,7
(b)].
(c) stone_ pitcher or cobble kerb and gut~er channel

(d)

concrete

kerb and gutter commonly used

1n

Vicloria,Oueensland, SA and NT

{a} roadside grassed swale- with crossing

FOOTPATH

(e) concrete kerb and gutter used widely in

NS.W_ and Tasmania

/ o l E o All ke<b,, 150mm. high

{b) blade-cut earth roadside channel-with crossing

(f) concrete kerb (no gutter) used extensively in

Fig. 3.7- Roadside channel forms used in Australian practice

ARAB SR 34, 1986

W.A ,North America and Europe

17

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

f)

concrete
kerb-and-gutter
channels
Roadside channels included in this broad
category predominate in Australian urban
areas, old and new.
[See Figs. 3.7
(d)-(f)]. Although forms differ, all are
equally effective in removing stormwater
quickly with little loss to infiltration
and with little peak reduction as a
consequence of surface storage routing
(see 'Macroponding', Section 3,4).
They
represent the most obvious sign of the
'remove runoff' philosophy discussed in
Section 3.1 and as such should only be
used where necessary e.g. city streets and
(traffic)
volume
streets
in
high
industrial
suburbs
and
residential
districts.
Their wholesale deployment
throughout the urban 1 andscape should be
questioned.

3.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF RETENTION/DETENTION/

RETARDATION MEASURES IN THE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT

The various pond i ng and retardation measures

described in this chapter may be implemented
by the drainage designer to partly compensate
for the impact of development on natural
environments.
They should not, ideally, be
used in isolation but should complement a
purposeful strategy which seeks to minimise
urban disturbance of such places.
To this
end, the natura 1 drainage network with its
supporting forest environs should be preserved
as intact as possible and native vegetation
removed from developed allotments only where
absolutely necessary.
Smoothing of the

landscape and removal of its natural features

produce not only barren 1i ving environments

but are also prime causes of increased stormwater flow, scour and blockage of downstream
drainage structures (Brotchie 1977).
One planning approach which, broadly,
embodies recommended principles in the context
of
residential
development uses cluster
housing with an open network of streets. This

18

approach has proved to be not only psychologically beneficial and safer for residents,
but is less costly compared with more conventional patterns of urban development (Colman
1978; Land Commission, New South Wales 1984),
This type of development lends itself to
informal stor~~Mater drainage treatments which
can be integrated into natural drainage lines
with minimum disturbance to them.
Unfortunately, the drainage designer does
not always have the opportunity to determine
or even influence the direction taken by an
urban development plan.
He is frequently
faced with an existing or already planned
layout for which he is expected to design a
satisfactory stormwater drainage system. In
this event, the demands of sound environmental
practice should compel him or her to consider
and select from the various measures and
options
described
in
Sections
3.2-3.5
inclusive. The following measures are particularly recommended for suitable locations:
a)

swales in place of concrete kerb-andgutter roadside channels in minor (access

roads) residential streets;

b)

retention sumps and wells (Section 3.2)

where soil hydraulic conductivity, Kh, is
greater than 5 x 10-5 m/s (fine sands):

c)

on-site retention/overflow wells (Section

3,3) where soil hydraulic conductivitY, Kh
is between 5 x 10-4 m/s and 3 x 10-6 m/s
(clean sands to very fine sands).

With these components installed, peak

flows 30-40 per cent less than those generated
in conventional layouts can be expected with
corresponding cost reductions. Soil moisture
maintenance is an added benefit but care needs

to be exercised to ensure that this characteristic does not lead to building foundation
damage in areas where soils are highly
water-reactive.
The design objective should
always be to maintain uni fonn soil moisture
states below and around buildings on expansive
soils.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

4
Rainiallfrunoii mathematical models

a)

conventional Rational Method, and,

directly to and discharged from 0 [See Fig.

4.1 (a)l. If this catchment were sub.iect to a
rainstorm event of constant intensity, i mm/h
for
1ong duration,
then
the
resu 1t i ng
relationship between discharge, Q, and time
would take the form of the runoff hydrograph
shown in Fig. 4,1 (b). Note that the 'time of

b)

the 'Two-Value Rational Method'

catchment's time of concentrati8n.

4.1 BACKGROUND

Two stormwater flow estimation methods or

rainfall/runoff
mathematical
models
are
reviewed in this chapter:

rise' of the hydrograph is t

The first of these is familiar to all

students of Engineering Hydrology, It assumes
a relationship between the duration of
constant
intensity
rainfall
required
to
produce peak outflow from a catchment and the
longest travel time 'ti~re of concentration',
t , of the catchment.
The relationship was
pFoposed first by Mulvaney (1851) in his study
of Irish agri cui tura 1 catchments.
The same
concept was applied by Kuichling (188g) in an
investigation of the rainfall/runoff behaviour

of

urban

catchments

in

Rochester,

minutes, the

The peak (steady-state 1 outflow which

occurs at 0, Q , must equal the rate at which
0
precipitation is being supplied to the

catchment during the event since there are no

1osses. Thus:

00

=~L/s

(4.11

0,36

N.Y.,

IMPERVIOUS
CATCHMENT

U.S.A., and by Lloyd-Davies (1906) in his

para II e 1 study of deve 1oped 1andsc apes in
Birmingham, U.K.
The basis for method (b), above, is the
ralnfall/runotf

flow

estimation

procedure

developed by Reid (1927), Riley (1932) and

Escritt (1g65) in which catchment contributing

areas and their respective response times are

represented on a time-area graph.

Rainfall

AREA Aha

information from intensity-frequency- duration

charts may be combined with the time-area
catchment representation to yield peak flow
estimates.
The Two-Value Rational Method
(Argue, 1984) is a simplified non-graphical
version of this method:
it is the main
rainfall/runoff mathematical model which is
employed in the design procedures of this
Handbook.
Both
between

methods

rely

on

stonn duration

the

and catchment travel

Single Land-use Catchments

from

all

ARRB SR 34, 1986

To 0

--------

)'
0

LL

'p 1ast ic~coated'

tc

{b) Constant Intensity Storm

Runoff Hydrograph

or

impervious catchment of plan area A ha, so

shaped that

Qo

Draining

Time, t----

4.2 RATIONAL METHOD

runoff

(a) Impervious Catchment

relationship

time assumed in the Rational Method. The

validity of this relationship is explored in
the next section using typical
rainfall
intensity-duration <lata applied to idealised
single and multiple land-use catchments.

ConSider

OUTFLOW Q

surface runoff is conveyed

Fig. 4.1 -Single land-use catchment and runoff hydrograph

in storm of constant intensity and long duration

19

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

p

This formula will be recognised as the

Rational
Method
formula
with
runoff
coefficient, C, omitted or, more correctly,
with runoff coefficient C = 1.00, This value
of C may therefore be applied to all similar

impervious catchments in which there are no

losses
to
infiltration,
retention,
evaporation, etc.

'

Consider now runoff from Catchment I, a

rectangular, impervious catchment of uniform
slope and plan area 0,10 ha, draining to 0,
whose time of concentration i.e. travel time
from point P, is 20 minutes, [See Fig, 4,2
(a)], Catchment I is located in the climatic
region
whose
ra i nfa 11
average i ntesityduration relationship for frequency ARI
10-years is presented in Fig. 4.2 (b).

"-.. '

-.......

Example 2:
Example 3:
Example 4:

In examples 1-3, peak flow rate

the Rational Method formula:

'

---.......\

'

~f\.

.
,.,
..._

c:

zi!'-

~ 30

I)

AR!=10Years["-

QJ

f-.

112)
3)

10

20

30

40

50

60

Storm Duration (mins)lbl Rainfatl Intensity-time

4)

Relationship
Fig. 4.2- Catchment! -layout and rainfall intensityduration relationship for ARI = 10 years

(4 ,2)

where C = runoff coefficient (=1.00 in each

case)
A= catchment area (ha)
ito= rainfall intensity (mm/h)
Example 1:

0
~
....~so

Q0 is given by

(CA) ito
- - L/s
0,36

(a) Catchment I

'Vi 40

intensity ito = 25 mm/h

for duration = 60 minutes
(hydrograph
intensity ito = 42 mm/h
for duration = 25 minutes
(hydrograph
intensity ito = 48 mm/h
for duration = 20 minutes
(hydrograph
intensity ito =55 mm/h
for duration = 15 minutes
(hydrograph

IMPERVIOUS
CATCHMENT
AREA= 010ha

"\

---.......

If
the
following
stormburst
cases
(intensity constant), all taken from the Fig,
4,2 (b) curve, are appl led to Catchment I the
resulting runoff hydrographs at 0 take the
forms set out in Fig. 4.3.
Example 1:

Q0 = (1,0 x 0,10) 25/0,36 = 6.9 L/s

Note:

tc

= 20

mins

>
0

u::

(4 ,3)

Example 2: Q = (1.0 x 0,10) 42/0.36

0

11.7 L/s
( 4,4)

Example 3: Q = (1.0 x 0,10) 48/0,36

0

13.3 L/s
(4.5)

As storm examples with shorter durations

and hence greater average rainfall intensities
are considered [represented by points 1-3 in
Fig, 4.2 (b)], the resulting hydrographs show
progressively higher peaks,
The hydrographs
are based on the assumption that the speed
with which runoff elements travel to discharge
point 0, is steady i.e. constant at each
location in the catchment throughout each
runoff event,

20

10

50

20

60

70

80

Time {mins)
Fig. 4.3- Hydrographs for rainstorm bursts on catchment I

In examples 1-3, the duration of storm

rainfall is lonq enough (duration?; t ) to
ensure the arrival of runoff from all par~s of
the catchment at or before the instant the
storm ceases,
This is not so in Example 4
where runoff at outlet 0 has arrived from only
15/20 or three-quarters of the catchment at
the time of cessation of rainfall input, (The
quantit.v 15/20 arises from 15 minutes storm
duration, 20 minutes time of concentration).

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Hence:
Example 4: Q

= [1.0

x (3/4 x 0,10)] 55/0,36

The
following
example
illustrates
conventional application of the Rational
Method to a multi land-use catchment, in this
case Catchment II:

= 11.5 L/s

(4.6)
The trend displayed in the Fig. 4.3
hydrograph peaks is the usual outcome when
Rational Method assumptions and rainfall
lntensity~duration
relationships
are
combined, as above, and it is thus that
Mulvaney's 'hunch' of 1851:
stonos which produce peak outflows from a
catchMent have durations equal to the

catchment time of concentration, tc, or

longest travel time

impervious area, A.

= 0,10

ha for which

c~ = 1.00

AP = 0,20 ha for which

pervious area,

cP = o.4o

travel time from point

P,

ti

travel time from point F, tc

= 20
= 60

minutes
minutes

Hence:
weighted runoff coefficient,

is justified for use in design,

The application of a runoff coefficient,
c, other than 1.00 to take account of 1asses
to infiltration, depression storage, etc. in
pervious catchments has 1 ittle influence on
the assumed relationship between critical
storm duration and tc stated above.

(1,00 X 0,10) +(0,40 X 0,20)

(0,10 + 0.20)
(4 ,8)
0.60

cw =
=

time of concentration must be the greater

of ti and tc

= 60

(4.9)

minutes

Before leaving this exploration of the

hydrology of single land-use catchments it
should be noted that the basic assumptions of
the Rational Method, in particular that
relating to the steadiness of runoff travel,
have long been criticised (McPherson 1979:
Aitken 1975), However, it was not until the
advent of kinematic wave theory (Lighthill
and Whitham 1955; Henderson 1966) that more
con vi nci ng though more comp 1ex response
mode 1s cou 1d be proposed for catchments of
the type considered above. Such models show
that critical storm duration can be significantly less than time of concentration in
single land-use catchments (Stephenson 1981),

But this is less than the peak outflow

rate estimated at 0 for that part of Catchment
II previously considered as Catchment I [see
eqn (4.5 )l,

Mulll Land-use Catchments

Mulvane_ys

rainfall intensity [from Fig, 4,2(b)]

= 25 mm/h
Hence:
(0.60 X 0.30) 25
0.36

land-use catchment of the type illustrated in

Fig. 4,4 -Catchment II -conventional use of
the Rational Method requires critical storm
duration to be still set equal to total
catchment longest travel time even though

overland flow speed in its various components

may be demonstrably different,
Travel time
from point F will therefore over-ride travel
from point P because runoff movement across

the pervious surface is much slower than

across the alternative impervious surface.
The only concession made in the Rational
Method for the composite nature of the
catchment draining to 0 is in the adopted
runoff coefficient.
This takes a 'lumped'
value, Cw, weighted in proportion to the

areas of the
Given

land~us~

containing

coefficient, C , is:
C1A1 + C2A2 + C3A3

ARRB SR 34, 1986

which
1

often

results

when

is applied to catchments

time-area
representation
components and the various
procedures.

of
catchment
Tangent Check

P~------.----------------4 f

"
Area

Pervious

Impervious
'- Catchment

c,

( 4. 7)

hunch

urban drainage design in the 1920's.

They
therefore sought a better rain fa 11/runoff
response model, one which would expose the
presence of such anomalies should they be
present.
Their deliberations resulted in

Al=010ha.
= lOO

cw =

of concern to many practitioners involved in

three

different land use areas A1 , A2 , and A3 with

corresponding runoff coefficients c1 , C2 and
the
lumped
or
weighted
runoff
C3

anomaly

quite unlike those he studied, became a matter

components.

catchment

(4 .11)

12.5 L/s

This

When flow estimates are required in a multi

(4.10)

I 1 Catchment

\
"\

Area

Ap=020ha.
Cp =040

Fig. 4.4- Catchment II- composite impervious/pervious

catchment

21

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

p

4.3 TIMEAREA REPRESENTATION

The basic Rational Method assumption that

' the speed with which runoff elements
travel to discharge point, 0, is steady '
stated in the previous section is capable of
much wider interpretation than eqn (4.2) might
suggest, for it implies the existence of a
fixed relationship of proportionality between
catchment area and time. Fig. 4.5 illustrates
this for the case of a rectangular (approximately) impervious catchment of uniform slope
and plan area A draining to point 0. Time of
concentration for the catchment is tc minutes.
In this catchment, the speed of travel is
the same at all points at all times (Rational
Method assumptions).
It follows that runoff
from the lowest quarter of area A has either
passed through 0 at time t /4 minutes after
the commencement of a constakt intensity storm
on the catchment or .iust arrived there. The
area A/4 is described in this situation as the
'area contributing to runoff at 0 at time
t /4.' Similarly for the area/time pairs A/2
a&d tc/2, 3A/4 and 3tc/4, A and tc. These
pairs, plotted in Fig. 4.5(b), y1eld the
time-area relationship for the catchment.
Similar graphs can be constructed to
describe the time-area responses of real-world
catchments which are irregular in shape,
non-uniform in slope and which include a mix

of

pervious

and

impervious

'
ll ll
I -

f------

\ \~ II

-----C

:r{\\ II

time.

22

travel fime
from this

boundary

=i;0

tc

lc 3lc tc

TTT

TIME-

C A0 040x 010

/
/

lo08ha

PERVIOUS
CATCHMEN

1/I~PER

product of runoff coefficient and component

area, (CA). The time-area graph of Catchment
II, presented in Fig. 4,6, illustrates this
process: basic data for the presentation are
listed in Section 4.2 in the derivation of
eqns (4,8)-(4.11):

It seems appropriate therefore to briefly

address the question of Rational Method use
and to explain why a new Rational Method
flow estimation procedure is being proposed
for use in small urban catchments at this

JA

Aha.

010

area of each component to be expressed in

terms of equivalent impervious area i.e. the

A 1983 survey by Professor D.H. Pilgrim (UNSW)

revealed that use by Austral ian practitioners
of the Rational Method to estimate urban storm
runoff flows far outweighs use of all other
methods. The survey also showed that tabular
or 1 hand 1 calculation procedures of the type
presented in the Urban Drainage Design chapter
of the 1977 version of 'Australian Rainfall
and Runoff' (I.E. Aust., 1977) were employed
by over 80 per cent of respondents.

catchment
total area

Fig. 4.5- Time-area graph for simple catchment of area A

and time of concentration t0

Representation of such catchments on simple

time-area plots requires the 'contributing

4.4 WHY A 'NEW' RATIONAL METHOD?

_impervious

components.

The time-area concept which provides the

theoret ica 1 base for the ma.iority of present
day urban catchment rainfall/runoff response
models was first presented in Australia by
Ross (1921) and Hawken (1921) and developed in
the papers of Reid (1927), Riley (lg32) and
Escritt (1965),

Time-Area
representation
A of area Aha

i/
0

IOUS

Ct Aj =1-00x010
"010ha

CfTCHMENT

tt =20mins

t c = 60 mins

10 10 30 40 50 60
TIME (minsl-

Fig, 4.6- Time-area graph for catchment II

The earliest published account of Rational

Method principles being applied in the study
of urban catchment rainfall/runoff response is
attributed to Kuichling (1889), In his paper
Kuichling presents rainfall and runoff data
for four developed catchment in Rochester,
N.Y .. and postulates that peak flow will be
observed at any point in a sewer network when
maximum storm intensity is applied to the
upstream catchment for duration:
' ... equal

to the time required for the

concentration of the drainage waters from

the entire tributary area at the point of
observation.
Lloyd-Davies (1906). in the published
report of his investigation of three Birmingham, U.K., developed catchments adopts a quite
contrasting
position
concerning
time of
concentration which he saw as involving travel
from the extremity of the impervious or paved
In a reworking of Kuichling's
domain only,

Rochester

data ,

inc 1uded

in

his

paper,

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Lloyd-Davies assigns new, shorter concentration times intending to remove, presumably,
what he considered to be Kuichling's un-

A = drainage unit directly-connected

1
impervious or paved area, ha

necessary allowance for pervious area travel

AP = drainage unit pervious area

time

from

the

extremity

of

the

'entire

tributary area .

= (A - A; ) , ha

Thus arose the duality of urban drainage

time of concentration interpretations which
persist to this day with neither leading to
wholly satisfactory outcomes in every case.
British
practice
has
tended
to
follow
Lloyd-Davies' interpretation (National Water
Council and U.K. Dept. of Environment 1981:
Hall 1g84) while urban drainage designers in
North America have inclined more towards
Kuichling's view (ULI/ASCE/NAHB 1979; U.S,
Uept, of Transportation 1979; Environment
Canada 1980b).
Practice in Australia has
generally adopted Kuichling's interpretation
(I.E, Au st., 1977) but a standard 10 minutes
time of entry to the first gutter inlet,
reflecting the Lloyd-Davies' approach, is used
widely in Queensland and in Victoria,
The
Two-Value
Rational
Method
flow
estimation procedure described in the next
section is uncommitted to either interpretation, an outcome which is achieved by the
simple expedient of computing flows 'both
ways' in every case.
The decision to adopt
one or other of the alternative estimates
which result in a given situation is left in
the hands of the designer,

where A= drainage unit total area, ha

c)

This method combines a number of Rational

Method and time-area properties leading to a
design flow estimation procedure that is
non-graphical and can be carried out 'by hand'
(i.e. tabular) or using spread sheet techno logy or by computer.
It produces two
possible
critical
design
storm outflows
(constant intensity storms) at the discharge
point of each drainage unit. The two design

outflows
arise
from
'full-area'
'part-area' considerations.

and

Full-area Flow Esllmate

Peak runoff flows are determined for single or

multiple land-use drainage units in the manner
described in Section 4.2 using conventional
Rational Method procedures:
critical design storm duration = t ,
travel time from the outer extremity &f

the most remote pervious area

b)

'full' equivalent impervious area,

= (CwA)

(CA)full

where

cw =
Ci
C

CiAi + CpAp
(see eqn (4.7))
A; +A p

impervious or
coefficient

= pervious

ARRB SR 34, 1986

paved

area

runoff

area runoff coefficient

rainfall intensity, i =average intensity,

duration t , obtained from catchment
rainfall
il.tensity-duration chart for
selected ARI.

The flows calculated by this approach

[using eqn
(4.2)] are
referred to as
'full-area' flow estimates,
Pariarea Flow Estimate

Peak runoff flows are also determined for the

same catchment units using:
a)

critical design storm duration =t., travel

time from the outer extremity of 1 the most
remote, directly-connected paved area

b)

'part' equivalent impervious area

( 4. 12)

c)
4.5 THE TWO-VALUE RATIONAL METHOD

a)

rainfall intensity, i = average intensity,

duration ti , obtai ned from catchment
rainfall intensity-duration
chart
for
selected ARI

The flows calculated

[using eqn
(4,2)] are

by this approach
referred to as

'part-area' flow estimates.

The

follows

theoretical

from

basis

time-area

for

eqn

(4.12)

representation (see
1umped paved and

Section 4.3)
of the
separately lumped pervious components present
in a multi land-use catchment. This is given
in Fig, 4,7, the main elements of which are
repeated from Fig. 4.6,
Strict time-area representation of the
paved and pervious components of real-world
catchments, differs from the simple model
presented in Fig. 4. 7. Just ifi cation for its
use is therefore claimed on the grounds of
simplicity and adequacy, It is simple because
it
translates
into an easily-understood
tabular
flow
estimation
procedure,
and

* 'Uirectly-connected impervious or paved

area', A., is impervious area which contributes
r1noff directly to
the
drainage
collection network.
Such runoff may be
conveyed by pipe, channel or informally across
paved surfaces before reaching the formal
collection system e,g, roadside channels of
various types (see Section 3,5),
Impervious
or
paved
area
whose
runoff
is
not
'directly-connected to the forma 1 call ect ion
system is included with pervious area, Ap (see
Table 5,3),
23

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

adequate because it yields estimates which

involve much the same level of uncertainty as
is
associated with more complex and
time-consuming methods (see Chapter 12).

it' x(p

Example of Two-Value Rational Method

Consider the
10- years)
'full-area,
which arise
Fig. 4.7.

"'
~~

p/

ll
If

= 0.18 ha

storm duration (equal to tc) = 60 minutes

25 mm/h
hence i10
[from Fig. 4.2 (b)]
Hence, full-area peak flow estimate,

Qf =

(0.18) 25

iCA full
CA
part

<3

c,

1 =01 ha

CtA({f. Cp Ap]

/_~
tc 60'\
20"
01020J0405060
TlHE {mins)
Fig. 4.7- Timearea representation of multi land-use
drainage unit (catchment II) with derivation of
part-area (CA) algorithm

storm duration (equal to ti) = 20 minutes

hence i10 = 48 mm/h
[from Fig. 4.2 (b)]

0.36

Part-area estimate:

(CAl part=

It,

( 4 .13)

12.5 L/s

CpAp =008ha.-

Pervl us
omoo ent

li

~ 010 /

Full-area estimate:

= (C~)

peak flow estimates (design ARI =

which may be derived from the
F, and 'part-area, P, conditions
in Catchment II, represented in

equivalent impervious area

Hence, part-area peak flow estimate,

equivalent impervious area

(0.13)48
17.3 L/s

CiAi + [::
(1.0

0.10)

= 0.127 ha

24

CPAP]

G:

(4.14)

0.36

(0.4

0.20~

Recommendation: outlet works for point 0 in

Catchment II should carry a design flow (ARI =
10 years) of 17,3 L/s.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

5
Hydrological data base

The hydrological data base comprises six main

topics:
a)

Ultimate development assessment

b)

Storm rainfall-frequency-duration data

c)

Australian climatic zones - urban drainage

d)

Selection
intervals

e)

Travel time determination

f)

Runoff
coefficients
catchments

of design

average

for

recurrence

developed

Sub-divisions are frequently developed without

pro vision
for
rear-of-allotment
runoff
collection making the required travel time
difficult if not impossible to estimate,
In

its

'ultimate'

state.

such

sub-

division will have evolved, almost certainly,

an internal drainage network extending that
originally provided,
While the peripheral
components of the long-term development, e.g.
rear-of -a l1 otment drainage channels, etc. may
be omitted in the first-stage building
programme, it is the clear responsibility of
the designer to ensure that the principal
in-ground components of the required ultimate
drainage support system - underground pipes,

gutter inlets, junction pits, etc. - are there

5.1 ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

Before the task of designing a major/minor

stormwater drainage scheme for a developing
urban catchment can be commenced, the designer
must obtain or compile a plan for its ultimate
development.
Little firm guidance can be
offered for this task.

Urban zones can remain remarkably static

for long periods, e.g. some rural village
residential blocks as well as areas which have
reached a high level of commercial/industrial
development. Others -in particular, the low
and medium density residential suburbs of our
cities - frequently experience rapid growth
and change,
This may follow land value
increases and consequent rate escalations or
the enactment of by-laws aimed at reducing
urban sprawl, e.g, Amendment 367 of the
Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme.
Designers faced with drawing up their own
predictions are advised to study local region
longterm planning predicitions and development
trends taking place in the areas of concern
and in similar areas and derive their ultimate
development predictions by extrapolation and
engineering judgement.
The time horizon for
such development prediciton should be 30-50

years.
There is one aspect of drainage design
uncertainty which can be significantly reduced

by

'ultimate

development'

considerations.

This relates to the estimation of travel time

to the first (downstream) gutter inlet of
runoff from the most remote allotment of a
sub-division,
where
this
property
is
down-slope from its fronting roadside channel.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

and are matched to the stormwater load which

the system will in time be called upon to
carry,
The completed drainage network must,

of

course,

be assumed

in

the design and

selection of these components.

5.2 STORM RAINFALL INTENSITYFREQUENCY

DURATION DATA

The storm drainage design procedures described

in this Handbook are 'peak flow' methods which
employ average storm rainfall intensities
only.
Storm temporal patterns are not
applied.

Designers must therefore consult Chapter 2

of the current edition of 'Australian Rainfall
and Runoff' (I.E. Aust, 1977 or 1987) to
obtain required storm rainfall data,
A typical rainfall intensity-frequencyduration chart (I-F-0 graph) for an Adelaide
foothills,
South Australia,
location
is
presented in Fig, 5,1, Only data required to
design drainage systems for small urban
catchrrents in the region are presented i.e.
storm duration range 5 minutes to 60 minutes.

5.3 AUSTRALIAN CLIMATIC ZONES- URBAN

DRAINAGE

The Austral ian continent experiences a wide

range of climates which affect significantly
the rainfall /runoff responses of her urban
catchments.
The most obvious indicator of
climatic difference is rainfall (see Table
5 .1)

25

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

110

TABLE 5.1

f---+\-+-+-1___] _ j _ _ j _ _ j _ _ l _ l_ 1-+--l
_j__

]\

ADELAIDE FOOTHILLS
Average rainfall intensities for

MONTHLY AND ANNUAL RAINFALL (mm)AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL CITIES

100 l--+\\~*---i-.''"to~cm"'s"o';'f-'s";h"'oc,_t~du"''",'t"'i'"'"~~+---l

or-~~\~+-1~~-+~~~~
f--+1~\1\~~1-f-+~+-+-+-+-1180 1--/HI~--',1--\1
\'\t----t-1---+--+-1-+-1---t---l

CITY

JAN FEB HAR APl HAY JNE Jl y AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC TOTAL
.

Sri sbane

69

72

67

62

167 166 151

aa

69

12

57

47

48

16 95 128 1164

55

53

49

52 39

31

43

50

69

398 325 265

97

15

13

54 123 244 1540

55

49

59

53

49

52

64

56

58

57

50

49

2l

20

Canberra
Darwin

27 533

45

Adelaide

59

24

51

45

30

63

60

629

Hobart

48

41

47

Kelbourne

48

50

53

59

50

59

68

60

58

661

11

20

46 124 185 114 137

81

55

21

14

876

81

11

81

78

79 1226

Perth

102 114 129 131 123 131 106

'''""

631

Source : CofTBr,om..ealth Dept. of Science Bureau of P.eteorology

In the sections which follow, zonedependent hydrological data are presented for
the Northern Austra 1i a and Southern Austra 1 i a
zones only:
data for Intermediate Australia
locations are to be determined by interpolation.
The recommended procedure for interpolating a value for parameter P at station X

is:
0 o~~~1~0~~,~0~-3~0~~4~0~~5~0~~6~0-

1,

Storm Duration (minutes)

Fig. 5.1 - Rainfall intensity-frequency-duration chart for

Adelaide Foothills, South Australia: storms of short duration

The main determinant of storm rainfall/

runoff response in a developed catchment is
not monthly rainfall but the intensity and

interest - Pn and Ps, respectively;

2.

need

into

to

divide

climatic

the

Australian

zones whose urban

catchments respond in similar ways has been

explored by the AR&R review team led by
Professor D.H. Pilgrim (UNSW).
Three zones
have been defined on the basis of average
rainfall intensity observed in storm bursts of
design ARI = 10-years and duration !-hour.
The zones are:

the

10-year,

!-hour

average

i .
X'

3.

bursts.
In all centres listed in Table 5,1,
except Perth, storm bursts occurring during
Summer produce highest intensities:
this is
in sharp contrast with monthly rainfall which
may yield highest gaugings, as in Adelaide, in
Winter.
The

Determine

rainfall intensity at location X, i.e,.

duration of rainfall experienced during storm

continent

Determine Northern Australia and Southern

Australia values for the parameter of

Compute the required value for parameter

P:p

(P
70 - 25

- P )
s

Ps + 0.022(ix- 25) (Pn- Ps)

( 5.1)

NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
10 years, 1 hour average rainfall
l:2J"--'r--~intensity, i 10 1 ~70 mm/h

Northern Australia zone

10-year, 60 minute average intensity

~

70 mm/h

Intermediate Australia zone

10-year, 60 minute average intensity:

range 25-70 mm/h

Southern Australia zone

10-year, 60 minute average intensity
:i 25 mm/h
Approximate boundaries for the three zones are
shown in Figure 5,2

26

Perth
10years,1hour average rainfall
intensity,ll-l,\~25 mm/h

~Hobart
Fig. 5.2- Australian climatic zones- urban drainage

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Examp 1e:
Find the runoff coefficient for pervious areas
(design ARI = 10-years) i.e. [C ]
i
,
10 perv ous
for Penrith, N.S.W.
STEP 1:

[C 10 ]pervious for Northern Australia

= 0.70
[C10] pervious for Southern Australia
= 0.10

In the Adelaide illustration referred to

above, the 100-years ARI flood could only be
successfully conveyed by the dual above-ground
and underground systems, each designed to ARI
= 5 years (approximately) standard, if the
underground system remained unblocked.
This
raises the practical issue of blockage which
is a necessary ingredient in the definition of
'gap flow':
Gap

(from Table 5,3)

STEP 2:

the 10-year, !-hour average rainfall

intensity at Penrith:[110,1]

STEP 3:

Penri th

44 mm/h

[C 10 ] pervious for Penri th

= 0.1

+ 0.022 (44 - 25) (0.70

= 0.35

0,10)
(5.2)

5.4 DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVALMAJOR/MINOR SYSTEMS

The two-tiered nature of the major/minor

concept for managing storm runoff in the urban
landscape is described in Chapter 2 and the
consequent need for a pair of design ARI 's in
each total system explained in Sections 2,5
and 2.6.
Design ARI recommended for major drainage
systems is 100-years: design ARI' s suggested

for minor drainage systems

nested

within

major systems are listed in Table 2,3.

It is clear that in a design rare flood,
say ARI = lOD-years, in an urban catchment
which
incorporates
conjunctively-acting
above-ground and underground drainage networks, a significant portion of generated
runoff wi 11 be conveyed by the underground
system. It follows that the required capacity
of surface channels can be significantly less
than would be required if they alone conveyed
the entire rare storm flow.
In the case of
short-duration storms (10 minutes-3D minutes)
in Adelaide, South Australia, 5-years ARI
average rainfall intensities are about half of
those observed in corresponding 100-year
storms.
Thus, 100-years AR I floods can,
theoretically, be conveyed through Adelaide

urban catchments by a combination of surface

and underground drainage paths, each designed
to carry storm runoff of approximately 5-years
ARI flood magnitude.
Adoption of an appropriate design ARI for
a catchment minor system therefore opens the
way to not only its design but also the design
of the major system which complements it. The
latter design procedure employs the 'surface
flow' approach described in Chapters 8 and 9.
Frequency aspects, only, of this approach are
explored here.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

flow, Ogap, is the difference between the

design rare flood peak flow estimate at a
particular location in a drainage system
and the peak flow estimated for the underground network at that location assumed
unblocked or partly-blocked by the designer. The entire gap flow is carried
in the surface drainage lines of the
major system.

Where major system design is based on

fully operating underground networks, i.e.
unblocked, then gap flow is, simply, the
difference between major system design flow
and minor system flow.
Taking Y = 100-years and Y = N-years as
the rare and nuisance design frequencies respectively in a given case (see Sections 2.5,
2. 6):
F100 iJoo(CA)Jo
L/s (5,3)
0100
0.36
Fn

i 0 (CAho
L/s

On

(5.4)

0.36

and
Ogap

= 01oo

(5.5)
(CA),o
-L/s
= [F1ooi1oo - Fn .i n] -0.36
- 00

which can be restated as:

Fm . im(CA), 0
L/s
(5.6)
0.36
The frequency conversion factors F ,
100
Fn and Fm are found from Table 5.5. The frequency M [eqn (5.6)] is found by trial-anderror in a given situation and is linked to
the value assigned to N.
N-M pairs for
catchments in Northern and Southern Australia
are given in Tables 5,2A and 5,28 (minor
system, zero blockage).

In cases where partial blockage is

considered likely an arbitrary '50 per cent
blockage' assumption is suggested. This leads
to appropriate modification of the expression
for gap flow, Ogap' given in eqn (5.5):

(CA),o
- - L/s(5.7)
0.36
This affects the value of M which arises
in a particular case from the general
expression, eqn (5,6).
Values for Northern
and Southern Australia (minor system, 50 per
cent blocked) are also listed in Tables 5.2A
and 5,28.

27

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

c)

TABLE 5.2A

other cases
kerb-and-gutter channels
underground stormwater drains
allotment
drains
(surface
underground)
easement drains (surface or
underground)
grassed swa 1es
blade-cut earth roadside channels
natural channels

GAP FLOW (09,,)

DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL
(M-years) FOR URBAN CATCHMENTS IN NORTHERN
AUSTRALIA

Minor system under-

ground network

design A.Rl:
N-years

2-yrs

3-yrs

5-yrs

10-yrs

Gap flow moving in

surface channels
only: design ARI
with minor system

6-yrs

5-yrs

2-yrs

1-yr

unblocked,
M-years=

Gap flow moving in

surface channels
only: design ARI
with minor system
50% blocked,
M-years =

30 yrs

25

yrs

20

yrs 15 yrs

GAP FLOW (0 9,,)

DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL
(M-years) FOR URBAN CATCHMENTS IN SOUTHERN
AUSTRALIA

N-years

3-yrs

5-yrs

10-yrs

20 -yrs

15-yrs

10-yrs

5-yrs

50-yrs

45-yrs

40-yrs

30-yrs

unblocked,

M-years ""
Gap flow moving in
surface channels
only: design ARI

with minor system

50% blocked,
M-years =

5.5 TRAVEL TIME DETERMINATION

lnlroducllon
The following categories of flow travel time
in developed catchments are recognised:
a)

overland or 'sheet' travel

grassed surfaces
paved surfaces
b)

roof-to-gutter travel
residential roofs
commercial/industrial roofs

28

tc

= 6.94

(ln)0.6
i o.4

so~

minutes

( 5. 8)

Correct use of eqn (5,8) normally requires

two or three iterations. However, by applying
the following limitations:
storm duration: 15 minutes-30 minutes
des 1gn average recurrence i nterva 1
10-years

Gap flow moving in

surface channels
only: design ARI
with minor system

Overland Flow
The kinematic wave formulation for runoff
overland travel timet developed by Ragan and
Ouru (1g72) is recomcmended,
Appropriate
values for the parameter Manning's 'n' enable
travel times to be computed for paved surfaces
and for two categories of grassed surfaces:

where tc overland travel time (minutes)

1 = travel distance (metres)
n = 0,015 for paved surfaces
n
0.25 for lawn surfaces
n = 0,50 for thickly grassed surfaces
i = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
S = surface slope (m/m)

TABLE 5.2B

Minor system under2-yrs

ground network design ARI:

or

it is possible to construct a simple nomograph

which gives approximate overland travel times
directly,
Because the computation of t
intensity,
a different
involves
storm
no100graph is required for each climatic zone
(see Sect ion 5,3),
Nomographs for the
Northern and Southern Australia zones are
presented in Fig, 5,3, The minimum overland
flow time which should be used for any
catchment element is 2 minutes, e.g, travel
time from crown to gutter in a narrow
carriageway.
The time adopted for travel in a large
pervious area such as a major park or urban
forest must recognise the 1imits of the
overland flow phenomenon. It is a matter of
field observation that 'sheet' flow rarely
progresses 100re than 200 m before entering a
runnel or ri 11 with travel in the latter mode
falling into the 'natural channel' category
(see section below), Fig. 5.3 includes a
boundary (X-X) which fixes appropriate limits
for sheet flow travel in grassed catchments of
various slopes,
Because of the uncertainty which must
surround assessment of overland (pervious
area) travel time to gutter or rear-of
allotment drainage channel (see Section 5,1)
in the most re100te allotment of a residential
catchment component, a standard 15 minutes is
suggested for this overland travel element.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

)>

JJ
JJ
OJ
(/)

JJ

_.,.
"'
~

co
co

"'

NORTHERN

~ I
~~

{J

{ 1~<':

AUSTRALIA

I
I
'"'~'++tiT_
~v~~~-i--r-

1:.:::::

[0~<

SOUTHERN

o s.~

~
~
;-~s
hq-~"
~
>----r---,-!'9-;ss~L~~

u,p"'~

~~~'}}>
"0
~

'-:f0.

f'

~L''

~"'-'~';:
{
~

..;>;

-~~1<

L _ _,_

(-1

.o;.ct~ ~

G: !;::,

:-t- "'-~'.,~ ts,;.:;

J'~~~

60 50 40 30
20 15
10987654
TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFACE, tc (min)

~i><>"''~

~'b I

::.tltJ-t'LYJL

C:
[:; -....'

D~ ~~;;:.,

2605040 30
20 15
10 9 8 7 6 5 4
3
TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFACE, tc (min.)

(/)

-1

JJ

s:
0

JJ

)>

)>
G)

m
0

m
(/)

G)

VfYrJ-1/11

z
z

vv

s:
)>

VkrU

,.,

_E_.,I .. 0Y'

'!'

s->'\b
0

~
~

~~
~~
I"" J.._., ~~

~~~~ ~~~~j;;r~~~:b~::~~
~I-

ts ~

l0e_-;;;~ ?-.Oo~

F=~~t:~~::,,;t~~;~~1~-~~~~~~~~~~

'1

~!::::::,

VAA

-~'u~
'<-

~.,,/

.,.,':'~

;,

grassed and paved surfaces

AUSTRALIA

23456810
20 30 40 50
100
200 300
LENGTH OF OVERLAND FLOW, II metres)

(/)

rr-

JJ
OJ

)>

NOMOGRAPH BASED ON'

I In 1 6
- tc~ 694 L04s03
- Equation 5.8
Ragan and Ouru 119721

- L I Northern Aust. I

125 mm/h

- L (Southern Aust.J

50 mm/h

EXAMPLES'

NOTE'

Length of overland flow' l ~100m

Average slope of surface: O 010

The boundary XX defines the limit for sheet flow

Description: sports field, Southern Australia

e.g. tum for 020 grassed slopes= 50m

(use Residential Lawn)

Hence,time of travel,tc= 38mins.
For same tietd case in Northern Australia
tc

= 27

mins.

Hence, same case in Penrith,N.S.W. (see example

path length ( ltim} on grass or unpaved surfaces,

tum for 005 grassed slopes= 120m

etc
Pervious surface flow travel exceeding these limits

should be treated as "natural channel" flow

(see Figure 5.41

Section 5.31 lc=38+0.022144-251127-381=33mins.

"'

co

Fig. 5.3- Overland flow travel time (shallow sheet flow only) for Australian urban catchments

-1

s:
m
z

-1

(/)

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

roof-to-drain element only,

Allotment drain
travel time should be treated as a separate
element,

Roof-lo-guller Flow
Considerable uncertainty roost also surround
roof-to-gutter flow travel time, Two values
are reconmended :

In situations where terminal on-site wells

and sumps are used, components contributing

residential roofs: 5 minutes

runoff to these installations should be

excluded from the catchments of associated
minor drainage system networks {see Section
3.2).

commercial/industrial roofs: 10 minutes

In cases where residential roof water is
conveyed directly to a rear-of-allotment
drainage channel, the 5 minutes value should
be used for travel time to this collector
also,

Non-termi na 1
stormwater
management
measures e,g, on-site retention/overflow wells
and seepage beds, introduce delay into
roof-to-gutter runoff travel times,
Where
these n~asures are employed {see Section 3.3),
10 minutes extra travel time should be added
to the times listed above. {No other altera-

Where commercial/industrial roof water is

discharged to an allotment drain feeding
stormwater to a fronting gutter or underground
network pipe, the 10 minutes travel time
recomnended above applies to the direct

tions to catchment parameters, e.g. runoff coefficient, are required,)

II

f!

?;

v;

50

L.L.

20

0
~

;;}_ 15
~

lO

II ljj;;
V/j/; '@

I 1/f

II
lj I

:j~ ~

I
II I rl I I
I
I
I II 1/;
II, I r;l/l//; 1/!J
I
I I !J/111 '~Ill
,:
/

:;~

/j I;

I
II ? j
,;;;
I/ /l
; I I I I 1/ ~I;!; !jj~ o/
I I II I I 1/ z!, l!.'jIIJ.
I I I I II / ~ / I~ ~ ~ ~1~1!J
!!!

~ 40

1/

II

l j j 'I/;

"'

ii::

I
I

l'
l
/,
-1
I

I I I I I 'I I '/J I /I
I I! If. 'I II /. I 'I! I II

100

I
150

~ '/ ~ // ~~ 0'I;I/
'/, '/ I 1/; ~

200
300
400 500
FLOW DISTANCE !metres)

1000

NOTES
t Flow travel time (approximate) may be obtained directly from this chart for:

1500

2000
Ref: Country Roads Board,
Victoria, 1982.

-kerb-and-gutter channels
-underground stormwater channels

-allotment channels of all types {surface and underground)

-drainage easement channels {surface and underground J
2. A multiplier,l!.,should be applied to values obtained directly from the chart in the
following cases:
tJ. =4
-grassed swales, well maintained and without driveway crossings
-blade-cut earth roadside channels, well maintained and without driveway crossings tJ "2
-natural channels
tJ = 3
Fig. 5.4- Flow travel time in channels

30

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

General Channel Flows

All other travel time cases can be found with

th~ aid of Fig. 5.4, This chart is reproduced
from Chapter 6 of 'Road Design Manual'
The
(Country Roads Board, Victoria 1982),
chart may be used directly to ditte1'1!1ine
approximate travel ti""'s 1ft a range of rigid
channel types and, with the application of
multiplier 6, a range of loose-boundary
channel forms.
Minimum (Total) Flow Travel Time

2,

second grade paved areas

These include
car-park, drive-in cinema and block-paved
areas which are, compared with typical
first
grade paved areas,
relatively
porous, Runoff from these areas may pass
directly to the formal collection system
or to terminal or non-terminal stormwater
management installations;

3.

unconnected paved area

This category
1ncl udes all paved areas whose runoff
passes to the pervious domain before
reaching the formal collection network.

4. pervious areas This category includes all

Although travel time from elements of networks

may be as short as 2 minutes (see above),
total nominal flow travel time from any
component to its point of entry into the
underground drainage collection network must

non- paved areas and areas of similar

nature
e.g.
lattice-block
reinforced
grass, Runoff from these areas normally
passes to the collection network by way of
informal paths and drainage lines.

be not less than 5 minutes.

All carriageway components up to 200m in
length, regardless of slope, fall within this
provision.
Time of entry for these can

therefore be assessed
minutes.

'by inspection as 5

5.6 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR DEVELOPED

CATCHMENTS

Weighted runoff coefficients, C , can be

determined for mixed development cat~hments by
inserting appropriate values from Table 5.3
into eqn (4,7),

Basic Values tor C10

The task of adopting runoff coefficients for

use in the design of drainage works for urban
catchments is made difficult for the designer
by:
a)

Basic runoff coefficient values for the

four surfaces are listed in Table 5,3 for
Northern Australia and Southern Australia
zones, Values for the Intermediate Australia
zone may be obtained by interpolation (see
Section 5,3), Good design practice requires
that values such as those listed be applied to
components
of
the
ultimately
developed
catchment.

poor or non-existent data base from which

TABLE 5.3
BASIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (Cto) FOR VARIOUS
DEVELOPED CATCHMENT SURFACES

satisfactory runoff coefficient values can

be derived;

b)

cl

distribution of various area types (roofs,

general
paved,
catchment,

previous,

etc. I

in

Study of aerial photographs of sample

developments
can
provide
useful
design
information on
item
(c}
above.
Such
measurements, however, overlook the fact that
runoff from portions of many roofs and from

some paved areas is diverted to the pervious

domain and should therefore be subtracted from
the cont ri but i ng paved a rea
(Alley and
Veenhuis 1983), The subtracted element should

be added to the contributing pervious area.

Four different contri but 1ng
surface types are recognised:
1.

First grade connected paved

areas:
- roar:lways I
c,o = 0.90 c,o = 0,90
- roofs I
Second grade connected
paved areas, e.g.
- sealed carparks, I
driveways, paved I
outdoor areas,
I
)
etc.

c,o = o. 75 c,o = o. 75

Unconnected paved areas I

and
I
Pervious areas:
I
-mixed with paved areas)
as in residential 1and)
use
I
- major urban open space)
areas, parks, etc,
I

c,o = 0.70 c,o = 0.10

catchment

first grade paved areas

These are high
quality carriageway and roof areas which
have a low capacity for absorbing water,
They may be connected directly to the
formal runoff collection system or to
terminal
or
non-terminal
stormwater
management installations.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Northern
Southern
Aust. zone Aust, zone

Surface Classification

uncertainty about the ultimate extent and

type of development likely to occur in a
catchment during its lifetime; and

C10 Values lor Specified Land Uses

Study

of

aerial

photographs,

referred

to

above, reveals considerable variation in the

paved/pervious distribution in such categories
as industrial, commercial and certain types of
residential accommodation, e.g. town house and
strata-title developments,

31

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 5.4
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (C,) FOR VARIOUS DEVELOPED CATCHMENT LAND USES
land Use Description

Northern Australia

Southern Australia

zone

zone

INDUSTRIAL
heavy industry
light industry

0.80-0,90
0.70-0,90

0.80-0.90
0.60-0.80

0.90
0.80-0.90
0.90
0.80-0.90

0,90
0.70-0.80
0.90
0.75-0.85

COMMERCIAL

city shopping complexes

suburban shopping complexes
city office blocks
suburban office blocks
RESIDENTIAL'

full-area

20 residences/ha
15 residences/ha
10 residences/ha
5 residences/ha
town house developments

'

0.80
0,55
0.78
0,50
0.75
0,43
0, 72
0.35
0.60-0.90

0.45
0,35
0.25
0 .I5
0.50-0.80

includes allotment area only, i.e. excludes roadway

reserves, community buildings and open space domains.

Some consistency is apparent, however, in

the general categor.v of Australian famil.Y
residential accommodation.
~asured samples
from nine Adelaide residential suburbs taken
with the findings of Heeps (1977) and of
Aitken
(1975)
.vield
the
following
relationship:

divisions yields

'P' and

F'

conditions

Where pervious area

contribution is low, as in Southern Australia:

(CAl full

(CAJpart

suffices.

(5.10 I

In Northern and

Intermediate Australia
the pervious area
runoff contribution is frequently comparable

- 5.0

(5.9)
"here RD
resident i a 1 density
in
residences per ha of allotment area, i.e.
excludes roadway reserve, nature strips,
etc.
Eqn (5.9) is satisfactory as a per cent
impervious
approximation
for
RD
< 20
residences per hectare, but should be applied
with caution above this limit. Specifically,
it should not be applied to town house or
strata-title unit types of development.
Table 5.4 lists runoff coefficients (C 10 )
various
1and-uses
in
the
Northern
Australia
and Southern Australia
zones.
Values listed for the residential categories
are based on i mpervi a us percentages given by
eqn (5.9) reduced b.Y one quarter (transferred
to the pervious domain).
This follows Alley
and Veenhuis' (1983) finding that significant
for

of residential land-use paved area is

'unconnected.

to that of its associated paved area and,

hence, the eqn (5.10) approximation cannot be
justified.
Two
runoff
coefficients
corresponding to the full-area and part-area

conditions must therefore be entered.

Frequency Conversion Factor, Fy

Derived runoff coefficients such as those

listed in Table 5.4 should be multiplied by a
frequency conversion factor, F , where design

average recurrence interval, .Yy, other than

10-_years is required. Recommended values for
FY are listed in Table 5.5. Application of
these

may

give

listing of two C10 values for residential

drainage units in Northern Australia compared
with one for Southern Australia zone cases

deserves explanation.
Strict adherence to the Two-Value Rational
Method (Section 4.5) in residential sub-

cy

values,

in

certain

circumstances, greater than 1.00.

A limit
value of CY = 1.00 should be adopted in such

cases.

se~ments

32

the

indicated in Fig. 4.7.

and a single C10

per cent impervious in allotment area

3.0 RO

part-area full- and part-area

TABLE 5.5
FREQUENCY CONVERSION FACTOR F,

ARI(years)

10

20

40

60

80 100

Conversion 0,8 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.05 I.I3 l. I 7 l.I9 1.20

factor, FY

ARRB SR 34, 1986

6
Hydraulic data base

The hydraulic data base for Handbook design

Manning's formula -

procedures includes eight main sections:a)

b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

Stormwater conveyance in open channel

drains
Gutter inlet hydraulics
Guidelines for the management of surfacemoving f1 ows
Underground networks : an overview
Guide 1i nes for the management of underground-moving flows
Minimum Grade analysis hydraulic data
Hydraulic Grade Line analysis hydraulic
data
Tests for pit overflow and pipe obvert
depth.

6.1 OPEN CHANNEL STORMWATER DRAINS

Three broad categories of formed open channels
used to convey storfllilater through and beyond
small urban catchments fall within the scope

of this section.
a)
b)

These are:-

roadside unlined table drains and swales

[see Figs 3.7(a) and (b)]
roadside gutters with kerbing [see Figs
3,7(c) to (f)]

I 2/3 112
- R
S
m/s

n
o

Izzard's (1946)
(modified) Ot

(6,1)

375~[{~)

triangular
8

}~ 12

13

flow

formula

L/s

(6.2)

where Vave =channel flow average velocity

(m/s)

= Manning's 'n'

= hydraulic radius, i.e. flow

area divided by flow boundary
1ength (m)
= channel bed slope (m/m)
t ri angular channe 1 total
flow (L/s)

S0
Ot

shape correction factor

reciprocal of channel crossslope
triangular channel flow
depth (m)

various

The shape correction factor which

should be used in the case of simple
triangular channels is~ = 0,9
(Clarke et al 1981).

Information on travel times and, hence,

flow velocities in these classes of channels
are given with Fig, 5,4, This information is,
generally, satisfactory for flow estimation
purposes but is inappropriate for use in the
hydraulic design of such channels. Two formulae are offered for these purposes:-

A special form of Izzard's formula is

used for composite kerb-and-gutter channels
which have gutter cross-slope and roughness
different from those of the carriageway pavement. This formula is:-

c)

drainage easement channels of

types,

Za

1----

a13 a13

Ot = 375~ [ {-}(da -db

"a

"b

IUt-Utrl

a13]

112

S0

L/s
(6.3)

spread, W - - - - - 1

Utr

Zb

)+{-)db

where Z3 , n3 , d3 , Zb, nb and db are as defined in Fig,

6.1.

correction factor,

In this case the shape

a,

which should be used

takes a value not greater than 0,8 (Clarke

et al 1981),
Manning s "n"= nb

Za
Manning's "n'"= na
Fig. 6.1 - Definition of terms for composite
(I.e. kerb-and-gutter) roadside channels

ARRB SR 34, 1986

In general, Manning's formula is recommended for channels of broadly rectangular

shape including steep-sided trapezoidal channels and pipes flowing partfull. The modified
Izzard's formula should be applied in triangular channel cases including swales (side slopes I in 3 and flatter) and kerb-and-gutter
33

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

composite section channels (see Fig,3,7 for
examples).

= o.B;

concrete, na

It is convenient when dealing with compo-

nb

site channels to regard the total flow, Ot as

the sum of two component flows: Ofr or 'frontal flow' moving within the ~utter and (Ot Ofr) moving on the pavement (see Fig, 6,1):-

375a[r~:)

(da

813

db

)Js:

12

- 40;

= 0,012;

(6 .6)

flush seal,l
(6. 7)

= 0.018;

hotmix, "b = 0,014;

(see Table 6.1)

= 8; Zb = 30;
nb = 0.014

Substitution of values Za

= 0,375

gutter width
813

= 25

gutter width = 0,300 - 0,375 m

Values for Manning's 'n' compiled from

various sources are listed in Table 6,1.

0fr

Za 8-10; zb

L/s

m;

into eqn (6,3) leads to:(6,4)

Ot

[2oO(d:

13

d:

13

)+643 d:' }ooo

s:

12

L/s

(6,5)
( 6 ,8)

Eqns (6,3)

8y assigning a particular value to da and

hence db (see Fig, 6,1) eqn (6,8) reduces to
the form -

- (6,5) are used to determine:-

flow spread, w, in selected channels conveying nominated flows;

flow rate for certain depth and velocity
criteria conditions which form part of
Handbook design procedures;
estimates of f1 ows captured by various
types of gutter inlets,

1.
2,
3.

Values for the parameters

a,

(6.9)
for the selected value of da, This relationship may be presented on a graph with values
of da covering the full range of interest,
Graphs representing two of the gutter/pavement
profiles included in eqns (6.6) and (6.7) are
presented in Fig. 6,2, Note that any roadside
channel type (rectangular, triangular, composite, etc.) can be described_& a single curve
on the depth versus Ot (= KIS 0 ) plane of Fig,
6. 2.

Za, na, etc.

which apply to composite channels of the types

widely used in residential
streets
in
ia, South Australia, Northern Territory,
Queensland and A.C.T. are:-

001

002

003

~I -~ _

0200

Criterion 1
da ::1> 0200m

Gutter Longitudinal Slope , S0 ( m;m) _ __

004
005
006
007
008
009

__ ___ .-::.A:..._+--~+---1---1-------jl-------j
ll

~~~?
,..v

0180

...._ <.~'

:- 0160 f---t----1----cA___."'---+-.. ;. . . "i:'b.._>

_""'~0

B-

15 0140

Vi 0120

//
~
1--c I/

r-

{
A

f---!1---J'f---lt---+-'---

:0100rn S0 =0015m!m
2
Ut= 5585 sY = 684 L/s

j { d,~OJSOrn
t
8
0080 1-ff----f~--+~5~ =548
So=OOS7mtm

0060

I.

~'Fll

"I

3~c--o

~~~~
I z, ~a

~'::

~~

~-+-~-+--+--+---+-- 3-75m- 50m

351

45m

1------+---A~~--+---+---+--.--+---'--+~~ d x Vdve :p;.--c---+-t---+-:l40m

//

0100

375rnrn

",

both cases

B/ v
""'-~
I
--w
-- --~ t ::::!!!::kr[?!:__ <d

i / jJ.
~

~rb-and-gutter sha~e

,,~_......

. ~,

"

010

-"c

to

Ut=2300

I
1

~0~ ~ 3-01
c

-{W~2-Srn..:~0-118rn
[

S0 =0020m/m
11
Ut= 1040 s~ = 147 L/s

f ,0 { W~1-0rn.. d,~006Brn

lzoml

Lis

-;----------:---

Ot =170

sb

30m

--t----j---'f20m ~ 25m

1Sm

S0 =0020m/m
12

3-5m

20m

= 24lls

~---i -7; -----1 -----1 -

2000 sd 12
4000 s0112
6000 sd 12
aooo
Half- Carriageway Flow Relationship (Ut = KSd12 )

sJ 12

15m

0 10m!
10000 sJ 12

10m

Fig. 6.2- Depth versus flow relationship (KS 0 'h) for two guitar/pavement channel profiles

34

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Subsidiary axes indicating flow spread,

w, are also included in Fig, 6,2: terminal
values on these axes correspond to half-carriageway spread, A separate spread axis is
required for each roadside channel profile of
interest, Although flow spreads greater than
an adopted maximum (say 2,5 m, the value used
in later design procedures) are outside the
range needed for the design of minor drainage
systems, major system use of possibly the
entire roadway reserve flow area requires information from this domain. The depth versus
Ot relationships are therefore extended to
cover flow depths 1i kely during major flood
occupancy of roadway reserves, The need for
criteria limiting this use is clearly indicated.
TABLE 6.1
MANNING'S 'n' ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT

FIXED BOUNDARY DRAINS

Two criteria are recommended Criterion 1: flow depth in roadway reserves

should be not greater than 50 mm
above top-of-kerb, This criterion may be interpreted in terms
of kerb-side flow depth:
(da) > 0,20 m

(6,10)

Criterion 2: product of kerb-side depth and

channel flow average velocity
should be limited:
(6,11)
The first criterion limits the flood
stage level particularly in terrain of flat
grade, The second 1imits the potentia 1 for
injury to pedestrians and damage to vehicles
resulting from the effects of deep, fast-moving flood waters (Gordon and Stone 1973) :
this criterion follows National Capital Development Commission practice (N,C,D.C. 1981),

Concrete pipes (flowing part-full):

new condition
normal condition
poor condition

O,Oll
0,013
0,016

FRC pipes (flowing part-full):

new condition
normal condition
poor condition

Graphical representations of these criteria have been added to Fig, 6,2. They show,
for the gutter/ pavement profiles featured,
that -

0.009
O,Oll
0,014

(i)

Criterion 1 overrides Criterion 2 in

roadways of flat longitudinal grade (S 0
< 0.02).

Concrete surfaces:
steel trowel finish
wood float finish
broom finish

0,012
0,014
0,016

(ii)

Criterion 2 overrides Criterion 1 in

roadways of moderate-steep longitudinal
grade ( S0 > 0,02),

Corrugated metal :
new condition
normal condition
poor condition

0.021
0,024
0.030

Rough texture surfaces:

stone pitchers or cobbles 0.020 - 0.025
Pavement:
hotmix - highway standard
hotmix - residential streets
20 mm flush seal

0,013
0.014
0.018

Two other items of hydraulic information, important in the design of minor drainage

LOOSE BOUNDARY DRAINS AND SWALES

Blade-cut earth roadside channels:
well maintained
(no driveway crossings)
poorly maintained
(no driveway crossings)

0.025

Grassed swales:
well maintained
(no driveway crossings)
poorly maintained
(no driveway crossings)

0,050

0.035

0,060

Natural channels with medium vegetation:

earth bed, normal meander
0,040
rock bed, normal meander
0,045
coarse gravel bed, normal meander 0.050
Main references used to prepare this table
are: u.s. Dept. of Transportation (1979);
Wanielista (1979); Oowd et al (1980)
ARAB SR 34, 1986

The general hydraulic information contained in Fig, 6.2 may be applied to a particular gutter/pavement profile of interest to
produce a graph of (half) roadway flow, Ot
versus longitudinal slope, S0 , The characteristic double-cusp curve which results (see
Fig, 6,3) reflects the controlling effects of
Criteria 1 and 2, The derivations of points
A and B on the curve for a 7,5 m carriageway
with pavement cross-slope 1 in 30 (Fig, 6,3)
are to be found in Fig, 6,2,

systems, have been added to Fig, 6, 3, These

relate to the Ot versus S0 relationships for
maximum allowable spread. Two cases are
shown : spread = 2.5 m and spread = 1.00 m,
The derivations of points C and D are also
found in Fig, 6.2. The significance of these
data is explained in Section 6,3,
Data similar to those presented in Figs
6,2 and 6,3 but determined for other widely
used gutter/pavement profiles are included in
Appendix A. The flow derivations reviewed
above have employed Izzard's triangular flow
formula (modified) and, correctly, apply to
half-carriageway channels only, Where the
longitudinal slope of a roadway is, generally, 'down-slope', i.e. crossing contours at
near right angles, it will take a dual-channel
form making its total capacity double that
indicated in Figs 6,2 or 6,3, Not all roadways take this dual-channel form,
35

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

200 j!L---'---'---.--+-

Fig. 6.3- Hydraulic capaclly, 0 1, data for two carriageway profiles: Zb:::; 30 and 40

Lateral streets, i.e. roadways running

generally parallel to contours, are frequently constructed with dual-channel carriageways
provided that the terrain cross-slope is not
great. A single-channel form is however,
often adopted for resident i a 1 and/or minor
access streets in steep terrain. The critical slope at which the change in form takes
place appears to be around 3 per cent as shown
in Fig. 6.4.
dual channel carriageway form

Much experimental work - the most re 1iable using full-size rigs - has been carried
out on grated inlets of many different types
(Department of Main Roads, N.s.w. 1979; Earley
1979; Public Works Department, N.S.W. 1985;
Burgi and Gober 1977}. The main finding of
this work is that a grated inlet of any type
will capture the entire 'frontal flow', 0fr
[Fig. 6.1, eqn (6.4)], presented to it provided 1.

the grating is long enough

(length > 0.75 m)

2.

grating open area is not less than 60 per

cent of total plan area

3.

bars are longitudinal OR, if bars transverse, gutter longitudinal slope, S0 , is

not greater than 0.05.

single channel carriageway form used for

lateral streets in steep terrain

slope usually steeper than 3%

Fig. 6.4- Dual-channel and single-channel lateral street

carrlageways

6.2 GUTTER AND SAG INLETS

Stormwater is normally collected and

conveyed in open channel drains of the types
reviewed in Section 6.1 until diverted into
associated underground drainage pipelines.
The structures which 'capture' this flow and
transfer it from the surface to the underground domain may be divided into two broad

categories:a)
b)

36

grated inlets
side-entry inlets

Two additional but subsidiary conclusions may be drawn from the referenced studies:
these concern gutter longitudinal slope and
'side capture .
Except for those conditions which lead
to flow 'skip' across the tops of transverse
bars and hence decreased performance ( S0 >
0.05), gutter longitudinal slope increase
leads to slightly improved capture. Also,
flow entering a flat grade grating (S0 < 0.01)
along its outer edge i.e. 'side capture', can
be as much as 25 per cent of tot a 1 captured
flow. Thus, flow captured by a grated inlet
normally exceeds frontal flow, Ofr the margin
of excess depending on the amount by which the
length and area limits listed above are exceeded.
ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

These latter characteristics of gutter
grates are partly, at least, offset by their
potential for blocking, the two effects tending to cancel each other,
It is therefore recommended that designers adopt performance relationships based on
frontal flow, Ofr capture only used with
constraints 1 to 3 listed above,
Frontal
flow should be calculated at the 'normal'
gutter/pavement section regardless of inlet
'depression'. The DMR, N.s.w. {1g79) study
reveals a slight performance advantage for
depressed grated inlets, compared with undepressed inlets.

Two 'per cent capture levels are employed in the design procedures presented
later in the Handbook - 95 per cent and 80
per cent.
Gutter longitudinal flows whose
frontal flows correspond to these percentages of total flow are listed, for the Section 6.1 carriageway illustrations (Zb = 30
or 40) in Table 6.2.
Additional data of
similar type are presented in Appendix A.

side-entry inlets, with and without deflectors, opening lengths Lis = 1.0 m and 2.0 m,
has been carried out in connection with the
preparation of this Handbook: results are presented in Fig. 6.5. See also Hughes {1974),
Mills and O'Loughlin {1984) and PWD, N.S.W.
{1985).
The following general conclusions may be
drawn from study of these data sources:
(i)
(ii)

'depression' of inlet lip below

alignment level (typically 50 leads to significantly improved
compared with the performance of
depressed inlet;

(iii)

a side-entry inlet with opening length

Lis > 1.5 m and depressed 50 - 60 mm
for full inlet length captures significantly more than approach frontal
flow, Orr;

(iv)

use of deflectors leads to further improvements in performance particularly

in medium-steep longitudinal grade
channels, that is, S0 > 0.03;

(v)

little difference in performance results from the use of different types

of deflectors {square, saw-tooth,
corrugated,etc,);

(vi)

inlets whose trays extend beyond the

gutter/ pavement a 1ignment perform no
better than those with trays equal to
gutter width (otherwise same geometry,
depression, etc,).

TABLE 6.2
CAPTURE BY 375 mm GRATED INLETS

(Gutter Za = 8 ; pavement Zb = 30 to 40, see

Figs 6,2 and 6.3)
95% capture :
gutter approach flow = 22 L/s
80% capture :
gutter approach flow= 43 L/s
Notes:
o
grated inlet- full gutter width
(transverse bars)
o
length < 0,75 m
o
grating open area < 60% of total area
o
gutter longitudinal grade, S0 > 0,05,
Pavement cross-slope, represented by the
variable Zb, has a significant influence on
the depth and spread of flow approaching a
gutter inlet. Over the range of design interest (80 - 95 per cent capture), each one
per cent change in cross-slope produces a
change of more than 10 per cent in total flow,
Ot For this reason, grating capture data
should be applied from rig tests (preferable)
or calculations which incorporate crossslopes that differ from design cross-section
profiles by not more than half of one per

cent.
The comprehensive report by the Storm
Drainage Research Committee ( 1956) of Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A., provides a wealth of design information on sideentry inlets with and without deflectors. The
model scale ratio used in this programme was
1 /3 full-size.
A similar study conducted at
the University of Newcastle, N.S.W., is reported in Henderson et a l {1980). Flow capture
by on-grade side-entry inlets with deflectors
in residential streets in Canberra, A.C.T.,
has been measured and is reported in Willing
and Partners {1978).
Testing of full-size
ARRB SR 34, 1986

inlet length, Lis is the most import-

ant determinant of capture performance;

gutter
60 mm)
capture
an un-

Design information similar to that presented

in Fig, 6,5, determined for other carriageway
cross-section profiles, is given in Appendix

A.

Two levels of 'per cent capture' are provided in these graphs- 95 per cent and 80 per
cent. The higher standard has been adopted in
place of 100 per cent capture because of the
uncertainty inherent in rig results in the
capture range 97 to 100 per cent: capture/bypass flow division at the 95 per cent level
is, by COJlllarison, well defined.

Data for the 1ower standard - 80 per

cent capture - are provided to encourage the
use of systems which employ other than 'full

capture' units.

Such

systems

can

require

less underground pipe than systems using

'full capture' units. Systems which incorporate 70 per cent or 60 per cent capture
units can show even greater economies. The
80 per cent standard has been adopted in the
Handbook for reasons of simplicity and because
of its present, although limited, use.

Flow at a grated or side-entry 'sag' inlet obeys the laws of weir flow. U.S, Dept.
of Transportation (1979) offers the following
general formula:Qi = 1,66 LidilS
where Oi

(6,12)

=sag inlet flow (m3fs)

37

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Figs 6,2, 6,3), sag inlet capacity flows for

maximum spread of 2,5 m are:-

lig = length of grating perimeter (m)

excluding side closest to kerb,
or
ljs =length of clear opening (m) in
the case of side-entry inlets
di = depth of water above inlet lip
(m)

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed),

Oi = 69 l/s
2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm),
Oi = 118 l/S

Depth di may be computed from carriageway

geometry, allowable flow spread and depression of inlet lip, In the case of grated (undepressed) and side-entry (50 mm depressed)
inlets associ a ted with carri ageways of the
type used to illustrate Section 6,1 (see

110

-\

90

>--

70

Gutter Inlet -

"'w
"'
<{

Q_
Q_

<{

50

0
J

"'w>--

'~
\

002

- - ---+-I

f\r~--~~~~-

on full size rig tests

South Aust ralian

Institute of Technology

95% Capture

1-- -+

8~'/o ( apture

t-~

- - ""'

2m inlet with defledors

2m inlet withou t deflectors
1m inlet with defledors
1m inlet 'Without deflectors

r----.. "'::::.: ~

~lo

-! -

80% Ca pture

!
-+--

-~ ~gend

---.._

iI

2 All inlets depressed SOm m for full

inlet length
3 Inlet tray width equal to gutter width (375mm)
4 Test gutter/pavement prof He as shown

'-

\1-)

hl ""k

I
I

--~-~-

\.~ ,

10 ----

---

"" ~

=>

20

l\

zb dl
Test Gutter /Pavement
Profile
80% Capture

NOTES 1 Curves based

,
conducted at

~\_2rZ-

~~

I
I

p
L

z =8 ..

. a

i'Y-~

~~

>--

30

--

40

"'

I
1\
--- -1-- - ~\

60

-~~:-

>--

, I J75mm I

15om;]~
- - rm

with deflectors

...,

"-"'':.,_

80

45'

~
.,~

r.

""''t

' ~\

Similar data for other gutter/pavement

sag inlet geometries are presented .in Appendix A.

-~

100

(6.13)

Ca pture

--1-

!'----==--

-...._____

95% Ca pture

80% Ca pt ure
-

95% Ca pture
004

GUTTER

006

008

010

LONGITUDINAL

SLOPE

S0 lm/m) -

012

Fig. 6.5- Capture performance of 1.0 m and 2.0 m side entry Inlets

38

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

6.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
SURFACE-MOVING FLOWS IN MINOR SYSTEMS

The task

within an

of

managing

surface-moving

flows

urban minor stormwater drainage

system involves design interaction among the

various criteria which govern roadside channel flow spread, kerb-side depth etc. and
gutter inlet capture. The designer must
formulate or be provided with a set of guidelines similar to those listed in Table 6,3.
These guidelines should not be regarded as
mandatory for use throughout Australian practice.
The term 'favoured gutter/inlet' used in
Guidelines 1 and 3 of Table 6,3 deserves explanation.
Australian practice uses a multitude of
different gutter/pavement profile and gutter
inlet combinations which owe their acceptance
to a variety of factors - local topographic/
en vi ronmenta 1 conditions, custom, avail ability, etc. Data are presented in this chapter
on a selection from these' combinations, used
widely in South Australia, A 'favoured gutter
/inlet' is the particular gutter/pavement and
inlet combination(s) preferred by the designer and for which at least adequate performance data are available,
Application of the Guidelines set out in
Table 6,3 is illustrated in Chapters 10 and
11 of the Handbook using information on the
gutter/pavement profiles and gutter inlets
referred to in Figs 6.2 - 6,5 inclusive.
It is possible and useful to collate the
techni ca 1 information pertaining to the main
criteria listed in Guidelines 1 - 3 into a
single graph of total flow, Ot, versus longitudinal slope, SQ. This brings together the
spread relationshlp data (spread = 2,5 m and
1.0 m) presented in Fig, 6.3 and the gutter
inlet performance data of Fig, 6,5,
The collation is presented in Fig. 6,7,
With a chart such as this, the designer is
able to rapidly select and locate gutter
inlets in the drainage lines of minor stormwater drainage systems. Similar information
on other roadside channel, gutter/pavement
and gutter inlet combinations drawn from
practice across Australia is presented in
Appendix A.

It is
flows in these paths is complex.
therefore recomnended that the process - in
particular, design of the underground network
- be divided into two tasks:
Task 1.

approximate network design prepared

for design ARI = N-years, where N is
adopted on the basis of policy or
public acceptance of similar schemes
elsewhere or from Table 2,3, and,

Task 2.

final network design which takes into

account network interaction with

underground services, pipe cover

requirements, anti-sedimentation requirements, etc.
The manner in which these tasks are executed brings to light two areas of controversy
among practitioners:a) should the calculation/design procedure
commence at the catchment stormwater disposal point and progress up the network,
or should it proceed in the opposite
direction?
b) should 'Minimum Grade' or '~draulic Grade
Line' analysis be used? Minimum Grade design considers pipes to be 'flowing full

but not under pressure' and ignores energy

losses at junction pits, ~draul ic Grade
Line design considers stormwater flow in
underground pipes as conduit pressure flow
and takes account of junction pit energy

losses.
These issued have been considered and the
following practices are recommended:Procedure direction: approximate network
design (Task 1, above) should be executed in
two stages. In the first stage, junction pit
water levels are set along all lateral pipelines then along main drain pipeline(s) and
'first-round' pipe sizes nominated using a
Minimum Grade design approach. This stage of
Task 1 proceeds in a generally top-to-bottom

direction.

In the second stage, water levels

in successive junction pits are revised by

Hydraulic Grade Line analysis commencing at
the system outfall or catchment stormwater
disposal point (see Chapter 7), working upstream. This computation leads, normally, to
changes in some previously nominated pipe

sizes to ensure against pit overflow in design

storms and junction pits which are unacceptably deep. The outcome of this computation is

the 'approximate network design 1

6.4 UNDERGROUND NETWORKS: AN OVERVIEW

The general and detailed structure of a minor

system drainage network is dentritic, i.e.

tree-like.

It has a main trunk or 'mainline'

aligned, usually, as close to the direction

of the natural slope as possible, and branch
lines and/or laterals which may be short or
1ong depending on the geometry of the catchment and the nature of its contributing subareas.
Design of a drainage system which is
economical and which successfully integrates
ARRB SR 34, 1986

Minimum Grade and Hydraulic Grade Line

ana lyses: as indicated above, both ana lyses
are emp 1oyed - Minimum Grade to fix firstround pit water levels and pipe sizes, Hydraulic Grade Line analysis to arrive at approximate network design pipe sizes and junction pit water levels that are in harmony
with adopted overflow and pipe depth constraints.
It is clear from this review that design

of an underground network for a minor stormwater drainage system requires a data base
comprising the following:39

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.3
GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE-MOVING
FLOWS IN DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS (MINOR SYSTEMS}
Illustrative examples of the guidelines are presented in Fig. 6.6
Guideline 1

Flow at 'sag' or terminal inlets and in roadside channels

near intersections where bypass will cause crossflow
which is unacceptable, must be:o

not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerbline) of 2.50 m*, and,

Guideline 2

not greater than the 95 per cent capture approach flow

of the favoured gutter/1 nlet,

Flow in roadside channels at pedestrian crossings must

be not greater than that giving a flow spread, from
kerb-1 ine, of l.Om,
Roadside channel flow' along surface drainage lines
generally and at non-terminal inlets must be:-

Guideline 3

Guideline 4

not greater than the 80 per cent capture approach flow

of the favoured gutter/inlet.

A coocentrated flow may be accepted into the roadside

surface drainage line provided that:-

o
0

Guideline 5

not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerbline) of 2.50m, and,

it is not greater than 20 l/s and,

the accunulated channel flow at the concentrated flow
outlet meets Guideline 3 above.

Where a concentrated flow does not meet Guideline 4

above, it must be passed to a junction pit.

* see Section 2.6 where the relationship between flow spread and design
ARI is discussed.

Guideline 3,case where flow governs:

Ql-80% capture approach flow of
"favoured mlet."

Guideline 3, case where

spread governs:W) 25m
crossing

bypass 20%

Single- channel carriageway

Guideline 2:
W:J. 10m
Dual channel-+-#-'
carriageway
{major road)
Dual channel
carriageway
{minor road l
Guideline 3, case where
flow governs: Q :t 80%
capture approach flow
of "favoured inlet :
Bypass 20%
Guideline 1, "sag"
provisions,case where
spread governs:
W:}25m

Case where flow

governs :0...+ QR) )capture of sag
Inlet.

I
I
I
I

Guideline 3,case where

spread governs:
w)> 25m_
Guideline 4,case where
concentrated flow entry
would cause spread > 25m.
Insert junction pit {G'Iine 51
with gutter inlet (optional).

CROSSFLOW

- Crossftow permitted at
intersections A and C.
-Cross flow unacceptable
at intesection B.

Guideline 3,case where

spread governs: W > 2Sm.
Guideline 1,two cases where .fl.Q.w
governs: a > 95% capture approach
flow of "favoured inlet:

Guideline 1, case
where spread
governs: W) 2Sm

Fig. 6.6- Flow management in surface channels: Guidelines 1-5 (Table 6.3} Illustrated

40

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

I,

set of design guidelines covering items

such as pipe locations relative to carriageways, junction pit water levels relative to gutter levels, inspection pit
minimum spacing, minimum permissible pipe
size, anti-sedimentation provisions, cover
requirements, etc.
2, Minimum Grade analysis pipe flow charts
for various types of pipes normally employed in underground networks.
3. hydraulic data on pipe friction and junction pit headlosses required for refinement of the pipe diameter selection process and for computation of junction pit
water levels {Hydraulic Grade Line analysis)
4,

test algorithm for pit overflow,

5.

test algorithm for depth of pipe obvert.

110

Information and data relating to these

items are presented in the following sections,

6.5 GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF

UNDERGROUND-MOVING FLOWS

The task of managing underground-moving flows

within an urban minor stormwater drainage
system involves design of a network whose pipe
sizes and locations are governed by various

practical and geometrical constraints and

whose junction pit water levels are fixed by
associated gutter and roadway finished levels. The designer must formulate or be provided with a set of guidelines similar to
those listed in Table 6,4, These guidelines
should not be regarded as mandatory for use
throughout Australian practice.

Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Data

.
Capture performance of 1-0m and 20 m Side-entry
inlets with and without deflectors (see figure 65)

90

20

0 02

004
GUTTER LONGITUDINAL

012

008
SLOPE

S0 (m/ml ---

Fig. 6.7- Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic data

ARAB SR 34, 1986

41

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.4
GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF UNDERGROUND-MOVING FLOWS IN DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS

DEFINITION OF TERMS

(see

Fig, 6,8)

Main drain pipeline (or 'mainline) conveys flow between sub-area node pits of

network
Lateral pipeline conveys flow collected from, normally, more than one tnlet, to
junction pit located on main drain pipeline
Cross-connection pipe conveys flow from, normally, a single inlet to junction
Cross-connection pipes are
pit located on main drain or lateral pipeline,

usually shorter than 10m.

PART I

Guideline

Main drain or lateral pipelines should be aligned as follows:

minor roads (carriageways less than 10m): they should connect

succeeding gutter inlet pits (both side-entry and grated inlet types) located along the drainage path. The alignment
should favour the carriageway 'high side' in dual-channel
roads and streets. 'Low side' inlets on dual-channel minor
roads should be connected to the pipeline by either interinlet cross-connections or by deviating the alignment ff
necessary, The alignment should be just within the carriageway
where inlets are grated and just outside where side-entry
inlets are used.
The alignment in single-channel minor roads should be on the
'low side' of the street.
major roads (carriageways 10m or greater): ITilin drain or
lateral pipelines should be located within carriageways between 1,5 m and 2.5 m from the 'high side' kerb. Gutter inlet
pits should be cross-connected to on-line junctions,
The alignment in single-channel major roads should be on the
'low side' of the street,
Guideline

Every effort should be made, including the use of angled

cross-connections where otherwise unavoidable, to space
on-line junction pits as far apart as possible.

Guideline

Inspection pits spaced at intervals of not more than 120m

should be included in all long, uninterrupted pipelines of
diarreter 1050 mm and smaller.

Guideltne

In all gutter and 'sag' inlet pits and junction pits, design
water levels assigned to pits should be not higher than:
(gutter invert level - 0,15 m)
where 'gutter invert level means the undepressed gutter invert level at the roadway section containing the pit, or where
invert levels differ, the lower of the two.

Guideline

Guideline 6

Regardlessof the provisions of Guideline 4, design water

levels assigned to consecutive pairs of pits on main drain or
lateral pipelines should differ by not less than 0.10 min
the direction of flow.
A 3-point priority sequence should be followed in assigning
pit design water levels in accordance with Guidelines 4 and 5:
priority 1:

Junction pfts along lateral pipelines including

the pits where these pipelines join with main
drain pipelines

priority 2:

junction pits along main pipeline branches, where

these are present

priority 3:

junction pits along the main pipeline trunk

In each priority, assignment of pit design water levels

should commence at the upstream extremity in priorities 1 and
2 and at the downstream extremity in priority 3,
Guideline

Guideline 8

42

A minimum pipe size of U" 300 mm should be used in the des\gn

As a practical design rule, pipe sizes (diameters) should not
decrease in the direction of flow.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Guidelf ne

In order to reduce the likelihood of blockage as a result of

sedimentation. flow velocities fn pipes operating under design

condltfons should be not less than 0,5 m/s, Flows which lead
to violations of this limit should normallY be excluded from

the underground network.

The diameter of a cross-connection may be selected from either

Guideline 10

the table below or may be set equal to the diameter of the

pipe conveying flow from the connected mafnlfne or lateral

pipeline junction pit, 0 whichever is smaller, In cases
where the tabulated diamgter,
exceeds D? by more than one
increrrent, diameter D may be u ed in the c ass-connection

Dr

provided pit headloss 0and water level conditions at either end

are investigated for satisfactory performance.

Flow in
crossconnection

l/s

< 55

55
80
110
140

- 80
- 110
- 140
- 180

nomina 1 pipe
diameter, Dt

mm

Flow in
crossconnection

300
375
450
525
600

180 - 220
220 - 270
320
270
320 - 370
370 - 500

l/s

nominal pfpe
diameter, Dt

mm

675
750
825
900
1050

TABLE 6.4 - PART 2

Guideline 11

Except for cases where Dt exceeds 0 by 100re than one pipe

increment (Guideline 10), pit floor0 levels in cross-connected
inlet/junction pits should be set at or below{gutter invert level - 0,45 m - 0 )
Pit floor level should coincide with th2 invert.

Guideline 12

Pit floor levels in mainline or lateral pipeline junction pits

receiving flow from cross-connected inlets must allow for
slope of not less than 0.01 m/m in cross-connection pipes.
Pit floor level should coincide with invert of the pipe carrying discharge from a junction.

Guideline 13

Underground stonnwater network components should be specified

by class in accordance with the technical information available from manufacturers and the provisions of Austral ian
Standard CA33-1962 'Concrete Pipe Laying Design',

MINOR

ROAD

(siD_gle- chonnel)

'Y
1.5 -25m from kerbline

Pipes 600rn.TJtt and under

may be placed in footpot
pro:Nided that clear sp<:~ce
of 3m is maintamed from
property boundary and
footpath is not required
for electricity supply
poles.

LEGEND
Jurn:tion pit (J P) shown, .-......o-..
Gutter inlets :side entry inlet/J.P. ~
grated inlet I JP

cross connection prpe

moin drain pipeline or'moinline'

pipeline

Fig. 6.8- Alignment of underground pipelines- Guideline 1 (Table 6.4) illustrated

ARRB SR 34, 1986

43

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Part 1 of Table 6,4 lists guidelines
which need to be applied to develop an approximate network design, Where a cost/frequency
analysis of a proposed scheme is required, a
set of approximate minor system designs which
incorporate such network designs should be
prepared and casted for a range of design

f
k
00

average recurrence intervals (see Section

Oarcy-Weisbach friction factor

pipe boundary roughness (m}
pipe diameter (m)
Vo.Do
Reynolds Number =

2.6).

pipe average velocity (m/s)

= kinematic viscosity (water}
1,14 x 10-6 m2 /s@ 15c.

Part 2 of Table 6,4 lists guidelines and

information which are only applied at the
final network design stage,

Figs 6,9(a) and 6,9(b) employ, respectively, boundary roughness values -

The guidelines have been prepared following discussion with a wide range of practitioners and study of the hydraulics of underground systems. They are not all applicable

k = 0,6 mm (concrete pipe - poor condition)

0,3 mm (concrete pipe - normal condition}

to all situations, nor are they 'ironclad'.

The minimum pipe size specified in Guideline
7, for example, is likely to be changed in
Northern Austra 1i a to 375 mm or 450 mm and
Guideline 8 may be disregarded altogether in
areas where network blockage is rare.
Anti-sedimentation provisions are addressed in two guidelines, 9 and 12.
The
former applies a minimum velocity constraint
to the design of the main components of
'approximate' networks. Guideline 12 is emN
played at final design stage and applies a
minimum slope constraint to cross-connection
pipes only. A more appropriate, though more
complex guideline on anti-sedimentation requirements for underground storm-water pipe-

lines, could be devised using incipient mot-

ion sediment transport theory (Novak and

Nalluri 1984).
The pipe class and/or cover which needs
to be specified for each component of an
underground network, as part of the final
design process, is the subject of Guideline
13, In addition to the requirements of this

guideline, designers are advised to also consult manufacturers' handbooks, in particular

'Concrete Pipe Guide' published by the Concrete Pipe Association of Australia (1985),
and 'Textbook of Pipeline Design' (James Hardie Pty. Ltd, 1985),

Figs 6,10(a} and 6,10(b) boundary rough-

ness values are, respectively,-

These values of boundary roughness are

offered in preference to 'new pipe' values on

the ground that deterioration of pipelines
during service life, which may be 30 - 50
years, should be anticipated in network design.

6.7 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC

DATA

Application of Hydraulic Grade Line analysis

in the design procedure of Chapters 10 and 11
(minor drainage systems), requires a pit-topit headloss formulation which is simple and
yet of sufficient accuracy to enable satis-

factory approximate
produced,

The pipe selection charts are based on

the Colebrook-White formula which covers cases
in the transition zone between smooth turbulent flow and rough turbulent flow:1

If

44

k
2.51:.)
=-21og 10 ( - - + - 3.7 Do
NR /f

(6.14)

network

designs

to

be

Total pit-to-pit headloss has two

components:a) pipe friction headloss, hf

b) junction pit headloss (water level),
2

Yo

Kw( -)

hw

2g

(6,15)

where Kw = headloss coefficient which gives

pit water level.

6.6 MINIMUM GRADE ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC DATA

Minimum Grade analysis is emp 1oyed in the

minor drainage system design procedure to fix
'first-round' pipe sizes for all mainline and
lateral pipeline components of the underground network. Two pairs of charts (after
I.E. Aust. 1977), Fig. 6,9 (a and b) and Fig.
6.10 (a and b) for concrete and fibre-reinforced cement (FRC) pipes, respectively, are
supplied to enable diameter selections to be
rapidly made. The charts provide information
on 'normal' pipes and pipes in poor condition.

0.06 mm (FRC pipe - normal condition)

0,15 mm (FRC pipe - poor condition)

k
k

The two headloss components are indicated in Fig. 6,11.

Approximate friction headloss between
pits may be computed using fixed values for
friction factor, f, in the Oarcy-Weisbach
formula:
fl
hf = Do

of
f
f
f
f

(6.16)

Values of t corresponding to the values

k 1 listed above are:0,019
0,022
0,015
0.017

(concrete
(concrete
(FRC pipe
(FRC pipe

pipe -normal condition)

pipe - poor condition)
- normal condition)
- poor condition)

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

pipe diameter (mm)

o-1oo ,.,rTTTTIT--.-...-.r.nm;'--Ti:n;=;,;.;;:;:;.,

0050

Vl

ui
a.

a.

':3

Vl

Vl

<{

0
:0

<{

z
0 0 010f---Y-++-I-1--11-H4-+-i-+-t--l

0 010f----l+---+--+--++v-+++-++.l-+l

:0

>--

>--

"'z

"'
z
0

50

10 2
500 10'
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills/

so
PIPE

(a) roughness k =03 mm.- normal condition pipe

500 10 3
5000 10 4
DISCHARGE Ills)

{b) roughness k =06mm-poor condition pipe

Fig. 6.9- Concrete pipes: chart for 'first round' pipe selection

pipe diameter {mm J

;!; {;? fQ gf!.!ij?
0100 n-~-n-~-~,-;~_:;"':;..,";:...;"'c.;...;"':;."';:;.."';,.,.,.

pipe diameter ( mml

o-1oo rT>--rrmr-.---,.;,-rn:m;:....:;,;-;;.m-:,....,

0050

"'

.:

-~

Vl

ft..?

"'a.

~!(!

!;loq;

E!'c
,.._
::-~
.:23

Vl
~

<{

:,;
0
:0

0010

0050

'E
0

Vl

w'

a.
0

Vl
~

<{

z
0 0010
:0
>--

':::
"'
z

"'z
0

-'

0005

o-oos
50

10 2

500 10 3
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills)

{a) roughness k =006mm -normal condition pipe

10 2
500 103
5000 10 4
PIPE DISCHARGE Ills)

so

(b) roughness k =015 mm- poor condition pipe

Fig. 6.10- Fibre-reinforced cement pipes: chart for 'first round' pipe selection

Junction pit headloss (water level) is

estimated using values for the coefficient Kw
taken from Tables 6,5 and 6,6, Values listed
in Table 6,5 are based on the research of
Sangster et al (1958), known widely as the
'Missouri Charts', and of de Groot and Boyd
(1983), Black and Piggott (1983) : this table
covers cases in which pipes connected to
junction pits are either concurrent or they
intersect at right angles, Table 6,6 lists
values of Kw obtained, primarily, from the
research of Hare (1983) who investigated headloss at junction pits in which the alignment
of pipes was other than concurrent or at right
angles.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

v\
I hw"Kw( fa)

pit

water level

fiGT-

l~
''

Fig. 6.11 -

Vo,0 0

1-

-J-hr-

Gutter

invert
;

roo ..

~.

~l

Friction and pit head losses- definitive sketch

45

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.5
APPROXIMATE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENT Kw:
PIPES CONCURRENT OR AT RIGHT ANGLES
2. JUNCTION PITS WITHOUT GUTTER FLOW

1. INTRODUCTION
Figure (a) represents a general, simple
junction pit layout with upstream, lateral and
grating inflows, Qu, Q1 and Qg respectively.
By assigning values to these parameters all
possible sifr!lle junction pit configurations
can be described. Figure (b) is an elevation
section through the pit taken along the
alignment of its discharge pipe, diameter 0
The K.. values listed are based on the findin3s
of Sa'hgster et al (1958) kno"" as 'Missouri
Charts', de Groot and Boyd (1983), Black and
Piggott (1983).

OESCR!PT!ON

COOE
J-l

Junction pit on through

pipeline, i.e. Qu

Qu"

o,"

Qo

0,2

Qo

sone

0.5

Qg

}\,=

= Qo

Junction pit on through

pipe with lateral (s)

J-2B Qu "

o,

0o'2 Qo/2

Ql

some

Qo

Qo

2,0

J-3A , opposed laterals

Qo

2,5

J-3B , offset laterals

Qo

J-2A , Qu Ql

J-2C , Qu
J-3

Junction pit on 'L' pipe

junction, i ,e, Qu "'0

I.O
2,0

Junction pit on 'T' piPe

junction, i ,e. Qu "'0

Figure Ia!

2,0

4. PART-FULL OUTFLOW FROM JUNCTION PITS

3. INLET/JUNCTION PITS WITH GUTTER FLOW

OESCRIPT!ON

COOE
!-I

Inlet pit with single

pipe outflow

Qu"

o,"

Qg"

K,=

Qo

4.0

Part- full outflow from a junction pit.

Inlet on through pipeline

l-2A , Qu "

Qo/2

Qg

I 72B Qu " Qo

Qo

Qo/2

2,0

- some

0,5

Inlet on through pipe

with lateral(s)
!-3A Qu Ql

Qo

o,
" o,

some some 0,5

l-3B Qu >

Qo/2 some Qo/2

!.5

!-3C ' Qu

Qo/2 Qo/2 some

!.5

some

!-30 Qu Ql
!-3E Qu <

l-4

o,

Inlet on 'L' pipe

Qo

some 2,0

some Qo/2 Qo/2 2,5

junctio~

Qo

some 2,5

I-5A opposed laterals

Qo

some 3,0

l-5B , offset laterals

Qo

2,5

i.e. Q0

= 0

Inlet on 'T' pipe

i.e,Q =0
0

46

junctio~

Situations frequently arise, particularly in

upper-basin
catchments
of
moderate/steep
grade, where pipes operate part-full. Water
level build-up in pits supplying these pipes,
is, typically above obvert level (see sketch),
Bannigan and Horgan (1981) have suggested for
such situations that the hydraulic grade line
be set at (discharge) pipe obvert level and
the height, h , fixed in the same manner as
other cases cJhsidered in Tables 6,5 and 6.6.
The value of V required in the calculation of
0
hw is given by V = Q0 /A0 where A0 is
discharge pipe full Rrea.
No experimental or field validation of
this has to date been presented. Results of a
pilot study carried out at S.A. Institute of
Technology show water level build-up can be
significantly greater than Kw (V~/2g). It is
therefore recommended that the Bannigan and
Morgan approach be adopted with hw fixed by:

some

hw

1.5 Kw[:!]

The results of current research will

time yield a more accurate relationship.

in

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.6
APPROXIMATE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENT K,: PIPES
NEITHER CONCURRENT NOR MEETING AT RIGHT ANGLES

1. JUNCTION PIT WITH SINGLE ENTRY/EXIT PIPES

situation which would otherwise, i ,e, using

rectangular pits,
fall
into
the cases

Hare's (1983) research on the hydraulics of

single entry/exit pits with pipes neither
concurrent nor meeting at 90 degrees, shows
that the pit water level headless coefficient,
K, which should be applied to the hydraulic
g~ade line at these structures is dependent on
two main factors:

considered above.
Internal shaping
'Benching' of pits to
provide a curved channel D /2 deep between
entry and exit pipes (see sR'etch) can reduce
K values obtained in G > 45 situations from
2~5 to about 1.5 (Archer et al 1978), It

(i)

& < 45

appears to make no significant improvement in

the location of the entry pipe centreline

(produced) intersection with pit walls;
and

situations.
Similar findings are
reported in Dick and Marsalek (1985),

(ii) the magnitude of gutter flow, Qg,

For deviation angle,

...JJJ_____

G < 45:

Section XX

('I-

Examples:
exit face

of pit.""-.

-~a.
-==.

Benching in a
circular
junction pit

Benching in a
rectangular
,junction pit

. 0(45
intersection

point.
2. DROP JUNCTION PITS

For deviation angle, G > 45:

It is often necessary in steep terrain or when

an existing service (water main, electricity
cable, etc.) must be avoided to construct
junction pit entry and exit pipes at significantly different
levels,
Unpublished
research by Black and Piggot (Q!T) and Logan
City Council (1983) suggests the following
va 1ues for the pit water 1eve 1 headl oss
coefficient Kw:

Examples:

.-side wall of pit.

intersection

point.
Kw values recommended are:

rectangular pits, Kw
circular pits,
Kw

Kw
~

= 1.5 for Qg

Q0 /2

= 2.5 (with or without gutter

flow)
Research suggests that hydraulic shaping
of pits to assist the passage of flow from
entry to exit can be effective.
Pit dimensions Small pits, generally, result
in smaller headlosses than large pits.

Circular pits Results of unpublished research

by R.G. Black and T.L. Piggot of Queensland
Institute of Technology, when compared with
the results of Hare (1983), show marginally
improved performance for circular pits in

ARAB SR 34, 1986

= 2.0:
= 1,5

& > 45 situations:

rectangular pits, Kw=2.5;

0,5 for Q = 0 or small

quantity; g

G < 45 :

& > 45' :

& < 45 situations:

Plan View.

circular pits,

Kw = 2 0

Use of these values of K is restricted to

i nsta 11 at ions in which b<l'l: h pipe obverts
(entry and exit) are submerged under design
flow conditions AMJ there is no gutter flow.
It is considered unlikely that gutter flow, if
present, will affect the listed values of K ,
but this is presently unresearched.
w
Some designers prefer to break verti ca 1
alignment and introduce a short length of
steeply sloping pipe (slope, say, 1 vertical
to 4 horizontal), if necessary, in preference
to using a drop pit, They argue that the
headless thus introduced, although unknown,
must be less than that occurring at a drop
pit,
Designers following this practice are
entitled to use slightly reduced values for

~
47

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

3. MULTI-PIPE JUNCTION PITS

The bulk of practical situations for which pit

headloss values are required can be found from
Table 6,5 and the above.
Cases not covered
are those where flows enter pits from two or
more pipes which are not concurrent with
and/or not at 90 degrees to thel r respective
discharge pipes.
The mol tltude of pipe/pit
georretries met in practice and the range of
flows which would need to be tested to produce
generalised design tables make the full
research of this topic a mammoth if not
impossible task.
The following suggestions are
designers who face this problem:
(i)

offered

to

in situations where the risk of property

inundation
Is
highly
sensitive
to
uncertainty in pit headloss estimates,
values for Kw should be obtained from
hydraulic
models
of
pipe/pit

Watts (1983) has established a set of

formulae which approximate the results of
Sangster et al and of Hare.
By the time Tables 6,5 and 6,6 are used
in the design of a typical minor storf!Water
drainage system, consi derabfe information has
been compiled by the designer concerning flows
in all component pipes of the underground
network as well as gutter capture flows diverted to the underground system at inlets. The
quantities Ou. 01, Og and Q0 defined in Table
6,5 are therefore known and its inequalities
readily assessable.
Values of Kw selected from Tables 6,5
and 6,6 and applied In the Hydraulic Grade
Line method, give satisfactory underground
pipe sizes and water levels in mainline and
lateral pipeline junction pits. The resulting network designs are acceptably close to
those given by more time-consuming methods
which use precise values extracted from the
'Missouri Charts' and Moody (pipe friction)
Chart. This point is revisited in Chapter 12
- Concluding Discussion.

installations
tested
under
design
conditions (see Bates et al 19B4), and,
(II) in all other situations use Kw = 3.0,
with or without gutter flow.
4. NICHOLS-WATTS FORMULAE

An unpublished report by Nichols, Watts and

Associates, ConsultIng EngIneers of Ll verpoo 1
N.s.w. (Watts 1983), proposes a set of
formulae which enable headlosses to be
determined for many arrangements of pipes and
full-barrel flows Included in Tables 6.5 and
6.6. Values determined by the formulae show
c 1ose agreement with results obtaI ned by Hare
(1983) but are less satisfactory in their
reproduction of headlosses for the cases
Investigated by Sangster et al (1958). It is
considered that the Nichols-Watts formulae
underestimate significantly headloss in the
more complex pipe/pit and multi-pipe geometry

cases.

The pipe obvert depth test involves comparison of the quantity (hf + 1,5 D0 )
against allowable head difference and is
illustrated in fig. 6.12(b), This test
incorporates an arbitrary invert depth
1 imit of 2.5 D0 below AWL. (The 2.5 D0
value derives from the test conditions
under which much of the information contained in Tables 6,5 and 6.6 has been
obtained, i.e. pit water level 2,5 D0
above invert.)

b)

-.---~-Test

AWL

Assigned
water

f--=--l

for overflow of upstream pit- TEST

\1

I Kw{ 2~ ) :;J

level

ht_

---

~~--+"'B""W'"-l
Bottom
water

level

(a} U/s pit overflow

v'

test= hfKw{2~ )~ {AWL-BWLJ

Eq.M7

Test for depth of upstream obvert- TEST 2

6.8 TESTS FOR PIT OVERFLOW AND PIT OBVERT

DEPTH

Two tests need to be executed in the process

of applying Hydraulic Grade line analysis to

the 'first

round

network

referred to

in

BWL

25Do

Section 6,4.
a)

48

The first involves the comparison of calcui a ted total headloss [hf + Kw(V 0 2 /2g)]
in each component in turn against the head
difference allowable between pits. This
comparison leads to a test for pit overflow, illustrated in Fig. 6,12 (a). 'Allowable' head difference Is based on the
recommendations contained in Guidelines 4
and 5 of Table 6,4.

lbJU/s obvert depth test' ht1-500 ?iAWL-BWLJ

Eq.616

Fig. 6.12- Definition of terms- pit overflow and obvert

depth tests

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

The computations for both tests commence
at the network outfall -a point of fixed (design) water level - and should be carried out
simultaneously moving from pit-to-pit in an
upstream direction. Only pits along the main
drain pipeline(s) and lateral pipelines are
considered. Water levels assigned in fixing
the 'first-round' network (i.e. AWL's) are
progressively revised to become BWL's (bottom
water levels) in the process: the upstreammoving calculation sequence permits this.
Either or both tests can be violated in
a given situation without an unmanageable
design necessarily resulting.
It will be
found that the requirements of the overflow
test [eqn (6,17)] can, generally, be met by
appropriate choice of pipe diameter, D0 , and
this should be the first action of the designer.
Satisfaction of eqn (6,17), i.e. TEST 1
in a particular case implies that full-barrel
flow in the discharge pipe, diameter D0 , can
be achieved without overflow occurring at the
upstream pit. It does not disclose, however,
the depth at which the pipe must be set to
achieve this behaviour, and whether the required depth is acceptable : this is the role
of eqn (6,18), i.e. TEST 2,
Two main outcomes of TEST 2 are possible:
Outcome 1 : If the eqn (6,18) inequality is
satisfied, it follows that the
invert of the upstream end of the
discharge pipe, diameter D0, may
be set above (AWL-2,5 D0 ) without
losing the full-barrel condition.
This elevation is limited by eqn
(6.19):pipe invert level >
BWL + hf - D0
(upstream)
(downstream)

(6,19)

In this case water level in the

upstream pit is given by eqn
(6.20) :2

Vo

BWL
BWL
+ hf + Kw( -)
2g
(upstream) (downstream)

(6.20)

Outcome 2 : If eqn (6,18) fails, it follows

that full-barrel flow in the dis-

charge pipe, diameter D0 , is only

ARRB SR 34, 1986

possible if its upstream invert

is set lower than (AWL - 2.5 D0 ),
a condition which is undesirable.
The alternative is to design for
part-full outflow from the upstream pit (see Table 6.5), This
option leads to pipe invert set
by eqn (6.21) :2

Vo

pipe invert level >

AWL - 1.5 Kw(-) - D0
(upstream)
(upstream)
2g
(6.21)
and upstream pit water level
(BWL) is the same as that assigned (AWL) during the 'first-round'
design stage, i.e. BWL (upstream)
= AWL.
Outcome !/Outcome 2 situations : normally, the upstream pipe invert level given by
eqn (6,21) is above that given by eqn (6,19),
However, the inter-relationship between these

levels can sometimes. be reversed.

The situa-

tions which lead to such reversal are those

where large flows must be passed through
multi-pipe junction pits or where large flows
are subject to severe direction changes at
pits, In cases where upstream invert level
given by eqn (6.19) is higher than that given
by eqn (6,21), the former level should be
adopted and BWL (upstream) computed by eqn
(6,20), i.e. treat as Outcome 1 design situation.
The consequence of this procedure is a
mainline/lateral pipeline network in which
pit water levels have been set by Hydraulic
Grade Line analysis taking account of both
full-pipe and part-full operation. Pipe invert and hence junction pit floor levels are,
generally, above (AWL - 2,5 D0 ).
The resulting main network is satisfactory for
'approximate' design purposes and may be extended to include the sizes of cross-connected pipes by applying Guideline 10 (Table
6,4). This guideline recognises the small
minority of cases in which cross -connections
carry high flows requiring special design
attention.
Final design detailing involves application of Guidelines II - 13 together with site

constraints, underground
etc.

service avoidance,

49

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

50

ARRB SR 34, 1986

7
Urban drainage systems:
structure

7.1 INTRODUCTION
When urban development takes place in a
natural basin, the ordered system of drainage
lines present in the landscape uplands its

runnels, incised channels and minor creeks

is replaced by a system of allotment drains,

roadside channe 1s , in 1et s and underground
pipes.
Though outwardly different from the
natural catchment drainage network, the formal
paths of the developed landscape display a
structure which is similar to that of the
drainage system they have replaced,

Imagine the entire landscape upstream of

an identified runoff disposal point, X, having
its vegetation cleared and its surface coated
with
impervious material
i.e.
'plasticcoated'.
A unique boundary called the
watershed can be identified, enc I osi ng a 11
surfaces yielding runoff to X. The path taken
by each runoff element travelling from its
place of origin in the catchment to X is along
the point-to-point locus of steepest topographic grade.
These items are illustrated
for a typical rural basin in Fig. i.l.

This observed similarity is exploited here

to introduce and describe the structure of
both simple and complex urban stormwater

drainage systems.
Detailed planning and design of a scheme
to control and/or mitigate the effects of
flooding in a rural catchment can only proceed
from a data base which includes information of
the following:
a)

catchment natural drainage direction;

b)

runoff disposal point

section through which
ating in a catchment
prior to disposal to

. the channel flow

all runoff origin
passes inmediately
a receiving domain

such as a river, stream,

storage pond, estuary etc.;

temporary

c)

catchment boundary or 'watershed';

d)

internal node points

locations of
interest where flood magnitude may be
assessed and interpreted as flood level
or stage height;

e)

drainage network the network of surface

channels which co11ects and conveys to
disposal all runoff originating in a
catchment;

f)

catchment sub-areas i nterna 1 drainage

areas from which runoff passes to each
node point.

The natural drainage direction [item {a)]

and runoffdisposal point [item (b)] of a
catchment are determined by inspection and
interpretation of the contour pian containing
the catchment.
Identification of these i terns
must precede the fixing of the catchment
boundary [item (c)].
ARRB SR 34, 1986

Flg. 7.1- Runoff element travel path and watershed of a rural

catchment

In rural catchments, node points [item

{d)] are located, typically, at points on the
basin drainage network [item {e)] where main
channels are joined by tributaries. They form

a succession of points along the main drainage

lines.
The sum of the sub-areas [item {f)]
draining to a particular node point represents
the total catchment contributing runoff to
that point.
The lowest node point coincides
with the identified runoff disposal point, X.
An example of a rural catchment drainage
structure which illustrates items {a) to {f)
is sho""' in Fig. 7.2.

51

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

. . ....

;'\)!~-- ~
(\I//\///~
\ /\ 1~
350

I /'\ ( /
I / I .l/

"-

Catchment drainage network

shown'
~
-,

rr---7

_y-

\.

I/
\\

--;:r-~-~

internal node points

shown:

Catchment main drainage

Catchment flood

network shown:

~~~~

disposal point
Fig. 7.2- Components of a rural catchment drainage structure

7.2 GENERAL PROPERTIES OF SMALL URBAN

CATCHMENTS

A structure similar to that described above

for rural catchments can also be observed in
urban catchments of any size.
Oi fferences
arise pr1mari ly where man-made components of
the built environment interrupt the movement
of runoff over the natural terrain forcing
runoff elements to follow point-to-point loci
other than those of steepest topographic
grade. This occurs, typically, where roadways
and roadside channels intersect overland
drainage paths and where storm drainage is
carried in underground pipes,
In large, totally urbanised 1andscapes
this interference has virtually no effect on
identified natural drainage directions and
runoff disposal points and only a marginal
effect, if any, on boundaries. The watersheds
of 1arge urban deve 1opments may therefore be
fixed in the same manner out 1i ned above for
rural catchments.
When the detailed drainage design of a
segment of such a landscape is undertaken,
however,
the
Interference
of
man-made
components is found to greatly affect its
boundary and in the matter of runoff disposal,
it is not unusual for surface-moving and
underground-moving runoff to be channelled or
piped,
respectively,
to
significantly
different points. Identif1 ed natura 1 drainage
direction on the other hand is unaltered by
deve 1opment.
Node points in urban catchments are
usually assigned to princi pa 1 down-s lope
street
intersections
where
(down-slope)
cross-flow cannot be tolerated, to 'sag'
points and to points where the main drainage
path changes direction sharply. They may also
be assigned to locations where large runoff
contributions join main drainage paths from
major sub-divisions or from commercial/
industrial estates,
Drainage network main
paths of a catchment link the as~igned node

52

points using, primarily, the roadway reserves

of its principal down-slope streets. As in
rural catchments, individual drainage areas
contributing runoff to identified node points

are termed 'sub-areas'.

Small urban catchments may be divided into
two broad classes
simple and complex.
Simple urban catchments are, typically, less
than 20 ha in area and may be analysed as
single drainage units.
Complex urban
catchments represent collections of drainage
units or sub-catchments each of area less than
20 ha: a complex urban catchment may, thus,
enclose a total area considerably greater than
20 ha.
The two classes of small developed
catchments are discussed separately in the
following sections.

7.3 SIMPLE URBAN CATCHMENTS

An example of a developed landscape which

presents each of the catchment items reviewed
in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 for a sub-division
comprising four simple catchments is shown in
Fig. 7.3(a).
The following items may be
recognised in this example:
a)

natural drainage direction

b)

catchment flood and stormwater di sposa 1

points, L.O, M,O, N.O and P.O

c)

catchment boundaries

d)

node points

e)

drainage networks

f)

sub-areas

The descriptors 'flood' and 'stormwater'

used in (b) above carry the.same meanings
ascribed to them in Section 2.2. The disposal

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

points of the two runoff coMponents frOM
major/rare storMs and fr0111 minor storms
normally coincide .in a shple urban catchment
e.g. Catchments L, M, Nand Pin Fig, 7.3, but
differ in the case of the complex urban
catchments reviewed in Section 7,4,

The structure of the .. jor drainage system

for the illustrated sub-division or any
catchment within it can be readily obtained
from information contained in Fig. 7,3(a).
This has been done for Catchment M and is
presented in Fig. 7.3(b). In this figure:

Node points in each simple catchment are

coded sequentially up the drainage network
conmencing from its flood and stor,..,ater
disposal point,
Individual catchments are
identified by a letter prefix, hence, H.O,
M.l, H.2, etc,

the disposal point M,O is where major and

rare flood flows generated in Catchment M
enter a local stream;
the identified node sections on the flood
escape network, M,l, M,2 and M,3 etc,,

LEGEND
Catchment stormwater

ST

disposal points shown:@

Catchment boundaries
shown:
Node points shown:

Drainage network
shown'

'N.

'"'<

,.

Open space ..?floodways

shown: ===::::..=
;10

!1.3

Contours shown' -------- 112

Scale

'"'

metres

Figure 7. 3 (a): 40 ha. sub-division - catchments L, M, N and P.

M.3
node
s ectn

park
(
... ---"1--------

''' c
c
"'ID '' ""ID
''
' ID

o-'

"'

M.2
node

E I

- 1 '-----

----1-

sedn.
0:

!2
0:

M.1
(T.NS.I

1-i:s-'II "'c
I ID
~

I
I

ID

noMree
pit
>-'

node

~M.O

--r

'

td~

'

'I

-r-

I
I
~.....,
clc
IDIID

node

pit

0:

"'-

-"'"'H3
~

0:

'
IN.P

''

g_

'~
/~

I __(.....It...
,_
I

~~~

M.2

M.1
sectn.

'

"' ~~~I
I :9
vq v; I :E~I~

M.4

-p~;k-

:( ~ ...

.,;I~

Figure 7.3(b): Catchment Mstructure of major system.

d c

-g a
~

0~

~~

~'I!
d~
ID.9

~~~

~!:::.

LEGEND
Sub-area boundaries
shown:
Primary drainage area
boundaries shown: _- ----Node pits shown:

~~

d
c

d
'

eb

clc
IDIID ~L

Ul:-2
'Vi 1 Vl

~d

~ID

---

M.3

Main drainage pipetine

shown: M.l
H,3
(coincides with primary drainage
area or sub-area boundaries)

E~

c c

~d

Gutter inlets shown:

M.4
node pit

~M .o)==-+

sub-area boundaries
shown:-------f lood escape network
shown : -t-->--t-

--1

Note: Each terminal gutter

inlet is assumed to receive,

initially, the entire runoff

from its associated primary
drainage area,

Figure 7. 3 (c): Catchment M structure of minor system

Fig. 7.3- Stormwater drainage networks in simple urban catchments

ARRB SR 34, 1986

53

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

are placed inmediately downstream from
the node points of Fig. 7.3(a), Each
receives the entire flood flow generated
in its upstream catchment.
The 1owest
node section (M.l in this case) is
referred to as the catchment 'terminal
node section' (T.N.S.).
Its entire
collected flow is transferred without
addition to the catchment flood disposal
point, M,O,
The terminal node section
and flood disposal point of a simple
urban catchment frequently coincide;
the 'flood escape network' is identical
to the drainage network for catchment M
given in Fig, 7,3(a);
drainage sub-areas are identified.

The minor drainage systeoo structure for

Catchment M is shown in Fig. 7,3(c). It is
typical in that it includes above-ground and
underground flow paths which act conjunctively

to convey nuisance or minor storll1tlater flows

through and from the catchment.
Catchments
less complex than those illustrated in Fig.
7.3 have no uncterground pipe components.
the disposal point M.O is where minor
stormwater flows generated in Catchment M

enter a local stream;

pipeline main junction pits are located
at the positions of the node points of
Fig, 7.3(a) and are referred to as node

pits. Each receives the entire minor

stormwater flow generated in its upstream
catchment. The lowest pit (M.1 in this
case) is referred to as the catchment
'terminal node pit' (T.N.P.). Its entire
collected flow is transferred without
addition to the catchment stormwater
disposal point M,O,
The tenninal node
pit and stormwater disposal point of a
simple
urban
catchment
frequently

coincide:
drainage sub-areas are almost identical
to those of the major system.
Compare
Fig. 7.3(b) and 7.3(c);
The minor system network, although based
on the drainage network of Fig. 7.3(a) is
more comp 1 ex than it. All runoff is
considered to move in the initial staqes
of the network analysis/design procedure
described in Chapters 10 and 11 by way of
surface drainage paths to individual
terminal gutter inlets (or 'sags' where
present) located close to the node points
of Fig. 7.3(a).
These terminal gutter
inlets are indicated, for Catchment M, in
Fig. 7 .3(c).
The developed areas
contributing runoff to these inlets are
ca 11 ed priiHry drainage areas and their
flow paths pri...,r.J drainage lines in the
Handbook procedures.
Gutter inlet pits
at the ends of these drainage 1ines are

located on or are cross-connected to the

pipes of the main underground network
(see Guideline 1, Table 6.4),

54

Note that each sub-area represents

collection of primary drainage areas.

With these structures in place in any

simple urban catchment, the analysis and
design of its major and minor drainage systems
can proceed. Chapters 8 and g are devoted to
the procedures involved in major system
planning/design;
Chapters 10 and 11 are
concerned with the design of minor systems,
Catchment M of the Fig, 7.3 deve 1opment is
used as a case study illustration of these
procedures.

7.4 COMPLEX URBAN LANDSCAPES

Developed urban landscapes are often more

complex than the sub-division illustrated in
Fig. 7 .3.
They may consist of two or more
slope-aligned catchments, each divided into
sub-catchments whose main drainage paths are
parallel. The internal drainage structure of
a sub-catchment is identical to that of the
simple catchments discussed above: it has its
own terminal node point (T.N.S. and T.N.P. are
both located here i, drainage network, node
points, etc. [see Fig, 7.4(a)].
In complex landscapes major and minor
system drainage is directed, frequently, to
different d i sposa 1 points, a consequence of
the significantly different flow magnitudes
which are involved in each system.
The large,
free-surface
flows which
constitute the bulk of the ma.ior flood
discharges generated in an urban sub-catchment
cannot be easily diverted across natural
drainage slopes to a central flood disposal
point for each catchment. The designer must
therefore give attention to the subsequent
down-slope movement of these sub-catchment
outflows
irrespective
of
catchment
or
municipal boundaries which may lie in their
paths.
Fig, 7.4(b) illustrates, schematically, how major flood runoff might be handled
in a complex metropolitan landscape comprising
'strings' of slope-aligned catchments.
In this illustration, the flood escape
route of each upland sub-catchment is similar
to that shown in Fig. 7 .3(b) down to its
terminal node section (T.N.S.) only. Its
route through the lowest sub-catchment of each
'string', however, is identical to that of
Fig, 7,3 (b) where T.N.S. and flood disposal

point exist as separate entities.

Management of major flows from subcatchment to sub-catchment down the deve 1oped
landscape, as illustrated in Fig, 7.4(b), may
call for temporary storage or detention basins
to be installed at or downstream from some
sub-catchment term ina 1 node sections to meet
the overall goals of a Master Drainage Plan.
Where the terrain slope is fairly flat and the
receiving domain tidal, the use of flood pumps
is an option which the designer may have to
explore.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CATCHMENT P
sub-catchments PA&PB

0
<{
0

"'

CATCHMENT N

sub-catchments
NA,NB & NC

M3
M5

CATCHMENTS
l &M

M4
M1

Space

MO
Reserve
catchment or sub-catchment runoff disposal

node points shown ..

drainage network shown.

9.q.}'

points shown .. ...

. ............... M3

L2

L-1

Fig 14(a): Catchments, main roads &

principal streets

linear park floodways shown..

=====
principal street floodways shown ... ~~~~
main road floodways shown.

Fig 7.4(b): Integrated major system

drainage paths

Fig. 7.4- Schematic representation of storm drainage

networks ln a complex urban landscape

The drainage structures sketched in Fig.

7.4 are typical of those used in urban
developments and, 1 ike those of the Fig. 7.3
catchments, inc 1ude above-ground and under-

ground components in their minor systems.

Although flow in an underground pipe is
subject to the same gravity laws which govern
free-surface flow, the path it may take from a
given point is far less dependent on topographical considerations than applies in the
case of open channel flow,
Fig. 7.4(c)
illustrates this: minor storm runoff conveyed
to each upland sub-catchment terminal node pit
is diverted across the natural drainage
direction by underground pipe to its catchment
stormwater disposal point (N.O, P.O, etc,).
A single down-slope trunk main 1 inking
these disposal points carries the bulk of the
development minor system load to final
disposal, The only minor stormwater excluded
from this system is that generated in
catchments which have their own disposal
points, i.e. the lowest slope-aligned catchments in each 'string'.
The advantages of
this approach to managing nuisance stormwater
flows in the urban environment are considerable. Design of the resulting system is,
however, more complex than that of their major
system counterparts.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

.~

node pits shown.

. ............

underground network shown .

.,_<-

---tl-----<11---

Fig7.4(c): Minor system underground network

55

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

56

ARRB SR 34, 1986

8
The major drainage system ......
design procedure outline

6.1 INTRODUCTION

l,

Aim

2,

a peak outflow {design rare storm) discharge rate.

The general storm runoff management design

practice proposed in this Handbook is based
on the major/minor drainage concept introduced in Section 2,3, Major drainage systems
use the roadway reserve, drainage easement
and open space or green be 1t areas of a
developed urban landscape to carry all major
runoff flows and a specified level of rare
flooding,

In real world situations, the magnitude

of this discharge rate determf nes, in each
case, the design of channelling or the hydraulic structure through which major flows
pass before entering a natural drainage line

The primary aim of this Chapter is to

describe a procedure for the planning of major
systems for small, i so 1ated urban catchments
: the procedure draws on guidelines and hydrological/hydraulic information presented in
earlier chapters, The procedure is applied
to a case study sub-division in Chapter 9,
lsolaled and Nonlsolaled Calchmenls

The major/minor drainage system designed for

a specific portion of an urban landscape
forms part of the Master Drainage Plan for
the entire drainage basin within which the
particular urban unit is located,
During
storm events, runoff is collected and conveyed along the identified drainage networks
of each unit,
Interaction between slopealigned units or catchments may take place in
this process, Two broad classes of catch-

ments are recognised:a) isolated urban catchments: developed

areas, planned or existing, which receive

no stormwater input from upstream sources

and which discharge to open space or 'green

The procedure described in Chapters 8 and

9 for planning major stormwater drainage systems is limited to isolated catchments and
yields for each:ARRB SR 34, 1986

flood

escape

network,

and

or associated open space domain.

In non-isolated situations, the drainage
designer may be tempted to pass floodwaters
from an upstream drainage unit directly to a
downstream unit in cases where the computed
peak outflow discharge rate of the former is
less than the capacity of the receiving flood
escape channel of its downstream counterpart,
This ignores the fact that a sub-catchment's
response to the stimulus of storm input is not
a peak discharge rate isolated in time, but,
rather, a complex discharge/time relationship
-a hydrograph (see Fig,8,1), Where two such
hydrographs interact, as in the case of the
direct 1inking suggested above, it is almost
inevitable that the peak discharge rate for
the comb! ned hydrograph will exceed the individual peak rates of the component hydrographs as illustrated in Fig, 8.1,

There may well

be sufficient

'spare'

capacity in the downstream flood escape path

to accommodate the peak of the combined flows,
but this must be verified by computation,
Alternatively, it may be appropriate and consistent with other objectives of the urban
plan, e.g. traffic planning, road hierarchy,
etc,, to alter the gutter/pavement profile of
a receiving- roadway reserve and, as a result,
provide greater flood escape capacity,

belt' natural drainage lines, The Fig, 7,3

sub-division is an example of this type of
development,
b) non-isola ted urban catchments: developed
areas, planned or existing, which receive
stormwater input from upstream, slopealigned developed catchments or which discharge drainage to downstream, slopealigned developed catchments or both, The
Fig, 7.4 urban landscape is an example of
this type of development,

feasible

/ - ......_

hydrograph of lower
drainage unit

//

combined hydrograph
\ i n lower drainage unit

\
\

Flow

hydrograph of upper
drainage unit passing
\ \to lower unit

Time
Fig. 8.1 - Hydrographs for slope-aligned urban drainage units

57

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

More frequently
forced to reduce the
inating storm runoff
described in Chapter

however, designers are

impact of upstream-origby means such as those
3,

Scope of a Major Drainage System

The major drainage system associated with an
urban development is the network of surface
flood paths taken by storm runoff during
times when its subsidiary minor system is
rendered partially i noperab 1e as a result of
blockage, or when the capacity of the minor
system has been exceeded.
In a properly
planned scheme such occurrences are likely to
cause flooding of open space areas and inundation of the grounds of buildings, but no
indoor damage other than to buildings of

secondary importance.

competition with the demands of neighbourhood

planning, building aspect, road hierarchy,
traffic management, etc., all of which impinge
daily on the lives of the urban resident, the
needs of a major drainage system, whose purpose rarely becomes apparent, frequently rank
well down in the priorities of urban planning.
For this reason drainage designers cannot expect urban landscape plans to be always
developed around 'most desi rab 1e' flood escape networks.
Instead, practitioners must
develop skills enabling them to exploit the
potential of given urban layouts and terrain
to achieve their objectives,
An ideal situation exists where an urban
plan is compiled by a team which includes
hydrological/hydraulic expertise. There is a
perceptible increase in this type of planning.

While the above advantage may be thought

of as primarily associated with schemes for

new developments, major/minor systems have an

important hindsight role to play in urban
runoff management. This comes about in the
fo 11 owing way:-

For a variety of reasons -the impossibility of accurately predicting future development or, perhaps, lack of foresight on the
part of original designers -drainage systems
frequently prove to be inadequate after some
years of service. The dominant characteristic of an overtaxed system is its inability
to contain flows of a given design frequency.
For example a scheme which was designed originally to overflow In flows greater than
those generated in a 5-years ARI storm is
found, after 20 years of service, to exceed
capacity every two or three years.
Such a scheme may have much to gain from
a reapprai sa 1 based on the major/minor concept
in which the observed 2-years or 3-years ARI
flood capacity of its existing minor system
is accepted and all augmentation efforts are
devoted to pro vi ding open-channel fl oodpaths
for major storm runoff flows (see Water Research Foundation 1984), The planning/design
approach which should be followed is identical
to that described in this Chapter except for
the status of the minor system design ARI =
N-years (see Section 5,4).
In new developments this quantity must be adopted : in
rehabilitation work of the type briefly discussed here, it enjoys the status of an

'observation'.
Although the cost of 1and and property
acquisition for drainage easements is likely
to constitute a major outlay, the total programme may well be not only attractive in the
financial short run but may also involve
minimum public and business inconvenience in
its execution. It is also likely to offer a
higher level of flood security than was provided under the original scheme,
It must be recognised by the drainage
designer that sound storm runoff management
practice - important though it is - represents but one of many competing and at times
conflicting objectives of the urban plan. In

58

8.2 MAJOR SYSTEM PLANNING PROCEDURE

There are eight steps which must be taken to

plan or design a major drainage system for a
typical isolated development. They are:STEP 1:
STEP 2:
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP

3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:

Catchment definition
Fixing of roadway reserve capacity
flows
Gap flow' design storm selection
System planning table
Network review
System evaluation
Sub-area detailing
Final design detailing,

STEP 1: Catchment definition

This involves the following set of tasks:a) locate development, i.e. climatic region.
rainfall relationships, etc.
b) prepare contour map of area( 1 or 2 metre
contours, or closer spacing if area very
flat); scale 1:1000 to 1:5000
c) define deve 1opment boundary and boundary
constraints consistent with the Master
Drainage Plan (see Chapter 1)
d) identify pattern of internal roads, relevant traffic management information
e) identify roads and streets as dual-channel
or potential single-channel flow paths and
their hydraulic characteristics (see Section 6,1)
f) identify major (common) land use areas
g) Identify N-years design ARI for underground
network; is partial blockage likely?
h) fix 'natural drainage direction'
i} nominate flood disposal points
j) define internal isolated
catchments and node points

see

k) define flood escape networks, nodel

sections and drainage sub-areas of

Chapter

each isolated catchment

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Execution of STEP 1 is mainly a routine
operation involving much collating and some
preliminary assessment. The task is aidedand the whole exercise appreciably shortened
-if information on the likely traffic status
of each roadway and street is available at
the catchnent definition stage, This information has an important bearing on the way
the drainage designer fixes the boundaries of
catchments, It also influences his available
options when faced with major flood flows in
segments of the catchment where surface movement of runoff is likely to be obstructed,

e.g. roundabouts, street closures, raised

median strips, etc.
Identification of the flood escape network and node sections in each catchment is
part of the final task of STEP 1 and one which
draws together many interacting threads of
catchment data. Catchment and drainage subarea definition both apply two assumptions
relating to the way major floodwater moves
through an urban landscape:-

!.

flow into and/or out of a sub-area takes

one entry and/or exit path only;

2.

the path taken by storm runoff at a roadway intersection is along the roadway
path of steepest grade,

It is not difficult to ensure, by appropriate shaping of gutter and roadway profiles,

that both of these assumed behaviours do in
fact Occur in urban catchment runoff events
of small magnitude, It is almost impossible,

on the other hand, to guarantee similar performance ln major storffis.

A satisfactory level of conformity to the
assumed behaviours can be achieved, however,
by making the bulk of roadway flood escape
paths dual-channel (see Section 6,1). This
has two consequences:(i)

it maximises available flood escape

channel capacity; and

(i j) it provides, by the presence of the

roadway crown, a modest degree of floodproofing in the system.

A continuous roadway crown in a street

which has 'high' and 'low' sides forces an
uneven distribution of flow to occur in its
dua 1-channe 1 carriageway. The greater flow
holds to the high side kerb where it can be
tolerated - while the lesser flow passes
along the low side kerb where fronting properties are usually more vulnerable to damage
by roadside channel surcharge.
The single-channel carriageway form (see
Fig. 6 .4) may be used with impunity in upper
and/or remote subareas of catchments. Storm
runoff contributed from such areas is, typically, well below the carrying capacities of
dual-channel carriageways.

a)

calculate roadway reserve capacity flows,

Qc, for each type of carriageway likely
to be used in the catchment

b)

apply a storage correction to these capacity flows, hence Qsc for each type of
carriageway,

The first of these tasks emp 1 oys the

procedures and criteria discussed in Section
6.1 for calculating capacity flows in dualchannel and single-channel roadways, Two
criteria operate to limit the resulting capacity flows:Criterion 1:

Criterion 2: maximum value of the product

daVave = 0,4 m2 /s [see eqn (6.11)]
where Vave = flow mean velocity
da = kerb-side flow depth
Capacity flows, Qc, corresponding to
each carriageway type 1ike ly to be used in
the deve 1opment are ca 1cul a ted for the range
of (gutter) longitudinal slopes present in
the catchnent.
A storage-correction is made to these
flows on the grounds that temporary or detention storage of runoff in the surface channels
and underground pipes of an urban stormwater
drainage system depresses the peak flow discharge which emerges from the system in much
the same way a flood control dam reduces the
peak of an incoming flood wave. In the case
of a major/ minor system which includes underground pi pes, the reduction is about 10 per
cent; where gutter/pavement storage only is
available, the reduction is about 5 per cent
(Tholin and Keifer I959; Earley 1979).

An upwards correction may therefore be

applied to the previously calculated capacity
flows. Values must be increased by 10 per
cent in catchnents where underground pipes
are emp 1oyed, and by 5 per cent where openchannel drains only are used,
The outcome of STEP 2 is a table of

storage-corrected capacity

This step involves two hydraulic calculation

tasks:ARRB SR 34, 1986

flows,

Osc,

one

for each carriageway type and 1ongitudi na 1

slope occurring in the catchment.
STEP 3: 'Gap Flow' design slorm selecllon

The planning of a major drainage system for

an urban development is based on survival of
the development in a rare flood of specified
magnitude (see Section 2,5). In STEP 3 the
properties of the storm which produces this
design rare flood are defined.
Four main
tasks are involved :
a)
b)

STEP 2: Fixing of roadway reserve capaclly

flows

maximum flow level 50 mm above

top-of -kerb [see eqn (6 .10)]

c)
d)

select appropriate design ARI for the

storm
select appropriate gap flow, Qgap design
ARI (M-years)
select appropriate design storm duration
determine average intensity for desIgn
storm

59

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

The question of design ARI rec0f1111ended
for major systems, and the interpretation of
this in terms of the conjunctive use of surface channels and the pipes of the underground
net.,ork, if present, is discussed in Section
5,4. The outcome is presented in Tables 5.2A
and 5.2B.
Information obtained from these Tables
enables the designer to confine his attention
to that component of the design flood 'gap
flow', Ogap which is moving in the surface
channels only of the flood escape network.
The desIgner rru st adopt a 1 ike ly b1ockage
condition as part of this process.
The third task involved in STEP 3 -that
of fixing design storm duration -may require
one iteration for it to be correctly fixed,
This is built into the design procedure {see
STEP 6 below). However, a first approximation duration is needed to initiate the calculations, Critical storm duration should be
se 1ected according to the guidance given in
Table 8.1.

possible to determine for each flood escape

path, its 'tributary (impervious) area':The tributary (impervious) area, TAi,
which may be linked to an identified
flood escape path, is the impervious
area which yields, in a storm of average
intensity equal to that selected in STEP
3, peak runoff flow matching the storagecorrected capacity flow, Osc of that
path.
The table 1 isting values of TAi for the
full range of flood escape paths available in
a dev&lopment constitutes its System Planning
Table.
The table is used in STEP 5 - Network
Review. The only data which must be brought
by the designer to make use of the table
are:a)

flood escape path carriageway width; and,

b)

carriageway longitudinal slope.

'

TABLE 8.1
DESIGN STORM DURATIONS' FOR SMALL URBAN
CATCHMENTS

Resident i a 1 Commercial/
SUbIndustrial
divisions
developments
kerb-and-gutter
roadside channels
throughout

10 - 15
minutes

grassed swale or
blade-cut roadside channels

15 - 20
minutes

15 - 20

minutes

Of all the data and component information

contained in the catchment definition (STEP
1), those relating to basic road form -

carriageway widths, roadway reserve crosssections, paVement types, etc., - are the
most amenable to change, The network review
procedure devolves upon this fact, for it
enables a trial urban plan to be tested and
modified, where necessary, without disturbing
the plan itself in any basic way or altering
the inter-relationship of its main compon-

ents.
N.A.

these storm durations correspond to catch-

ment impervious area travel times: they incorporate roof-to-gutter travel time of 5
minutes or 10 minutes for residential or
commercial/industrial developments respectively.

The last task in STEP 3 requires consultation of the current edition of 'Australian
Rainfall and Runoff' (I.E. Aust. 1977 or 1987) to determine the design average rainfall
intensity which should be used in the STEP 4
calculations. Oesign ARI and storm duration
come from selections made in the first three
tasks above.
STEP 4: System planning table

The table produced in STEP 4 is the central

feature of the procedure, for it enables the

designer to evaluate and modify, where necesN

sary, his trial major drainage system.
Knowing the storage-corrected capacity
flows, Osc which can be carried in the range
of flood escape paths avai 1ab 1e in a catchment (STEP 2) and knowing design storm average intensity selected in STEP 3, it is

60

STEP 5: Network review

With the System Planning Table for the

part i cu 1a r roadways and 1ongi tudi na 1 s 1opes
of a developed catchment drawn up {STEP 4)
and using runoff coefficients applicable to
its likely ultimate development (see Sections
5.1 and 5,6), it is possible to perform a
series of systematic 'test-and-modify' calculations, and thereby assess the performance
of the flood excape networks defined in STEP
1.
Th'is review which is amenable to tabulation is executed in STEP 5,
The test procedure involves comparing
the equivalent impervious area, (CA), computed at successive node sections (see Chapter
7), along each drainage path, with the value
of TAi 1 isted for the drainage path defined
in terms of its width (carriagway) and long.itudinal slope in the System Planning Table
(STEP 4). At those sections where (CA) is
1ess than TAi, it fo 11 ows that the flood
escape path wi 11 satisfactorily convey flood
runoff in the design storm selected in STEP
3; where it is greater, then alternative
flood management options must be explored by
the designer.
The outcome of this process is a 'first
approximation' major system drainage network
for the development.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

STEP 6: System evaluation

The first approximation major drainage system

determined in STEP 5 must be evaluated to ensure that the assumptions made in the course
of its derivation- in particular, the assumed design storm duration {STEP 3) - are valid, This involves estimating a corrected or
'new' flow travel time in each catchment of
the development and comparing it with that
adopted from Table 8.1.
Where they differ significantly, i.e.
'adopted' versus 'new' in a particular catchment, a revised critical storm duration based
on the 'new' estimate of travel time may be
returned to STEP 3 and the subsequent steps
repeated until satisfactory agreement is
reached,
The qualification 'may' entered here
covers the case where the first approximation
major system is demonstrably conservative,
but unalterable for reasons which stem from
the requirements of the road/traffic plan.
This point is examined in more detail in
Chapter 9 (STEP 6).
The outcome of the system evaluation
process is a layout of 'adopted' drainage
networks.
STEP 7: Subarea detailing

Completion of the major drainage system planning procedure involves one further step the detailed review of flow movement within
each sub-area, This calls for careful application of the principles of hydrology and

ARRB SR 34, 1986

1aws of open channel hydraulics to ensure

that storm runoff finding its way to the
roadway reserves and drat nage easements of
the f1 ood escape network, moves through and
from each sub-area without surcharging its
defined drainage paths.
An example of the type of review referred
to here is where a potential single-channel
lateral street which is not a component of the
main flood escape network, is required to convey a flow exceeding its single-channel capacity. Various options must be explored by
the designer, e.g. change to dual-channel
form, provide some form of flood-proofing
such as raised footpath, etc,
It must be emphasised that the earlier
STEP 5 network review comp 1ete ly overlooks
such sub-a rea i nterna 1 hydrau 1i c deta i 1 i ng.
This must be carried out in STEP 7 but only
after a broadly satisfactory major drainage
system has been adopted,

STEP 8: Final design detailing

This step involves all detailing necessary to

define the system of open channels- including
carri ageways, roadway reserves, f1 ood-proofing, drainage easements, roadway hydraulic
geometries, etc. , - which wi 11 convey runoff
from major system design storms through and
beyond each catchment without indoor damage
to residential and other important buildings.
The resulting plans form the basis for
the design of the minor drainage system to be
incorporated within it.

61

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

62

ARAB SR 34, 1986

9
The major drainage system case study applications

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Th~

ma.1or

step-by-step

procedure

stormwater

drainage

for

planning

system

for

an

isolated urban catchment, described in Chapter

8, is now applied to a 38 ha hypothetical
residential sub-division in the Adelaide
foothills, South Australia,
The catchment area is bordered on three
sides (north, east and west) by main roads. A
green belt
reserve
forms
its
southern
boundary.
The catchment topography slopes
generally to the south making this the natural

traffic distributor,
All other residential
roads and streets will have access road'
status. No roundabouts or street closures are
anticipated
during
the
life
of
the
sub-division.
Oata and information relating to STEPS 1-8
inclusive for the two cases are presented
below.

9.2 CASE 1 AND CASE 2 DEVELOPMENTS: STEPS 1-8

STEP 1: Ca!chmen! dellnlllon

drainage direction.
Housing density in the sub-division will
be, initially, 16 residences per ha of dedi-

cated area i.e. excluding roadway reserves

etc,
Ultimate development (see Section 5.1)
during the life of the drainage system is
estimated to be equivalent to 20 residences
per ha.
Some open space park areas are
located within the sub-division.
Two
alternative
road
1ayouts
are
considered.
The first, Case 1, uses a road
pattern of the conventional grid type; the
second, Case 2, employs a contemporar_y layout
of crescents, cul ~de-sacs, etc. and is based
on a plan developed by a leading Canadian
engineer-planner, P,E, Theil (1977).
All
roads will have sea 1ed pavement ca rri ageways
with concrete kerb-and-gutter borders. It is
anticipated that underground pipes will be
used in the catchment minor drainage system.
Partial blockage (50 per cent blockage) of
these pipes in ma.ior runoff events is considered likely,

The following data and information relating to

catchment definltion are available.
Most
items are included in Figs. 9.1(a) and 9.1(bl:
(al catchment location:
(Southern Australia
rainfall, Fig. 5.1

Adelaide foothills
zone, Fig. 5,2);

(b) contour map - Fig. 9,1

(c) sub-divislon catchment boundary- Fig. 9.1
(d) pattern of internal
Fig. 9,1

roads and streets -

(e) dual-channel and potential single-channel

streets - Fig. 9.1
(f) ma.ior (common) land use areas - Fig. 9.1
(g) an
underground
network
will
incorporated, design ARI = 2-years:
per cent blockage to be assumed

be
50

(h) natural dralnage direction - Fig. 9.1

The Case I and Case 2 sub-divisions are
illustrated in Figs. 9,1(a) and 9,1(b)
respectively. Some aspects of the Case I
example are discussed in Chapter 7 (see Fig,
7.3),
It is assumed, for purposes of
illustration, that runoff from individual
residences
in
the
ultimately
developed
catchment wi 11 be directly-channelled to the
surface stormwater drainage s.vstem.
Drainage
from positive grade allotments (see Fig, 9.1)
will be conveyed directly to fronting roadways
and drainage from adverse grade a 11 otments to
rear-of -a 11 otment channels or rear access
1anes.
It may be further assumed that High Street
(both cases) wi 11 have the status of 1ocal
ARAB SR 34, 1986

(i) flood disposal points - Fig. 9,1

(j) sub-divislon

lnternal isolated catchment

boundaries and node points - Figs. 9.2 and
9.3

(k) flood escape networks, node sections and

sub-areas - Figs. 9,2 and 9.3
Concerning
'catchment
boundary
and
boundary contraints' [see ltem (c). STEP I,
Sectlon 8,2], there ls no lnflow to the roads
and streets of the subdivision from outslde
its boundary. The passing of storm runoff to
side boundary flood paths (Eastern Highway and
West Street) should be minimised, It is

63

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

to

'"
108

9a

106

104

110

adverse

grad~

allotment

102

All adverse grade allotments

are provided with rear-ofallotment drainage.

Fig. 9.1 (a) -Adelaide foothills residential subdivision- Case 1

HIGH
flood disposal
points shown ..... .

STREET

118

rear of allotment
drains shown ..... .

116

floodways shown ..
dual-channel road-

114

ways shown . . .

::=::;;;::::

~otential

singlechannel roads
shown ......
~

contours shown .. 'os ._____

-------

sub-division
boundary . . . . . . .. . . _ _ _

SCALE
100

102-

100

200

mel res
Fig. 9.1 (b) -Adelaide foothills residential subdivision -Case 2

assumed that these flood paths convey sizeable

flows from remote catchments and that additional floodwater input in the vicinity of the
receiving domain
should
only occur
if
unavoidable,

The preliminary road hierarchy information

available
for
the
sub-division(s)
is
sufficient to force a change 1n one item of
catchment definition data relating to High
Street in both cases.
Its status as a local

STEP 2: Roadway reserve capaclly flows

The particular roadway forms to be used in the

development have 7,5 m and 10,0 m carriageways
within 16,0 m amd 20.0 m, respectively,

roadway reserves.

Roadway reserves: kerb-and-

gutter 0.375 m profile and pavement crossslopes (Z = 30 and 40 for the 7,5 m and 10,0

m carriag~ways, respectively) are the same as

those used for
Section 6.1 of

illustrative
the text.

purposes in
The 7,5 m

traffic distributor requires its cross-section

to be changed from potential single-channel

carriageway is used for access roads, the 10.0

(northern segment) to dual-channel throughout.

m carriageway for local distributors.

64

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Taking design ARI = 50-years for the
surface system only and storm duration of 10

Flow capacities of these carr1ageways

(half-carriageway flows) are presented in Fig.
6.3 and are listed, for the range of longitudinal slopes present in the sub-division, in
Table 9,1A. The storage-corrected capacities
of these carriageways are lis ted in Table
9.18: a 10 per cent correction has been
applied for reasons explained in STEP 2,
Section 8.2.

minutes, design storm average instensity, from

Fig. 5,1 is 90 mm/h.
STEP 4: System planning table
By bringing together data from STEP 2 and STEP
3, it is possible to determine the tributary
(impervious) area, TA., which will yield,
under design storm con~itions, a peak runoff
flow matching the storage-corrected capacity
of any roadway flood escape path likely to be
used in the Fig. 9,1 developments.
The TA.
value required in each roadway case can b~
found from substitution into the Rational
Method formula [eqn (4.2)].

STEP 3: Design storm selection

The recommendation that major drainage systems
should be designed generally for ARI
100-years (see Section 2,5) is adopted and
partial blockage (50 per cent) of the

associated underground network assumed.

Since

the minor drainage system will be designed

subsequently for ARI = 2-years, it follows
that gap flow, Qgap, design AR I M = 50-years
should be used (from Table 5.2B).

(TA 1) iso

Q
sc

0.36

where Qsc

L/s

(9.1 I

storage-corrected capacity flow

in flood escape path (from Table
9.18)

Design storm duration for the particular

conditions which are anticipated for the
ultimately developed catchment (see Section
9.1) may be found from Table 8.1:
storm
duration equal to 10 minutes is adopted.

average rainfall intensity for

storm of design ARI = 50-years
and duration equal
to that
adopted in STEP 3

TABLE 9.1A
CAPACITY FLOWS, 0,, FOR 7.5 m AND 10.0 m CARRIAGEWAYS

FlOW CAPACITIES, Qc' IN lis

longitudinal
Slope

so

0,005
0,010
0,010
0,030
0,040
0,050
0,060

7,5 m carriageways; zb "' 30

10,0 m carriagewavs: zb

single-channel

dual-channel

single-channel

390
560
780
700
635
580
535

780
1110
1560
1400
1170
1160
1070

500
700
990
915
830
760
700

= 40

dua 1-channe 1

1000
1400
1980
1830
1660
1510
1400

TABLE 9.1B
STORAGE-CORRECTED CAPACITY FLOWS, Q"'
FOR 7.5 m AND 10.0 m CARRIAGEWAYS

FlOW CAPACITIES, Qsc' IN lis

Longitudinal
Slope

so

0,005
0.010
0,010
0.030
0.040
0,050
0.060

ARRB SR 34, 1986

7.5 m carriageways: Zb

30

10.0 m carriageways: zb

single-channel

c1ual-channel

single-channel

430
615
860
770
700
640
590

860
1130
1710
1540
1400
1180
1180

550
770
1090
1005
915
835
770

= 40

dual-channel

1100
1540
1180
1010
1830
1670
1540

65

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Roadway reserves comprise about 50 per
cent carriageway area, 15-30 per cent footpath
and driveways and the remainder nature strips.
Use of a lumped, arbitrary factor, 0.75 to
convert roadway reserve area to equivalent
paved area is recommended.
The runoff
coefficient which should be applied to the

tributary (impervious) area in

ha
From Fig, 5.1' iso

= 90

0.36 Qsc

= Qsc

storms:

TA.

mm/h in 10 minute

250

90

ha

(9. 2)

converted area is:

Applying eqn (9.2) to the data in Table

9.18 gives a set of tributary (impervious)

= 1.15

c.o

x 0,90 which exceeds 1.00

(see Section 5.6)

areas which can, for design storm conditions,

be serviced within the adopted
STEP 2, Section 8.2) by the 7.5
roads and streets of the Fig.
ments. The values are listed in

criteria (see
m and 10,0 m
9.1 developTable 9,2,

hence, use:

c.o

1.00 for roadway reserve

converted areas
(9,5)

STEP 5: Network Review

Using these coefficients - eqs (9,3)-(9.5)

it is possible to determine weighted
values which may be applied to each
C50
sub-area of the development to determine their
individual (CA) 50 values [see eqn (4.7)],

One final item of information is needed before

the network review can be commenced. This is
the set of runoff coefficients which must be
applied to convert catchment component areas
into equivalent
impervious areas,
(CA).
Appropriate factors are to be found in Tables
5.3 to 5,5 inclusive.

Great accuracy is not warranted in

performing this task and the following values,

based
on
the
satisfactory:

Three land uses only are included in the

Fig, 9,1 sub-division(s):
(a) residential,
20
residences
(excluding roads, etc.)

per

are

ha

(9.6)

0.58
park sub-areas
roads):

(c) roadway reserves - 16m and 20 widths

C50

In the case of residential segments,

C10 = 0.45 (from Table 5.4) and the frequency
conversion factor F = 1.15 (from Table 5.5)
are emp 1oyed:
Y
X

(including

0,28

surrounding
(9. 7)

These coeff1 c i ents are incorporated into

the Network Review Tables (Tables 9.3 and
9.4), The network review follows.

Hence, for residential areas,

1.15
= 0.52

considered

residential sub-areas (including

surrounding roads):

(b) park areas

C50

above,

Consider Catchment M in the Case 1

development (see Fig. 9.2 and Table 9.3). At
node section M.3 the High Street carriageway
is of dual-channel type and although likely to
take the 10.0 m form in the final urban plan,
is investigated here as a 7,5 m trial roadway.

0,45

( 9.3)
In the case of park areas,
C10 = 0.10 and
hence
C5o = 0. 12
(9 .4)

The longitudinal slope, S , of High Street

0
at node section M.3 is approximately
0,01,

TABLE 9.2
MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM PLANNING TABLE

longi tud 1na l

Slope

so

0.005
O.OIO
D.020
0.030
0.040
D.050
0.06D

66

TRIBUTARY (IMPERVIOUS) AREA TAl WHICH CAN BE SERVICED BY

ROADWAY FLOOD ESCAPE PATH IN DESIGN STORM
7.5 m carriageways: Zb

30

10,0 m carriageways: ~

single-channel

dual-channel

single-channel

I. 72
2.46
3.44
3,08
2 ,8D
2.56
2.36

3.44
4,92
6,88
6 .I6
5.60
5 .I2
4.72

2.20
3 .OB
4.36
4,02
3,66
3.34
3.0B

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

= 40

dual-channel

4.40
6 .I6
8,72
8.04
7.32
6,68
6 .I6

ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Reference to Table 9,2 (carriageway 7,5 m, S
reveals that it can convey a capacit9
flow matching the peak generated in 4.92 ha of
tributary (impervious) area, TA ,
This
infonnation is summarised in Tablei 9,3 under
the heading
'flood escape path detail'
(columns 2-5),

= 0.01)

The sub-area which contributes runoff to

node section M,3 is, mainly, a park (total
sub-area 2,36 ha) for which C50 = 0.28, This
sub-area may therefore be equated to 2,36 x
0,28 = 0,66 ha' of impervious area, (CA).
These data are listed in columns 6-8 of Table
9,3 under the heading 'adjacent contributing
sub-area'. The 'cumulative upstream (CAJ' for
the catchment draining to M.3 is, of course,
0,66 ha presented in column 9,
The flood escape path TEST (column 10)
compares the total (CA) contributing to node
section M.3 with the tributary (impervious)
area, TAi, which could be serviced, under
design stonn conditions, by the flood escape
path at that section. A successful outcome,
'O.K.',
indicating that the trial
road
carriageway is satisfactory, is shown under
Remarks (column 11),
The same trial road fonn is then tested at
node section M.2 where the cumulative upstream
(CA), column 9, is the sum of the areas
draining to M.3 and M.2,
Catchment M (Case 1) has a flood escape
path which divides at node M.1 where runoff
from the northern and eastern anns join,
The trial road fonn at node section M.4 is
a 7.5 m dual-channel carriageway (see Fig,
9,2): the test at this section also succeeds,
At node M.1 the flood escape path required
by storm flows from the two arms of the
network is checked against the TA. which can
be serviced by a trial 7.5 m du1al-channel
carriageway,
In this case, the cumulative
upstream (CA) is the sum of the equivalent
impervious areas at M.2 and M,4 and the
sub-area adjacent to M,1.
The test at node
section M.1 shows the 7,5 m carriageway to be
adequate here also,
It is concluded from this analysis that
the total runoff generated in Catchment Min a
design storm of ARI = 100-years approximately
can be contained within the 7,5 m carriageways
of its flood escape network acting conjunctively
with
its
associated
underground
network, assumed to be 50 per cent blocked,
The likely decision to assign a 10,0 m
carriageway to High Street for reasons of good
traffic management practice will not conflict
with this conclusion.
Consider now Catchment L in the Case 1
development (see Fig. 9,2 and Table 9,3),
The analysis and tabulation proceed in
much the same manner as for Catchment M unti 1
Here, the
node section L,2 is investigated,
test for a 7.5 m dual-channel flood escape
path fails ( 'N,G., reconsider' in Remarks
column) and a 10,0 m dual-channel carriageway

ARAB SR 34, 1986

is
considered,
This
proves
to
be
hydraulically satisfactory.
However, it is
unlikely than an access road will be built
with 10,0 m carriageway for no reason other
than its inability, as a 7.5 m residential
street, to convey rare storm flows.
The
designer is forced to exp 1ore a range of
alternatives:
(i)

remove roadway L.1-L.2 from the urban

plan and extend the floodway north to

L.2 i
(ii) change gutter/pavement profile in roadway
L.1-L,2 to one giving greater capacity
within the limits of Criteria 1 and 2
[eqns (6,10) and (6.11), see Appendix A],
(iii)retain roadway L.1-L,2 as a 7.5 m
dual-channel carriageway carrying flows
'kerb-plus-50 mm'
which exceed the
capacity criterion [see eqn ( 6 .10 )] and
apply local floodproofing measures, e,g,
raised footpaths, raised floor levels,

etc.
(iv) adopt design ARI = 10-years for minor
system pipeline L.O-L,1-L.2, hence 'gap
flow', Qgap' design ARI = 30-years (see
Table 5, 2B) for surface-moving flow
L.2.-L.1-L.O.
Detailed design relating to these options
need not, of course, be undertaken unt i 1 STEP

7,

An identical situation arises at point L.2

in Catchment L, Case 2 (see Fig, 9,3 and Table
9,4),
The procedure outlined above has been
followed for each of the four catchments of
the Case 1 and Case 2 developments and the
results tabulated in Tables 9,3 and 9.4
respectively,
The eight i so 1a ted catchments
cover, between them, many of the common major

network situations met in contemporary urban

drainage practice.

STEP 6: Syslem evaluation

Completion of the above network review

provides the designer with what should be
regarded as a 'first approximation' rmjor
drainage system,
This follows from the fact
that important design information contained in
the System Planning Table (Table 9,2) is based
on catchment travel time adopted from the
guidelines of Table 8,1,
Before the design can progress to STEP 7,
a check on the suitability of the adopted
catchment travel time must be made in each
catchment of the derived major system(s).
Note that major system catchment travel time

for an urban development is taken as catchment

impervious area travel time {see Table 8,1),
Allowing
for
roof-to-gutter
or
roof-to-easement travel and adding flow time
along road and street gutters {see Fig. 5.4)
it wi 11 be observed that trave 1 time of 10

67

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

~HIGH

STREET

flood escape

network

2-25

l2-

209 I 227
ha : ha

ha

~~--11

c.5--

-,
Z.ZOha

Ml J~~:J
1
M 4

L1- floodway
LO-

MO-~

N1-

NO-

single-channel street shown:~~

dual- channel street shown:

Fig. 9.2- Catchments L, M, Nand P of Adelaide foothills sub-division

HIGH STREET

flood escape

network

-PO

single-channel street shown

dual- channel street shown
Fig. 9.3- Catchments L, M, Nand P of Adelaide foothills sub-division

minutes adopted in STEPS 4 and 5, is, in some

catchments, short,
A travel time of 15
minutes for some Case 1 and Case 2 catchments

The situation in Catchment L at node

section L.2 in both the Case 1 and Case 2
developments, warrants further attention.

might be more appropriate.

The network review (STEP 5) has shown that
the flood escape paths of Catchments M and P
(both Cases) can accommodate the runoff
generated in a 10-minute design storm.
Further review of these using a catchment
travel time and, hence, storm duration of 15
minutes will reach the same conclusion making
it a redundant exercise.

68

Fifteen-minute ARI =50-years storm bursts

in the Adelaide foothills show an average
intensity of 78 mm/h (see Fig. 5.1). Applying
this value into eqn (9,2) yields a new
relationship for tributary (impervious) area,
namely:
0.36 Qsc
(9 .8)

78

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 9.3
NETWORK REVIEW FOR CATCHMENTS L, M, NAND P- CASE 1
flood escape path detail

adjacent contributing

I1--::=~~===~~~~~~;:;;:;:;:~~'!'!~"':'irt-:-:=-=-'"f.bie-~'~re~a~\,;:~/
esca e at
trlbutary
we1gh~:d
CUTiu
upstream
1at fve

TEST

REMARKS

10

11

0,32
1,25

0,32
1,57

0.32 < 6,16

1.57 < 6,88

O.K.
O.K.

0,58
0,58

1.43
1,31

1. 43
2.74

1,43 < 6,16

2,74 < 3.44

O.K.

2,15

0.58

1,25

5,56 <~ 4,92

5,56 < 6,16

2.20

0.58

1.28

5,56
5,56
6,84

longftud~nal

(imperv.)

section

description

slope, 50

are?. TA 1

(ha)

(ha)

l,4

dual-channel, 7,5 m

L,3

dual-channel, 7.5 m

0,03
0,02

6.16
6,88

1.14
2,15

0,28
0,58

L,6

dual-channel, 7.5 m

L.S

dual-channel, 7,5 m

0.03
0.005

6,16
3,44

2.47
2.25

1,2

dual-channel, 7,5 m
dual-channel,lO,O m

1,1

flooc:May,

0,01
0,01
0,005

4.92
6,16
4,40
(roadway)

node

path

10,0 m

area

!ha)

(ha)

runoff

(CA) 50

coeff,

{CA) 50

O.K.
N.G.reconsider
O.K.

6,84

from Table 9.1A floodway design flow at l,l approximately(----) x 1000 l/s = 1554 l/s, fl oodway des 1gn flow
4,40

M,3
M.2

dual-channel, 7.5 m
dual-channel, 7.5 m

0,01
0.04

4.92
5.60

2,36
2.13

0.28
0,58

0,66
1.24

0,66
1,90

0,66 < 4.92

1.90 < 5,60

H.5
M.4

dual-channel, 7,5 m
dual-channel, 7,5 m

0,03
0,005

6,16
3,44

2.32
2,27

0,58
0,58

1,35
1.32

1.35
2.67

1.35 < 6,16

2,67 < 3,44

O.K.

O.K.
O.K.
O.K.

H,l
dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,02
6,88
2,09
0.28
0,59
5.16
5,16 < 6,88
O.K.
Note: These calculations demonstrate that a 7,5 m carriageway in High St. could convey satisfactorily the design
rare storm flood flow. However, the road hierarchv re uires it to be of width 10,0 m, therefore O.K.
N

N.1

dual-channel, 7,5 m

0,03

6,16

0.63

1.00

0,60

0,60

0,60 < 6,16

O,K,

P,5
P,4
P.3
P.2
P,l

dual-channel,
dual-channel,
dual-channel,
dual-channel,
floo<May,

0.03
0,03
0,04
0,03
0.04

6.16
6,16
5.60
6,16

1.16
1.89
1. 73
1,63
2,33

0,58
0,58
0.58
0.58
0,58

0,67
1,09
1.00
0,95
1,35

0,67
1.76
2.76
3.71
5,06

0.67
1,76
2.76
3.71

< 6,16
< 6,16
< 5,60
< 6,16

O.K.
O.K.

7,5
7.5
7,5
7.5
7.5

m
m

m
m

from Ta le 9,1A floodway de ign flow at

(ro~~gy)

,1 approxi ately (:.Q) x 12 0 l/s

5,60

= 1148

O.K,

O.K.

l/s, fl odway design flow,

TABLE 9.4
NETWORK REVIEW FOR CATCHMENTS L, M, NAND P- CASE 2
flood escape path detall
node
section
1
1

esca e a
path
description

adjacent contriouting
sub-area

tr10utary
longitudinal (imperv.)
slope, S0 area, TA 1

'

1.5
1.4

single-channel,7.5m
7,5 m
f1 oodway,

0,01
0,02

(ha)

(ha)

5
2.46
6,88
(roacMay)

runoff
coeff,

(CA) 50

cumulative
upstream
(CA) 50

(ha)

(ha)

0,58
0.58

1.62
2,02

we

area
b

2,80
3.49

gn~e

TEST

REMARKS

'

JO

11

1. 62
3,64

1.62 < 2.46

O.K.

3.64
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow at L.4 approximately{----) x 1560 l/s = 825 l/s, floodWay design flow
6,88
0,58
4.45 < 4,92
O,K.
L. 3 dual-channel, 7.5 m
0,01
4,92
1.40
0,81
4.45
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,58
0,85
5,30
5,30 .( 4.92 N.G.reconsider
1.2
0.01
4.92
1.46
O,K,
dual-channel,lO,O m
0,01
5,30 < 6,16
6.16
1,1
floodway,
0,01
1,24
6,54
10.0 m
6.16
2.13
0.58
(roadway)
6.54
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow approximately - - - - ) X 400 L/s
1486 L/s, floodway design flow
6.16
1,26
u,28
0.35 < 3,44
sf ng~ e-channe ~, 7 ,5m
0.02
0,35
0.35
O.K.
M
single-channe1,7,5m
0,06
2,55
0.58
1.48
1,83
1.83 < 2.36
O.K.
M,2
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,03
6,16
4,09
0,28
2,98
2.98 < 6,16
O.K.
1.15
M.1
dual-channel, 7,5 m
0,02
6,88
3.10
0.58
4.78 < 6.88
O.K.
1.80
4.78

~:i

~:i~

N,1

dua 1-channel , 7.5 m

0.02

6.88

1.50

0,75

1.13

1.13

1,13 < 6,88

O.K.

P. 4
P.3
P,2

dual-channel, 7.5 m
dual-channel, 7.5 m
dua 1-channel, 7,5 m

0,03
0.03
0.04

6,16
6,16
5.60

0.88
1.49
1. 75

0.58
0,58
0,58

0,51
0,86
1.02

o. 51

1, 37
2.39

0.51 < 6.16

1,37 < 6,16
2.39 < 5.60

O,K,
O,K,
O.K.

P, 5

single-channel,7.5m

0.005

1. 72

1.90

0.58

1.10

1,10

1,10 < 1,72

O,K,

P. 1

fl oodway,

0.04

3.20

0,58

1,86

5,35

7.5 m

5.60
(roa<May)

from Ta le 9.1A floodway de f9n f1 ow app oximately

ARAB SR 34, 1986

5,35

s;6al

270 L/s

1213 L s, fl oodrlay

esign flow

69

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

There is no need to completely recalculate
Table 9,2 using the above 'new' expression for
TA. in order to further investigate one
tlouble spot' I.e, node section L,2 when, In
fact, only the TA 1 value for a 7.5 m
dual-channel carriageway with S 0,01 is
required. Application of eqn (9,8) leads to:
1230
TA. = = 5.67 ha
(9 , 9 )
1
217
for
the
particular surface channel
of
interest. Comparison of this value with the
cumulative (CA) at node section L.2 {both
cases) leads to the conclusion that the 7,5 m
carriageway{s) is satisfactory and that no
further consideration need be given to
alternatives {i) - (lv) listed in STEP 5,

Cons lder design extreme storm runoff

joining the major system network from the
lateral street leading to node point M,5 in
catchment M (see Fig, 9.4).
The terrain
cross-slope in the vicinity is about 5 per
cent:
it is potentially a single-channel
carriageway street:
flood path description:
single-channel,
7,5 m longitudinal slope, S0 = 0.02
tributary (impervious) area
(from Table 9,2)
upstream contibutlng area*
upstream contributing (CA)

The above review concerns situations where

the ori gina lly adopted (STEP 3) catchment
travel time - 10 minutes - was less than that
which closer inspection subsequently revealed
to be more appropriate.
Of greater concern to the designer Is the
reverse situation where the adopted travel
time proves to be the longer of the two.
Catchment N [Fig. 9,1 development{s)] falls
within this category,
Recalculation of TA1
for the node section N.l case, however, is
unnecessary considering the sma 11 cu100lati ve
(CA) which the catchment draining to this

section presents.
If, however, the difference is significant
and widespread, e.g. affecting all main
catchments in a development, then the designer
has no alternative but to return the 'new'
shorter travel time into STEP 3, recalculate
Table 9.2 and repeat STEPS 5 and 6,

It is clearly advantageous to adopt travel

times which prove to be short rather than
long, Table 8,1 reflects this philosophy.
The
outcome
of Fig,
liaison
system
traffic
levels)

above review- while fortuitous in its

for the Case 1 and Case 2 developments
9,1 - highlights the need for close
to be maintained between the drainage
designer and those responsible for
management, building approvals (floor
and city planning generally,

It should be restated here that the major

drainage networks identified in Figs. 9,2 and
9.3 have been shown capable of conveying
design rare storm runoff flows without
surcharge of their flood escape paths, This
does not preclude the possibility of overflow
from flow paths within component sub-areas,
This matter is addressed in STEP 7.
STEP 7: Sub-area detailing

With a satisfactory ma.ior flood escape network

in place in each catchment, the designer's
next task is to check flow conditions in all
roads and streets which convey flow to the

main network.

Principal

among

these are

lateral streets, particularly those which are,

potentially, of the sing 1e-channe 1 type, The

check which needs to be carried out is a miniversion of the test-and-modify procedure of

Tables 9,3 and 9,4,

70

: 3,44 ha

1.40 ha
1.40 X 0.58
= 0,81 ha

TEST : 0,81 < 3,44 therefore O.K.

'upstream contributing area' is that

sub-area portion which yields runoff in a
design storm to the channel discharge

section under review.

r
I
I

:- c- upstream
contributing

node

I
I

po:,~\ fl I ''
~

area::; 1 40 ha.

k=

landscap ed__/

levee

~~!\ ~j

node p

landscaped levee._/

design height= 013m.

Fig. 9.4- Drainage detail, node points M4 & M5- Case 1

Investigations carried out on streets

which deliver storm runoff laterally to major
system networks wi 11 almost Invariably yl eld
similar o.K. 1 results. Experienced drainage
designers are able to recognise the few
problem situations by Inspection.
Of greater concern are the problems which
arise at roadway Intersections.
The need to employ dual-channel carriageways generally in flood escape networks has
been stressed (STEP 1, Section 8,2).
This
precaution does not preclude, however, the
possibility of surcharge at Intersections such
as at node point M,5 in Catchment M (see Fig.
9,4),
Floodproofing in the form of a low,
landscaped levee bank within the nature strip
at
the
south-western
corner
of
the
intersection may be warranted.
The channelling of floodwater making its
way to node point M,4 (Fig. 9.4) also needs
careful attention, Again, the presence of a

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

low, landscaped nature strip levee bank along

the southern boundary of the intersection
would be a valuable safeguard. Calculations
carried out to fix the height of this
embankment are part of the necessary hydraulic
computations.
Some indication of the height required may
be gained from the following:
If flow moving down-slope towards node
point M.4 were to be abruptly stopped by a
pond of water in the region of the
T-intersection, the maximum height of levee
(approximate) which wou 1d be required to
contain the pond is given by :

where

h = y2 /2g
(9.10)
ave
h = levee height about top-of-kerb

V
= average velocity of down-slope
ave moving flow
g =gravity acceleration (9.81 m/s )

Further discussion of these matters cannot

be justified in the present publication.
Suffice to conclude that with careful
detailing, thoughtful planning and the use of
modest flood-proofing measures, it is possible
to handle major flood flows generated in
small, isolated urban catchments without
damage indoors and without interrupting the
supply of essential community services or the
functioning of strategic installations.
STEP 8: Final design detailing
The outcome of STEPS 6 and 7 is a series of
design and planning decisions and component
detail computations which will, when realised
in the field, enable the goals of a major
STEP 8
drainage system to be achieved.
involves the process of committing those
decisions and detailing to paper in the form
of drawings for a works programme.
9.3 NON-ISOLATED DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS

In the vicinity of M.4, S

for the
down-s 1ope roadway is approx I rna teq y 0 .03 and
average velocity approximately 1.6 m/s in a
Required 1evee height is,
design f1 ood.
therefore, about 0.13 m. Some freeboard would
need to be added to this.

It is cleu from the definitions of isolated

and non-isolated catchments given in Section
8.1 that non-isolated catchments give rise to
runoff management planning and design problems
which are significantly more complex than
those presented by the types of developments
investigated in Section 9.2.

It will be necesary in some of the

hydraulic computations of STEP 7 to find the
design flood flow rate at various locations in
These should be
developed catchments.
computed using the principles set out in
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Handbook.

A variety of solutions to the basic

problems - how can flow peaks be reduced? how
can flow peaks be delayed? - is available to
the designer.
These fall into three broad
categories :

Alternatively, an approximation for these

flows may be calculated by simple proportion
using information from Tables 9.1A and 9.2.
Flows at all node sections (Figs. 9.2 and 9,3)
can be computed in the same way catchment
floodway
discharges
(approximate)
are
calculated in Tables 9,3 and 9.4.
Where flow at a location other than a node
section is required, for example, the flow
moving west towards node point M.5 in Fig.
9.4, then the following procedure may be used:
single-channel,
flood path description
7.5 carriageway longitudinal slope, S0
0.02
upstream contributing area

1 .40 ha

upstream contributing

0.81 ha

(CA)

capacity flow, Qc, for flood path

780 L/s (from Taole 9.1A)
tributary (impervious) area for flood path
: 3.44 ha
required design discharge
0.81
- - X 780 = 184
3.44
Values computed by this
underestimate required flows
cent.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

(approximate)
L/s

(9.11)

method tend to
by about 10 per

flow retention measures

flow detention measures, and

flow retardation measures

A discussion of these topics and a review of
their role in urban storm runoff management is
included in Chapter 3.
9.4 CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND SUMMARY

Validity ollhe procedure

The design procedure described in Chapters 8
and 9 incorporates some simplifications which
may attract criticism on the grounds of their
violating recognised hydrological principles.
Most significant among these is the use of a
'blanket' design storm duration to arrive at a
first approximation major drainage system.
The same simplification is also used in
revision calculations, where these are needed,
in catchments (STEP 6) and in sub-areas (STEP
7, Section 9.2).
Strict adherence to the conventional
Rational Method (see Chapter 4) requires that
a series of design storms be applied at
successive node sections down the main
drainage path commencing at the highest. At
each node a design storm of duration equal to
contributing catchment travel time should be
71

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

used to fix average storm intensity and to
compute design flood magnitude at that
location.
Such an analysis leads to stormwater node
section flows higher than those given by the
'blanket' design storm procedure.
Computed
disparity between the values is greatest in
the uppermost sub-areas of each catchment
tapering to insignificant near its flood
disposal point.
A suspicion that the Handbook approach may
therefore disadvantage occupants of premises
in the upper sub-areas of catchments therefore
needs to be explored.
Reference to such sub-areas in the Case 1
and Case 2 catchments (Tables 9.3 and 9.4)
reveals
flood
escape
path
capacities,
represented by tributary (impervious) areas,
which are well in excess of demand (see Column
10 in Tables 9,3 and 9,4). Strict hydrological
analysis
requiring
significantly
increased manual or computing effort would
undoubtedly reduce this gap.
Nevertheless,
and as a general rule, major system surcharge
in an upper catchment sub-area is unlikely
where the tributary (impervious) area of its
flood path
is greater than twice the

equivalent impervious area being served,

72

Summary
A 'broad brush' procedure for designing major
stormwater drainage systems for small urban
catchments has been described. The resulting
systems use only the roadway reserves and
floodway easements of the urban landscape to
contain runoff resulting from major storms up
to and including that having a design average
recurrence interval of 100-years (approximately). The procedure takes account of flow
conveyed in underground pipes of minor system
networks and includes an arbitrary, optional
allowance for part-malfunction of the minor
system network (50 per cent blockage), Design
for zero blockage follows the same procedure
but employs dlfferent values for gap flow,
Qgap' design ARI adopted from Tables 5.2A
and/or 5,2B.
The procedure enables trial flood escape
networks to be rapidly assessed and focuses on
those segments of the floodpath which require
particular attention e.g. special hydraulic

design, building restrictions,

modifications, etc.

road

layout

The procedure assumes that, in general,

kerbside flow depths up to 0,20 m i.e. 0.050 m
above kerb, can be tolerated and incorporates
a floodpath maximum depth/velocity constraint
which ensures the safety of pedestrian and
wheeled traffic during major flood events.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

:10
The minor drainage system design procedure outline
Design Procedure- Phase I

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Aim
There are important procedural differences
which distinguish the approach used in the
two previous chapters on major system planning and that presented ~ere in connection with
the design of minor drainage systems, The
planning procedure described previously is
essentially a 'broad brush' operation concerned with the maintenance of order in the
face of potentially devastating flood flows,
Great precision in predicting flow behaviour
in such circumstances is neither possible nor
warranted, The aim of the major system planner is to provide a scheme which, given the
great unpredictability of rare storm events,
should operate at least 'satisfactorily',
The minor system, on the other hand, is
expected to contain and, indeed, control a
prescribed level of flooding: its design
therefore calls for a higher level of predictability than is required of the major system.
The narrower spectrum of events with which
the designer must contend, however, - the
nuisance or frequent storm - makes this task
achievable.

The primary data used in the design of an Nyears ARI minor stormwater drainage system
involve three aspects of definition:a)
b)
c)

The first of these calls for information

on the physical nature and properties of the
catchment, including, in particular, the location of existing underground services, It
is similar to, though more detailed than, that
required in STEP 1 of the major system planning/design process.
The second aspect of definition, that
relating to surface-moving flows, arises from
their being the most obvious manifestation of
storm runoff in a developed catchment. Criteria arising from their impact on members of
the general public both as pedestrians and as
users of vehicles fall within the scope of
Design Principle No. 1:0,P,1,

The procedure by which a minor system is

designed may be divided into three broad
phases:Phase
Phase II
Phase III

Catchment definition and

design guidelines;
Flow estimation and distribution;
Surface system and underground network design,

The aim of this Chapter is to state the

principles and briefly describe the various
steps which must be followed in the design of
an N-years average recurrence i nterva 1 minor
stormwater drainage system for a commercial,
industrial, residential or mixed development
sub-division. Following this outline of procedure, guidelines and hydrological/hydraulic
information presented in earlier chapters are
applied (Chapter 11) to design, firstly, a
minor stormwater drainage system for part of
a mixed development sub-area, and secondly, a
minor drainage system for Catchment M in the
Fig. 9,1(a) sub-division.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

catchment definition
design guidelines for surface-moving
flow management
design guidel fnes for undergroundmoving flow management.

A set Of guidelines must be adopted

whose aim is to ensure the orderly
movement of stormwater flows in the
surface channels of developed catchment minor drainage systems.

A similar set of criteria must also be

adopted for the management of stormwater
flows moving in underground networks:O.P,2,

A set of guidelines must be adopted

whose aim is to ensure the orderly
movement of flows in underground
networks of developed catchment minor
drainage systems,

All aspects of flow estimation and design

which follow rest on the definition and guideline information presented in Phase I.
Design Procedure- Phase II
With the catchment defined and design guidelines identified, the procedure addresses the
task of preparing a valid hydrological model
which satisfactorily represents the hyd rol ogical response of the catchment to storm
input,

73

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

The catctvnent hydrological model which
meets these requirements is defined in Design
Principle No. 3:D.P.3.

The hydrological model which forms the

basis of all 1ater stages in the design of a minor drainage system for a
catchment must describe its components (ultimately developed) and yield
a satisfactory representation of its
runoff response to rainfall input in
all design storms of ARI = N-years
and smaller.

Design storm rainfall applied to this

model by way of an adopted rainfall/runoff
mathematical procedure yields the required
flow est imate(s) at each catchment reference
point. This procedure is defined in Design
Principle No. 4:D.P.4.

The rainfall/runoff mathematical model which should be used with the

catchment hydrological model must be
a valid or acceptable procedure which
yields the greatest runoff estimate
for each component drainage unit,
considered individually, for design
storms of ARI = N-years and smaller.

ture of how and where the stormwater runoff

flows generated in a catchment are disbursed
in either the surface drainage system or its
underground counterpart.
Operations in the procedure outlined
above are carried out for each developed
landscape drainage unit. These may be small
isolated catchments (see Fig. 7.3) or component sub-catchments of complex urban landscapes (see Fig. 7.4). In the latter case,
Phase I I must include a fi na 1 step in which
the interaction of flows moving underground
between sub-catchment disposal points towards
their (catchment) central disposal point must
also be considered.
Design Procedure- Phase Ill

Phase II encompasses the flow estimation/distribution segment of the total procedure. It

also includes some elements (surface-to-underground component selection) which, strictly,
fall into the category of 'design'. Identification of these components forms the starting point for Phase III. Phase III involves
the application of Design Principle No. 2
guidelines relating to the management of
underground-moving stormwater flows to design

an 'approximate' underground network. ApproxApplication of Design Principles 3 and 4

enables the designer to estimate design flows
resulting from ARI = N-years storms in, firstly, all primary drainage lines (see Chapter
7). With this information and the Design
Principle No. 1 guidelines on surface-moving
flows, it is possible to select and locate
gutter inlet and concentrated flow entry
structures needed to transfer surface-<Tioving
stormwater to the underground network. The
stomwater flows upon which designers must
base their selections and placements are the
subject of Design Principle No. 5:D.P.s.

The components of any primary drainage

line including its inlet(s) allowing
bypass, termi na 1 in 1et, concentrated
flow entries, branch and lateral underground pipe 1i nes, etc. , shou 1d
convey and discharge the peak flow
generated in its catchment critical
design storm having ARI = N-years.
Surface channel components should be
se 1ected in accordance with the
guidelines of Design Principle No. 1.

The same flow estimation concept embodied in D.P.5. is also applied in the case of
the catchment or sub-catchment main drain
pipeline or 'mainline' (see Table 6.4). It
is expressed in Design Principle No. 6:D.P.6.

The on-line components of any main

drain pipeline, including its junction pit(s),
node pit(s),. pipes,
etc., should convey and discharge
peak flows generated at successive
node pits by design storms of N-years

average recurrence interval which are

critical in the catchments contributing to those stations.
The completion of Phase II of the procedure provides the designer with a clear pic-

74

imate pipe headloss values and pit headless

estimates are employed in the development of
this design which concludes with a catchment
Hydraulic Grade Line (pit water levels) being
declared, satisfying N-years design ARI requirements.

This network is combined, in each case,

with the surface drainage component selections made in Phase II to provide an approximate minor stormwater drainage system design.
The fi na 1 segment of the procedure invo 1ves detai 1ed modification of the approximate system design, as required, in the light
of site constraints forced on the design by
service locations, cover requirements, need
for additional inspection pits, etc. In certain case5, final design detailing may call
for a re-working of the Hydraulic Grade Line
computations using accurate pipe and pit headloss values: some significant changes to the
approximate network may ensue in these ci r-

cumstances.

i0.2 MINOR SYSTEM DESIGN PROCEDURE

The outline of procedure which follows has

been prepared for use in the design of stormwater systems for small isolated catchments
e.g. the L, M, N and P catchments of Fig.
7.3, and for interconnected sub-catchments of
large catchments e.g. the drainage units of
catchments N and P in Fig. 7.4. The latter

category represents, of course, the more general case.

The basic drainage unit used in the
following outline is therefore referred to as
a 'sub-catchment' in the interests of generality and interaction between it and its
fellows reviewed at the appropriate stage
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

(STEP 7). Where the outline is to be interpreted for isolated urban catcl>nent cases,
'sub-catchment' should be replaced by 'catchment' and all references to sub-catchment
interaction disregarded,

The three phases into which the minor

system design procedur-e is divided may be
sub-divided into a set of eleven main steps.
These include STEP lOA, an optional cost/
frequency insert, which need only be employed
by designers seeking comparative cost data
for networks resulting from design ARI's covering a range of values of N (see Section

i)

measure, extract or classify and record

the following for all components contributing runoff to primary drainage lines:

2.6).
STEP 1:
STEP 2:
STEP 3:
STEP 4:
STEP 5:
STEP 6:
STEP 7:

STEP 8:

Sub-catchment definition
Design guidelines and data
(surface-moving flows)
Design guidelines and data
(underground-moving flows)
MYdrological model - stage I
Hydrological model - stage 2
Design flow distribution in
primary and main drainage
1i nes
Design flow compilation all components of subcatchment

PHASE
I

PHASE

area
land use
'distributed' or 'concentrated' flow
entry
drainage line characteristics (type,
length, slope, etc.)
allowable or capacity flow at terminal
inlets.

Almost all of items (a) to (f) inclusive

relate to drainage network structure (see
Chapter 7).
The following definitions and
exp 1a nations are needed in order to proceed
with STEP 1:-

II

Pit water levels and 'first-

round' pipe sizes

H,G,L, and pipes of approximate network design
STEP 10: Approximate system design ARI = N-years
(STEP lOA: Cost/frequency insert)
STEP 11: Final design detailing

value for N-years design ARI

types of 'preferred inlets' and hydraulic characteristics of these
crossflow acceptable or not acceptable
at minor street intersections
pipes: concrete or FRC; normal condition or poor condition

STEP 9:

PHASE
III

Component identification code: Node pits in

the minor drainage system network carry the
same identifiers as corresponding node sections in the major system. A supplementary
coding system is required to enab 1e components other than node pits to be identified,
The system set out in Fig. 10.1 is used in the
Chapter 11 illustrative cases.
P7N1E1N1
P11

P8
M3W1
Ml

STEP 1: Sub-catchment definition

M3W1

f,m

M1N1

This involves listing information and data

comprising that required to plan a major
drainage system for the sub-catchment, plus
the following:-

M1N1
M1E1
P7

M1

a)

locate sub-catcl>nent stormwater disposal

point and terminal node pit, if different

b)

declare design flood level at sub-catchment stormwater disposal point

c)

adopt a network of main drain pipeline(s)

and associated node pits taking account
of the presence of major services and
other underground installations

M1E1

record gutter invert levels at roadway

sections containing node pits

e)

define sub-areas draining to identified

node pits

f)

identify primary drainage 1i ne cont ri buti ng areas and associ ated termi na 1 gutter
in 1ets

g)

identify the locations of all significant

pedestrian crossings
h)

identify the following as matters of policy:

ARAB SR 34, 1986

P 7E1

P11

Complex System

Simple System

d)

P11N1
P7N1E1

Fig. 10.1- Component identification code for minor

drainage systems

Commencing from any node pit on the main

drain pipeline, subsidiary components - in-

lets, inspection pits, etc. -_are numbered in

the cardinal directions N, S, E and W along
all main and lateral pipelines, Simple subcatchments draw on only one or two of these
directions, but the code is capable of extension to provide systematic identification in
networks of great complexity.

'Distributed' and 'concentrated' flow

entries: Distributed flow originates on subcatchment areas such as roadways, unchannelled open space areas and residential or commercial subdivisions in which ntJTierous small
units discharge stormwater individually.
Flows classified as concentrated come from
subsidiary or allotment drains which collect
75

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

runoff from (usually) large-area colfllonents,

e.g. residential sub-division, drive-in

10,1) and are adopted to illustrate the design of minor drainage systems in Chapter 11,

areas enters the system as concentrated input

to the main surface drainage line or is passed to the underground network via a sump and/
or junction pit.

OUTCOMES OF STEP 3 (see Table 10,1)

Allowable or capacity flow at a terminal

gutter inlet can only be found after surface-

2,

cinema, carpark, etc.

StonTYflater from such

moving f1 ow management guide 1i nes have been

adopted in STEP 2. This item relates to the

hydraulic characteristics of the catchment
roads and streets [item (e), STEP I, Section
8.2] and preferred inlets [item (h) above].

2.

Contour map of sub-catchment,l

boundaries, node pits,
terminal gutter inlets, etc,
Sub-catchment underground
network (Stage 1) gutter
inlets, dimensions, etc.

FIGURE !A

FIGURE lB

TABLE 1

3,

Table of sub-catchment
properties

4.

Reference: Chapter 7 and Sections 2,6,

6,1, 6,2, 6.4.

STEP 2: Design guidelines and data

(surface-moving flows)
A set of guide] ines and associated hydraulic
information and data must be adopted for the

Adoption of these guidelines, taken with

the data base compiled in STEP 1, completes
Phase I and provides the foundation for all
subsequent stages of the design procedure,

By means of the procedure and guidelines reviewed in Phase I, it is possible to convert

real-world sub-catchments into mathematical
representations or 'hydrological models'
which can be used to yield design flow estimates and flow distributions in all drainage
path components, This involves the application of Design Principles 3 and 4 (see Section 10,1),
It is assumed in the initial sub-catchment model (Hydrological Model - Stage 1)
that design flows generated in all primary
(surface) drainage lines fall below the limits set by Guidelines I, 2 and 4 of Table
6,3, These are:a)

design flows at terminal gutter inlets

are 1ess than 95 per cent capture approach
flow of the preferred inlet AND have flow
spread less than the adopted limit
(Guideline 1)

b)

design flows at all significant pedestrian

crossings have flow spread less than the
adopted limit (Guideline 2)

c)

design flows at all concentrated flow e~

try points are less than the adopted limit
(Guideline 4),

management of runoff moving in the surface

channels of minor stormwater drainage systems,

Listing of these guidelines is required

under Design Principle No, 1 (Section 10,1),
A typical set of guidelines and other related
information are presented in Section 6,3:
the guidelines play a major role in Phase I I
of the design procedure.
The Table 6.3 Guide] ines and associated
data are adopted in the case study examples
of the design procedure (see Chapter 11),
OUTCOMES OF STEP 2 (see Table 10,1)
1,

2,

Adopt guidelines Table 6,3 or ) TABLE 2

similar
)
Reference: Section 6,1 - 6,3 inclusive.

STEP 3: Design guidelines and dale

(underground-moving flows)

Primary drainage lines which are shown to

conform to this assumed behaviour are called
DETERMINATE drainage lines. Those which fail
one or more of the guidelines or which include
significant pedestrian crossings are termed
INDETERMINATE lines, Testing of the Stage I
model (Fig, 4A, see Outcomes below) to determine the classification of each primary drainage line is carried out in STEP 4 and presented in Table 4 (see Outcomes below): the tasks
involved are, for each primary drainage line
and concentrated flow entry:!)

A set of guidelines and associated hydraulic

information and data must be adopted for the
management of runoff moving in the underground pipe networks of minor stormwater
drainage systems. A typical set of guidelines
and other related information are presented
in Section 6,5: they play a major role in
Phase III of the design procedure,
The guidelines referred to here are required under Design Principle No, 2 (Section
76

Adopt guidelines Table 6,4 or ) TABLE 3

similar
)
Reference: Sections 6,4 - 6,8 inclusive.

STEPS 4 & 5: Hydrological modelsStages 1 and 2

OUTCOMES OF STEP 1 (see Table 10,1)

1.

1.

compute design flow (N-years design ARI),

and,

2)

compare design flow with guideline

limit(s),

Where a drainage line includes one or

more concentrated entries, the component flow
from each is determined and compared with the
Guideline 4 limit, Guideline 4 violations
1ead immediately to change in the Stage 1
network layout (Figure 18),
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Sizes and locations of gutter inlets of
DETERMINATE drainage lines can be declared at
this point.

to the selection and design of primary drainage 1 i ne components as required by Design

Principle No. 5 (see Section 10.1).

Those drainage lines found to be INDETERMINATE are modified by the addition of

in-path gutter inlets or other means to enable them to satisfactorily convey and discharge their design flows without violating
Guidelines 1 - 4 inclusive. The process by
which the sizes and locations of additional
inlets etc. are fixed is graphical and carried out in Fig. 4B (see Outcomes below).
Such additions also affect change in the
Stage 1 network layout.

Flows conveyed by the main pipeline, on

the other hand, arise from design storms which
are critical in collections of primary drainage areas, the aggregate flows entering the
mainline at or in the vicinities of its node
pits: the catchment area contributing to
successive node pits increases with distance
down the main drain. Flows determined from
these collections of primary drainage areas
form the basis for the selection and design
of main drain components as required by Design Principle No. 6 (see Section 10.1).

In STEP 5 the modified hydrological model

is presented in its final form, Hydrological
Model -Stage 2. This model is more complex,
typically, than its predecessor, contains more
information about the minor system drainage
network and has proven ability to satifactorily model design flows (N-years ARI) in all
primary drainage paths within the constraints
imposed by Guidelines 1 - 4 (Table 6,3) inclusive. This model forms the basis for all
subsequent flow estimation computations and
is presented in Fig. 5 (see Outcomes below).

To determine these design flows (ARI =

N-years) requires a set of computations similar to those of Table 4 (STEP 4) but reflecting the collective nature of the contributing
catchment. Execution of these ca 1cu 1at ions
requires the Stage 2 hydrological model to be
interpreted as a system of catchment aggregations (see Fig. 6B, Outcomes below). The flow
computations are carried out in Table 6 and
the results presented in Fig. 6C (see Outcomes below).

OUTCOMES OF STEPS 4 AND 5 (see Table 10,1)

OUTCOMES OF STEP 6 (see Table 10,1)

1.

Stage 1 hydrological model

1.

2.

Tabular computation of primary

FIGURE 4A

drainage line design flows,

comparisons, etc. Sizes and
locations of gutter inlets
in DETERMINATE drainage lines
3.

4.

Graphical determination of
gutter inlet positions, etc.,
in INDETERMINATE drainage
1i nes
Stage 2 hydrological model including information on gutter

inlet locations, types, sizes,

concentrated flow entries,etc.
5.

TABLE 4

FIGURE
4B

FIGURE

FIGURE 6A
FIGURE 6B

2.

Stage 2 hydrological model

'collective' interpretation

3.

Tabular computation of main

drain pipeline design flows

4.

Main drain pipeline flow

distribution (design AR!
N-years)

5.

Reference: Information transferred from

the outcomes of STEPS 4 and 5.

TABLE 6

FIGURE 6C

Reference: Chapter 4 and Sections 5,2,

5,3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.3.

STEP 6: Design flow dlstrlbullon In primary
and main drainage lines
The tasks executed in STEPS 4 and 5 to derive
a valid hydrological model for a given subcatchment lead to design flows being declared
in all segments of its primary drainage lines.
These involve both surface and underground
flow paths, the latter being introduced as a

consequence of the failure of some primary

drainage lines - investigated in STEP 4 as
wholly surface flow conveyors - to meet adopted guideline limits.
The primary drainage
line design flows (AR! = N-years) are presented in Figure 6A (see Outcomes below).
Emphasis in the procedure from STEP 3 to
this point is clearly on design flows generated in primary drainage lines by design storms

which are critical in their individual catchment areas. Flows determined in this way lead
ARRB SR 34, 1986

Primary drainage line flow

distributions (design ARI =
N-years)

STEP 7: Design !low compllallon- all

components ol sub-calchmenl
Data and information extracted from Figs 6A
and 6C enable the flow distribution compilation sought in STEP 7 to be determined. The
compilation presents in graphical form the
magnitude of the greater design flow, where
there is choice (Fig. 6A and Fig. 6C values

compared), which can occur in each component

surface or underground flow path of a subcatchment, under design ARI = N-years conditions. The compilation is presented in Fig. 7
(see Outcomes below).
Where the design of a minor drainage
system for a complex urban landscape of the
type illustrated in Fig. 7.4 is required, an
additional task must be performed. This involves the computation of flows moving underground between sub-catchment di sposa 1 points
towards their (catchment) central disposal
point (see Design Procedure- Phase II above).

The outcomes of these computations are presented in Figs

below).

7A,

7B,

etc.

(see

Outcomes

77

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

OUTCOMES OF STEP 7 (see Table 10.1)

I,

2.

3.

4.

Design flow distribution

compilation for sub-catchment
(ARI = N-years)
Design flow distribution
compilation for other subcatchments (ARI = N-years)
N-years)
Design flows between terminal node pits of parallel
sub-catchments
Reference:

l
l

FIGURE 7
FIGURES
7A, 7B,
etc.
FIGURES
7A, 7B,
etc.

In format ion transferred from

the outcomes of STEP 6,

The declaration of these flow compilations

completes Phase II of the minor system design
procedure and provides the basis for the
underground network design steps and final
design detailing of Phase III.
STEP 8: Pit water levels and first-round pipe

sizes

Design of the underground network commences

with the setting of water levels called
'assigned water levels' (AWL's) in all junction pits - with or without gutter inlets located on sub-catchment lateral and main
pipelines. AWL's are set first along lateral
pipe 1i nes and main pipe 1i ne branches beginning at their upstream extremities and then
along main pipeline trunks commencing from
their discharge points (see Guideline 6,
Table 6,4).
In setting pit water levels the designer
should observe the requirements of Guidelines
4 and 5 (Table 6,4).
The layout of Table 8/9 (see Outcomes
below) enables these opening tasks of STEP 8
to be accomplished in a rapid and orderly
fashion.
These tasks are followed by 'firstround' pipe size selection for all components
of lateral and main drain pipelines. Sizes
are fixed according to Minimum Grade practice
(see Sections 6.4 and 6,6) using simple
charts of the type presented in Figs 6,9 and
6,10. Pit headloss is ignored in this process. Design flows are obtained from the
outcome of STEP 7 (Figs 7, 7A, 7B, etc.),
Priority should be observed in selecting sizes for pipe components : lateral pipeline components should be selected before
pipes of the main drain (see Guideline 8,
Table 6.4). This task is performed using
Table 8/9 which has been designed to facilitate the first-round pipe selection procedure.

2,

First-round pipe sizes are

selected for all lateral and
main drain components

3,

Reference : Sections 6.4 - 6,6 inclusive.

TABLE 8/9

STEP 9: H.G.L. and pipes of approximate

network design

The tasks of reviewing the first-round selected pipes and making alterations where necessary in the light of Hydraulic Grade Line
analysis, is conducted in STEP 9 as a combined exercise. It is commenced at the downstream extremity of the sub-catchment and its
main calculations are reported in Table 8/9
(see Outcomes below).
The tabular procedure includes two Hydraulic Grade Line tests, one designed to
maintain H.G.L,
below assigned pit water
level (AWL), the other aimed at keeping pit
floor level above (AWL - 2,5 D0 ). The first
of these aims can be achieved, generally, by
appropriate pipe diameter selection. The
second can be achieved in the majority of
cases but sometimes fails at locations where
high discharges pass through multi-pipe junction pits or where severe direction change is
forced upon such flows.
In practice, Guidelines 7 and 8 (Table
6,4) often limit options and give rise to
situations where H.G.L. falls significantly
below pipe obvert.
In such cases underground-moving flows take the part-ful 1 or
open-channel form and normal pressure pipeline headloss and pit headloss (water level)
values cannot be validly applied, A design
approach to meet these situations is offered
in Table 6,5.
Examples of such situations occur most
frequently in the upper extremities of moderate and steep grade catchment networks, but
they can occur in valley bottoms where there
is a local increase in terrain slope for one

reach of pipe 1i ne. These are the more serious

cases for the designer since they are likely
to be preceded and fo 11 owed by reaches which
behave as normal pressure pipelines.
The two poss i b1e outcomes reviewed here
-junction pit outflow full or part-full lead to different algorithms for fixing pipe
inverts and,

hence,

mainline

junction

pit

floor levels [see eqns (6.19) and (6,21)],

The computations which arise as a consequence
of these outcomes are entered in the Remarks
column of Table 8/9 (see Outcomes below).

OUTCOMES OF STEP 8 (see Table 10.1)

Where underground networks are to be designed for catchments comprising a number of

sub-catchments (see Fig, 7.4), then a set of
tables similar to Table 8/9, one for each
sub-catchment, must be prepared, H,G,L, and
diameters for pipes linking sub-catchment
terminal node pits must also be determined,

I,

OUTCOMES OF STEP 9 (see Table 10,1)

78

Junction pit water levels

(AWL's) are assigned along
all lateral and main drain
pipelines

TABLE 8/9

1.

Hydraulic Grade Line and

pipe sizes of approximate
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

underground network design

for sub-catchment
(ARI N-years}
2.

3.

4,

TABLE
8/9

Junction pit outflow pipe

maximum invert levels
{approximate network design}
(ARI = N-years}

}
}
}
}

H.G.L. and pipe sizes for

approximate underground network designs for other subcatchments (ARI = N-years}
and pipes linking their
terminal node pits

}
}
}

TABLE
8/g

OUTCOMES OF STEP 10 {see Table 10,1}

1.

Schematic representation of
}}
sub-catchment approximate
FIGURE
minor stornwater drainage
} 10
system for design ARI = N-years}

2,

Schematic representations of
}
parallel sub-catchment approx- } FIGURES
imate minor system designs
} 10A,10B,
(ARI = N-years} including pipes} etc,
linking their terminal node
}
pits
}

3.

Reference:

TABLES
B/9A,
B/9B,
etc.

Outcomes of STEPS 5 and 9,

Reference : Sections 6,4, 6,5, 6,7, 6,8,

STEP 10A: CosVfrequency Insert

STEP 10: Approximate system designARt= Nyears

The first task in STEP 10 is to extract information on lateral and main pipeline adopted
pipe diameters (Table 8/9} and present these
on a Stage 2 hydrological model network layout, Diameters of the remaining pipes cross-connections from gutter and 'sag' in-

lets, etc., to the lateral and main pipelines

- are fixed by reference to Guideline 10
(Table 6,4) using design flow information for
these components gathered from Fig, 7,
These data are then collated with information on surface drainage components declared in STEP 5 - gutter and 'sag' inlet locations, types,

sizes,

etc.

- to produce an

approximate design for the sub-catchment

minor drainage system, The design is that
for ARI = N-years and is presented in schematic form showing:a}

gutter and 'sag' inlet pits

- locations, types, sizes

b)

combined inlet/junction pits

- locations, types, sizes, pipe
entries and exits

c)

junction and inspection pits

- locations, pipe entries and exits

d)

concentrated flow entry points

- 1ocations

e)

pipe components (all pipes}

- locations, types, lengths,
diameters

Where catchments compr1 Sl ng a number of

sub-catchments are i nvo 1ved, then a set of
approximate minor system designs must be prepared, one for each sub-catchment. Diameters
for pipes linking sub-catchment terminal node
pits (see STEP 9} form part of the outcome of
STEP 10.
The design is described as 'approximate'
on the grounds that its final form cannot be
determined unt i 1 site constraints [see item
(c), STEP 1, Section 10,2], and construction
requirements have been taken

ARRB SR 34, 1986

into account.

The question of what ARI's should be applied

in the design of minor stormwater drainage
systems is reviewed in Section 2,6, Design
ARI tends to be fixed by local government
policy or the recommendation of a funding
authority or by application of guideline/
suggestions such as those listed in Table
2.3.

Use of 'policy' is appropriate provided it is soundly based on assessment of sample

developments covering the range of likely land
uses. One item of economic evaluation which
should be part of any such enquiry is cost/
frequency analysis.
The first task in conducting a cost/frequency analysis is to assign a range of values to the design ARI parameter 'N', Typical
values used for N in residential catchments
are N = 0,1,2,5 and 10-years; values for industrial/commercial developments are N = 0,
2, 5, 10 and 20-years.
With these values assigned, the procedure described in STEPS 1 - 10 inclusive, must
be carried out for each nominated non-zero

value of N commencing with the greatest.

This is 1ess repetitive than it may appear
since STEPS 1 - 5 inclusive are common to all
designs for a particular sample area,
The design resulting from the '0-year'
case is the hypothetical layout of inlets,
underground pipes and junction pits which
satisfied the minimum requirements of the
It
guidelines adopted in STEPS 2 and 3,
realises the Stage 1 hydrological model (Fig.
4A), All of its gutter inlets are minimum
size, and all of its pipelines are minimum

size {Guideline 7, Table 6.4}; discharges

from all concentrated flow entries are accepted into their respective surface drainage
lines.

The result of these determinations is a

set of approximate minor system designs, each

one similar in form to that presented in Fig,

10, This constitutes the main part of the
data base for the analysis,
The next task involves costing the set
of designs, The level of sophistication employed here need not be high but should include:79

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

a)

costs of all drainage netllrk main components

- junction pits
- concentrated flow entries
- gutter inlets of all types
- pipes

b)

excavation and installation costs

c)

roadway reinstatement costs.

The outcome of such an analysis is a set

of minor system network costs, e.g.
design ARI
10-years
design ARI = 5-years
design ARI = 2-years
design ARI = !-year
0-year design

$177,500
$171,500
$156,000
$151,200
$136,500

These cost/frequency data are plotted in Fig.

2.2 (curve 1) : they apply to a typical 12 ha
residential sample area in the Adelaide foothills, South Australia.
The cost versus design ARI relationship
can take many forms which differ with the type
of development, unit cost rates used, adopted
guidelines (STEPS 2 and 3), etc. The 'double
cusp' form of curve I is typical of residential catchments : the convex form illustrated
by curve 2 is obtained, typically, for industrial/ commercial developments. The conclusion which may be drawn from the curve I relationship is that design ARI = 2 - 4 years
represents 'best value for$ spent'.
These considerations provide designers
with valuable information which aids policymaking. They are urged, however, to resist
the temptation to adopt design ARI 's which
have been decided solely on cost considerations of the type described here. The reader
is referred to Chapter 2 for a wider discussion of this subject.

STEP 11: Final design detailing

In STEP 11 the schematic representation of
the sub-catchment minor stormwater drainage
system, collated in STEP 10, is converted to
a set of working drawings used for construction. The conversion is accomp 1i shed in two
stages:Stage A:

Stage 8:

80

pit floor levels according to eqns

(6.19) and (6.21) collated from the
'Remarks' column of Table 8/9, and
Guidelines II and 12 are applied to
the approximate design declared in
STEP 10. It is a 1so appropriate
for pipe class and cover requirements (Guideline 13) to be considered at this stage.
site constraints - service locations in particular - are applied
to the Stage A design to produce a
set of working or construction
drawings. Some recalculation may
be involved.

It. is unusual for the Stage A design to

be directly transferrable to site without
alterations being required. These may range
from minor changes - small differences in
pipe lengths and alignments which have no
appreciable effect on the design - to major
redesigns. In the latter case, significant
alterations to the network, e.g. rep 1acement
of a nt~~~ber of convent 1on a1 junction pits
with 'drop' pits or alternative pipeline modifications (see Table 6.6) to avoid existing
underground services, may force recalculation
of some reaches of the network. Such recalculation should not extend further back into
the procedure than Table 8/9.
In extreme circumstances, e.g. where pit
overflow appears to be inescapable, pipe diameter selection and Hydraulic Grade Line computations may have to be repeated using more
accurate headloss coefficients and pipe friction factors than employed in the procedure.
Reference should be made in these circumstances to appropriate texts on hydraulics (for
pipe friction values) and to the referenced
1 iterature on junction pit headlosses. Consideration should also be given to the hydraulic modelling of particular installations,
e.g. multi-pipe junction pits, whose behaviour under design flow conditions is crucial
to the success or failure of a system (see
Table 6,6).

Much of this need for redesign can be

pre-empted if thorough site survey and investigation is carried out as part of catchment
definition [item (c), STEP 1]. The designer
who is aware of the locations of all major
services and other underground installations
will arrange his basic netllrk layout- Fig.
IB to avoid these, and all subsequent segments of the design will reflect this knowledge. The alternative is a set of major
computational difficulties to be overcome in
STEP 11 or, worse still, following the discovery of an unexpected service line unearthed by a construction crew.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 11 (see Table 10.1)
I.

Schematic representation of sub-)

catchment final design (Stage A)) fiGURE
minor stormwater drainage system) II
Design ARI = N-years
)

2.

Schematic representation of par-)

allel sub-catchment final design)
(Stage A) minor drafnage systems)
including pipes linking their
)
)
terminal node pits. Design
ARI = N-years
)

3.

Construction drawings of catchment minor stormwater drainage

system (Stage B) for design
ARI = N-years

4.

FIGURES
!lA,
liB,
etc.

) CON)STRUCTION
)DRAWINGS
)

Reference : In situations where final design calls for refinement of the pipe
diameter selection procedure and the
H.G.L., more precise values for pipe friction factor, f, and pit headl ass coefficients must be sought from the literature.
ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 10.1
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROCEDURE
The following diagrams present in schematic form an ordered account of the main computational and graphical components of the
minor drainage system design procedure.
The composition of each component and its role in the procedure are described in general terms in Section 102.

I Phase I- Catchment

STEP
1

definition & design guidelines

r
m c',, 11

=rnJI [
-~ --~

,~

~:-

STEP
2

FIGURE 1A

FIGURE 1B

T<Jble
Guidelines
6,3
Guidelines Table
1-5
2

STEP
3

Table
64

ruidelines

Guidelines

Table

1-19

TABLE 1

Phase II - Flow estimation & distribution

STEP
4

~
~

IJrj

' ',
FIGURE 4A

Stage 2

STEP

Hydrological Model

'''

FIGURE 48

TABLE 4

corresponding

sub-

compilation

catchment

STEP
7

STEP
6
I

IIi ii ' ""'

TABLE 6

FIGURE 6A

flow
istribution

for
other
sub-catchments

FIGURE 6[

FIGURE 7

Phase III- Surface system & underground network design

STEP
8

columns 1~12

, n

commenong

top of

network

network

{/

STEP
10

STEP
10A

'

' ''

Co

ARRB SR 34, 1986

8v/
Ill

STEP
9

/~

~---

Frequency

1/

'
FIGURE

Final design
Stage A

STEP
11

columns 1~- 24
commenong
bottom of

' ''

FIGURE 10A

10

{/

Construction drawings
(final design Stage B)

'

c.

{/

' FIGURE

11

81

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

82

ARAB SR 34, 1986

II
The minor drainage system case study applications
INTRODUCTION
The step-by-step procedure for designing
minor stormwater drainage systems for small
urban catchments, described in Chapter 10, is
app 1i ed in Chapter 11 to two hypothet i ca 1
urban developments located in the Adelaide
foothills, South Australia.

Although design of the minor system network for Case 4 using N = 2-years would,
correctly, complement the major system design
already prepared, the present illustration
adopts N = 5-years. This level of design ARI
is employed solely to generate a wider range
of design problems forcing solutions which
demonstrate the scope of the procedure (outlined in Chapter 10) which would not be
revealed by a design at N = 2-years level.

In the first - Case 3 - a minor system

network is designed for a 6 ha part sub-area
catchment of mixed land use.
The network
design terminates at a sub-area node pit and
therefore involves no main drain pipeline
considerations. It may be assumed that a
major system has a 1ready been designed for
the catchment and that, therefore, runoff
from storms of ARI = 100-years or less will
not result in indoor damage. Design ARI used
for the minor system is N = 2-years. A higher
value of design ARI would normally be applied
to this type of development (see Table 2.3).

Both designs - Case 3 and Case 4 - are

intended to fulfi 1, primarily, a demonstration role for the novice. This leads, in
places, to decisions which may be validly

questioned

The second illustrative design- Case 4 focuses on Catchment, M, a 12 ha portion of

the 38 ha residential sub-division featured in
Fig. 7.3. The minor system network for this
catchment includes a branching main drain
pipeline and four lateral pipelines. A major
system design (ARI = 100-years) is presented
for the same catchment in Chapter 9 (Case 1)
where a minor system design ARI of N = 2-years
was assumed, This led to a 'gap flow' design
ARI of M = 50-years for the surface-moving
system.
CASE 3'
Node

itional notes.

ChOj

node pit

r/
(h. 680 Ill.

~L1USO~

I
I
I
I
I

Residential
15 res./ha

-------Ch. 7m
gutter inlet
inv RL 10010

Readers are advised to con-

FIGURE 1A

boundary of northern prin>ary

drainage area
Residenlia\

NodXAJ

Discussion

sult Table 10.1 frequently in their study of

the Chapter 11 designs as well as appropriate
sections of Chapter 10 when the need for
further explanation arises.

{outside catchment)

imt RUOOOO

seasoned designers.

Each design is presented as a set of

figures and tables corresponding to those of
Table 10.1 and supported, generally, by add-

STEP 1,

X~

by

of such points provides opportunity for one

of the most important benefits likely to flow
from the Handbook, the transfer of knowledge,
skill and experience between the generations
of designers.

;;;.~
o

o\O

">

Ch.207m

(h. 562 m_

inv. Rl.1041Q

irw Rl.11t20

\point CPJ

ADDITIONAL NOTES

1 Catchment location : Adelaide foothills, South Australia {see Fig.S.21: Rainfall chart Fig. 5.1
2. Roads: 20m. road~tay reserves, 10m dual than net carriage.. ay, kerb and gutter,
concrete width '"37Smm; Za= 8, pavement ,hot mil(; cross slope ,Zb=40,
hydraulics, Fig.6-3{textl
3 Storm'o'ater Disposal: XA-4~XA3~XA-2~XA-l~XO (mainline)
design flood level at XA-3, Rl.998S
4 Policy ltems: adopt design ARI =2 years for minor system
'"preferred inlet .. : side entry inlets lm & 2m with and 'olithout deflectors
hydr au lies, Fig. 6.7 ( le~l)
pipes: wncrele pipes throughout; norfl'al condition
CATCHMENT AND BASI( DESIGN DATA

ARRB SR 34, 1986

83

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3: STEP 1, fiGURE 18

~r

~I

1[
node
XA3
Rl 100 00

concentrated entry
(from carpark)

terminal
XA31R
gutter inlet RQ~0\0

kerb line

CP

20m

J.

XA3E1

70 m

~I

80m
kerb Une

XA-3E1l
RL 10010

~-

~I

~r

200m

NOTE: Pipe location fixed by Guideline 1, Table 64 {major roads)

FIGURE 18: TERMINAL INLETS AND BASIC UNDERGROUND NETWORK LAYOUT

CASE 3: STEP 1, TABLE 1

z

a:

"' ;:lz
"'' "'"'
'
0

"'"'
I

w
r
w

<D

<D

"'

:;>;
>

" "'" "' "' >=

"'"'
"'
<;; "'
..J

0
0

>-

"'
4

~
~

0
0

w
~
w

;}_

"'

r
w

ow~w~

o<:-

"'~~
o~

., to
"'r"' "'"'
"'r r
ow

z~

wo

"'~ a
~"'
D.,;
D

"'"'

w~

>-::::>:3
I~W

"'d
w

w0

DRAINAGE UNE CONVEYING FLOW

TO TERMINAL INLET

ii'

rn

-.
0

"

o z .!' E
0
>-a r~
rw

:..,
=

"

"'

o-

"

. gee

w-

"

10

11

680

13-5

<:

0~
.
ro
~
o
> 0 'iOrn" .;:-.:

.-
.
. - - . =

" ~~
~E > E
-.:o
.

;:,~

~-

12

13

'

t: ~
"
0
wro "w

14

;:;-;;;

REMARKS

ro o

w~

15

16

node 100 00

...

0
E1R 10010 . road
1 s~aJ~a de 049
residential 15 res/ha. 100

carpark

pavea

2.~grade

H3

r;~Jry 1s.grade
1"'-~. 064
park
pervious 150

E1l
identification~ee note 1

10010

road

1s!".'.'!.
f.~Qfade

Figure 1A and Section 56

044

200

40

200

40

400

:--:--

457

90

562

110

"' "'

40

15

80

note 2 note 3

555 002

see note 4

---

555

"'

note 5

002

40

figure1A

75

"'

note 6

ADDITIONAL NOTES
tldentification of primary drainage area terminal gutter inlets XA-3E1R and XA-3E1L applies code described
in STEP1, Section 102,1'R"and"l"signify [jg!J..t or left looking in direction of flow.
LArea or equivalent area: measured from catchment plan, facfor of 075 used to convert roadway reserve into
road equivalent paved area.
3.Concentraled,"c;'or distributed,"D'; contribution: all carpark runoff considered concentrated at drain discharge
point ;factory roof stormwaler fed to drainage line from many oullets,hence"dislributed"
4. Drainage line total length and fall: drainage line length conveying runoff from most remote element of
componenl;"fall"of drainage line over this length.
5. Effective length of drainage line, Leff: length over which the bulk of contribution enters drainage line;
contribution from upper 118m. of road component terminating al XA3E1R is smal\,hence effective length
;, 562m -7m =555m.
6. Capacity flow, Guideline 1 ! Table 63, text):approach flow for 95% capture {largest preferred inlet) or
25m spread, whichever is lesser {Figure 67,text)

84

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3:
STEP 2;
TABLE 2.

CASE 3:
STEP 3,
TABLE 3.

CASE 3: STEP 4, FIGURE 4A

-

Stage 1 Hydrological Model

road' 049 ha
residential' 1-00 ha

Table 6 3, text

factory roof :064 ha

Table 64, text

Guide tines

Guidelines

1- 5
and
Section 63, text

l'!

1 - 13
and
Section 65, text

lJ
c

TABLE 3

XA3E1

runoff is considered to
pass to terminal
gutter inlets

-~~

park' 150 ha

----ZoO~::~~:.-:del,a\1

XA3

TABLE 2

XA 3E1R

\D

XA3E1L

XA3E1R and XA3E1L.

road' 044 ha

I c: concentrated

entry.

O:::distributed entry.

CASE 3 : STEP 4, FIGURE 4B

Flow accumulation in drainage line terminating at inlet XA 3E1R
{;r---70

lf--75

246'Jcho7

''

-"!
~

w
c

'ieh2o1

'

''

200

'

:::;

w
~
ro
c

-~
0

~ '

c
ro

100

:"

""
~
0

u::

70

II"
45 11--'0~

from carpark

I
I

94-

u
u

101 L s concentrated

ti

"5

li

145

s
:;:

Ji

Resid ntial

"*
~

Roof

~- 85
r{v,
captu

Park

e~

~ -'Oir. Ponon':\

by ass

ol
7m

100

19{

200

400
300
Chainage I metres)

500

600

ADDITIONAL NOTES

1 Flow is considered to accumulate in the drainage line commencing ch 562 ("effective length" SSSm ).
Road component ftow represents base contribution reaching 45 Lis at ch 07: other contributions
{extract from Table 4) are added.
2 Carpark (concentrated) flow must be diverted underground requiring kerbs ide junction pit at ch 207.
Surface flow accumulated at ch 207 is 94 Lis whtch can be 80% captured by 2m gutter inlet
without deflectors (see Fig. 67, text.). Both requirements are served by combined gutter
inlet /J.P. at ch 207.
3 Surface flow at ch 07 is 70 l/s which can be 95% (or better) captured by 2m gutter inlet
without deflectors.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

85

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3: STEP 4, TABLE 4

TIME
OF
ENTRY
COMPONENT
COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL
PRIMARY DRAINAGE
CONTRIBUTING AREA TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
~rr--.-----.------~UN~DTE~R~G~RO~U~NrD~P~I~PE~~ET.N~T~R~Y~P~O~IN~T~TIME TO
o..
overland allotment gurrer or u/grouno
ENTRY
0
w
natural
pipe
POl NT
.
~o
-'
z -: .S
flow
dram
channel travel
lJ..J o
<(
o o ~ 1---..-.-+--.-.-+==r-cr-+...:.:.-r-=r-t~--c----:---;-i
L z
r
z
u
r ~ -o
(analysis)
~:r:<( ~
10
<( Q)

zuwo z
1~wu:t:CeE.
w ~ a: o..
~ o..
g u U:: ::> "'
'E .S E c E c E -~ full- part~ u <(
o
o <( Vl ~ .. '
E
'
. E
'
E 'E ~ E E area

~cb~~
~ w~ >-g~:2g~~~~~~~t~:u~~~
:::::> :::::> :z
:::> -'
ru c
E
c
E c ro . c
ro E
<(

uVlVl

C)

LJ

V1

LJ

OJ

V):..;!

~:;:::

._ +-

'+-

+-

tc
min. min.

min.
5
1 2 3 4
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1-X'-+-'A+.3-+:cElccR+c"a-'-!'"-P'cc'cc'k-c--l-i~ic!~'~de,;uai"'''"~e.,..dce,_-'-+---+-'7-'0+.0'-'3+-'5+200 4.4 3
- - 200 4 1-3'-+~1"1-1---'11=-----j
10 m road
residential

~~~~t qrade

factory roo
park

Pr1~~~ grade
pel'vious

8 .02 2 nomi 1al 15 -

- 665 13~ 6
- 200
4 3

8
18

140

- 400
-450

14
40

14
14.,.

40

14-'

8
8

H-t-+--t--c~~-:-t-'-C'-'-"--'~"t-c-1-o\---o+.-:-!----I-+-E+-+c+--+-+--J-~-t---::----f

15 res/ha

10
-

.o

35

--1-t----1~+-+-+--1--1-+--+-----J

8 4
9 5

CRITICAL STORfl DURATION

Ell

10 m road

RdV~~

first grade

.o

2 -

- 555 11

I
Identification
ex. columns
1-4, Table 1

see Note 1

- I -I-

I I

Data from Figure 1A, Table 1, and

Section 55, text; see Note 2

see Note 3

AODITIONAL NOTES
1.

Data for columns 5 and 6 are t1ansferred directly from columns 6 and 7 of Table 1.
Components of multi-component drainage lines may be listed in any order except fol'
pervious components

2.

\~hich

should be listed last.

The decision to discharge a concentrated flOI'I, e.g. that from the carpark in Case 3,

directly underground cannot, strictly, be made until the result of the column 31
comparison is known. The entries in columns 17, 18 and 19 above should therefore
appear, more correctly, in columns 14, 15 and 16 respectively pending this outcome.
Component total travel time (columns 20 and 21) is the same fOl' either listing.
With experience, designers will frequently be able to correctly prejudge the
column 31 result and may use columns 17, 18 and 19 as in the above illustration.
3.

Total travel time : two travel times corresponding to the 'F' and 'P' conditions
of Fig. 4. 7, text, are shown for each component. Where components are paved, both
times are the same. The value of ti shown for pervious components can only be
fixed after all other ti values have been found : it is set equal to the greatest
of these. Two critical stonn durations are shmm, each equal to the greatest
listed value.

4.

Component (CA) : values in columns 26 and 27 are derived, generally, from columns
24 and 25. The entry for pervious components in column 27 is given by :

t.

~ x CpAo {see Section 4.5, text)

c
.
5,

86

Component flows, columns 29 and 30, are derived from columns 22/26 and 23/27
respectively inserted into Eqn. (5.4), text. This decides the full-area versus
part-area issue in each case.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

ESTIMATION IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES: N = 2 -YEARS

RAIN FALL
INTENSITIES .
FOR STORM
DURATIONS WHICH
ARE CRITICAL

PRIMARY
lrn>\ITDIBUTING AREA
TOTAL FLOW
AT NOMINATED
ENTRY POINT

aJ

"" ICOIMF'ON
:J;
c
0

REMARKS

(Gutter inlet
selections for

full-area part-area
analysis

DETERMINATE

lines included
here )

<0

derived from column c .9 see Note 4

~
.J
20 & 21 and Section 5~ '1;; ~
tll1
52 text
e~Vl ~
aJ
~

. ro 'X t- QJ

QJ

..

..0

~ Li1

see Notes 5-7

<0

see Note 9

aJ

8j

aJ
aJ
VI

6.

Concentrated flow entries to the surface drainage line \~hich violate Guideline 4, Table 6.3, text,
are exc 1uded from surface drainage considerations. Note that only surface drainage contributing
areas and flows are included in 1 totals 1 shown in columns 26/27 and 29/30 respectively.

7.

Full list of

8.

Comparison \'lith guideline limits : values listed in column 31 come fr'Om

compone~t

INDETERI1INATE.

0
0

surface flows are needed only in cases where drainage lines prove to be
t\'10

sources

Guideline 4 limit, applied to concentrated flow entries

column 15, Table 1, applied to total surface drainage flows

Comparison is between the adopted design flm1 (larger of columns 29 and 30) and appropriate
guideline limit, The outcome decides the issues of acceptance into the surface drainage line
or not in the case of concentrated flow entries and DETERrHNAtlCY in other surface drainage
lines.

9.

Remarks column is used for any relevant comment, in particular,

of the column 31 comparisons. In drainage lines which prove to
to immediately fix the type and size of l'equired gutter inlet.
design flow together with data from column 13, Table 1, to Fig.
shown in column 32, 1 Remarks' (see corresponding column in Case

ARRB SR 34, 1986

those relating to the consequences

be DETERt~INATE, it is possible
This can be done by applying the
6.7, text. The result may be
4),

87

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3:

STEP 5,

FIGURE 5

.!+,

X~1R

CASE 3=

I carpark:1-33haj

'- ..ID road:049ha; factory \ ~

roof:064 ha; residential:
1-00ha; park:150ha.
LP.
Xk3El
Xk3E2
XA3E3

XO

I road:044ha
3, table 64. text.
Ch.107

./

19

176

176

55

flows: L/s

XA3D

NOTE:
Flows presented in this figure
same as those shown in Fig. 6A.
55

FIGURE 7' DESIGN FLOW -ALL COMPONENTS; N"2 YEARS

1
Ch. 7

75
~pass

lev

Nole:lnspecfion pit
included,see guideline

xAr1L

70

70
LP.
Xk3E1
287
176 Xk3E2

Xk3

FIGURE 7
!1

jc:;

XUE3R

STEP 7,

CASE 3:

Ch.207

STEPS 8&9,
next page

STAGE 2 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

TABLE 8/9

CASE 3 : STEP 10 , FIGURE 10

CASE 3:

STEP 6, FIGURE 6A
!::l
m
!1

tT\. 70
'-,/

XA3

70
XBE1
287

75

XOE3R

bjpass'- ~
19
176
flows : l/s

I.P

176 Xk32

176

XUE3

NOTE= Stricf. adherence to the Rational

Method\see Chapter 4) requires that
design !lows from inlet XA3E3R be

55

based on travel time to that point.

The procedure disregards such

f
\Y

55

considerations within primary drainage

areas. Rational Method theory is
applied in pipes which carry combined

flows to a node pit.

Hence-critical storm characteristi!s at XA3E1:northern area:duration 14 mins,i2 = 43 mm/h.
southern area :duration 7 mins, i 2 :: 58 mm/tt

flow in pipe XA 3E1 XA 3 :(70+176)L/s + ~~ K55L/s =287l/s

XA.3

7m
525

;i

1 m
375

~~

E~

Nj;;

100m
375

Notes:

oog

1. All pipes concrete.

2. 2m side-entry gutter inlet without

deflectors shown @or

3. Pipe diameters for cross-connections

found from Guideline 10, Table 6.4,
text;for design flows see Fiqure 7.
4. Heodtoss, pit water levels and
pit floor levels for pipe marked
require further investigotron.
See Guideline 10, Table 6.4, text.

FIGURE 10,

APPROXIMATE NETWORK DESIGN N= 2 YEARS

CASE 3 : STEP 11,

FIGURE 6A =DESIGN FLOWSIPRIMARY DRAIN LINES) N"2 YEARS

XA.3E3

FIGURE 11

XA.3E1R
pit floor level
RL. 9920

XA.3E3R
pit floor level
2 R.l. 102.92

XA,3E2

?/f:: ~
3 ~7~m~~~m~~~~1~00~m~~
XA.
doss Y 375 classY
y
pit floor level

Rl.101,30

CASE 3: STEP 6, FIGURE 6B, TABLE 6, FIGURE 6C

"525 '\5
>-

FIGURE 68

TABLE 6

FIGURE 6C

I
I

.g

XA.3E1
pit floor level
R.l. 99.10

LXA.3E3

pit floor level

RL 102.90

);;

XA.3E1l
pit floor level
R.L 99.20

Notes:
1. Pipe inverts at pits
coincide with pit floor
levels.
2. Pit floor levels fixed by
Guidelmes 11 - 13 and
Remarks column, Table 8/9.

3. Pipe doss- Guideline 13

FIGURE 11, APPROXIMATE NETWORK -PJT FLOOR
LEVElS AND PIPE CLASSES

88

ARRB SR 34, 1986

)>

CASE 3: STEPS 8 & 9' TABLE 8/9

::0
::0

.,

OJ

(f)

::0

zo

"'

!ZO~

~z

t!.:~:j

())

"'

4
1 2 3
LATERAL PIPELINES

' '
~ ~ ~

X A 3

~::3

z~~

~~

~51-

~~

~~

101.10

0
0
0

PIPE
G' LINE
5

G' LINE
4

8~

:2

01 0

o,<e

DIAM.

ASS' NO

PIT

LOSS
CASE

:!l
2g

~~

&

:e

ii

0
00
0

64

Table
6-4

RL

65 &. 66

10

11

12

13

14

Table

Kw

WATER
LEVEL
lAWLI

"
1t

Tables

15

H.G.L. ANALYSIS ' N= 2- YEARS

TEST 2

TEST 1

!:

N 0

2:

AWL

hf+Kw[W)

minus

ht .. 15Da

BWL
(AWL- BWLI

Eq. 618

Eq.617

"
0

""
lAWL-BWLl

BWL

"
!;'0

REMARKS

&

AWL! ASSIGNED lPITl WATER LEVEL

HYDRAULIC
GRADE

LINE

BWL

SOnOM lPITl WATER LEVEL

(Pit WL:s.l

16

17

18

19

20

21

"

23

24
(f)

-i
n.a.

10395

pipe

E3to
E2

176

100

002

lm>p.
pit

10210

node
10000

.,.z

"L"junc.
pit

E2

E1
10010

,.

0~

~~~
E3

TRIAL

co

PIT WATER LEVEL

~
z

:!'-

PIT WATER LEVELS, PIPE DIAMETERS

__-r-- first
10195

pipe

E2to

176

100

002

round - -

103-BS

---r-

firs~

0300
0375

N9

J-3

20

032
013

159

Z.03
065

Q-61.

267

026

091

200

1-21

0375

----1
9995

laterals
pipe
E1 to

287

002

101-85

0300
0375

2-49
159

J-1

02

032
013

203
066

006
003

209
069

Z.01

1-22

0375

9995

J.P.

DESIIGN FtOO ILEVEL

-'

1)

7EST 1 O.K. foe 00

0.31$, ""'TEST 2

Pipe invert (upstream) fh:ed by equation 6.21:11111x, inv. level. EJ ~ RL 103.95-(l,S x .U)- 0.375
~ RL 103.18
water level, E3. fbed at AWL.

I'" o,-

,,,,TEST

TEST 1 O.K.
0,375),
2
P1pe invert upstream) fixed by equation 6.21:max. 1nv. level. EZ ~ RL 101.95~(1.5 x .03)-0.375
RL 101.53
water level. E2. fixed at AWL.
g

R.L 99-94

first [und ..-

nod~

multi-pipe

1J

R.L 10195

10195
round .._

E1

J.P. with

RL 10H5

10395

0375
D-4.50
0525

Z60
1-81
1-32

J2A/2B

08

034
017
009

01Z
005
002

Ol7
014
007

039
019
009

010

081

0525

_,.

R ~99-85 ~ B.t

1)

TESTS l Md 2 O.K. foe 00 - 0.525

P1pe 1nvel"t (upstream) f1Xcd by equation 6.19:
max. 1nv. level. El ~ RL 99.85 + 0.02- 0.525
~

RL 99.34
water level. El. fixed by cc;uction 5.2!1:
BWL at 0 ~ Rl 99.85 + 0.09 ~ RL 99.94

R.l9985

~
~~

l;j:::

~00

1i

2.

3.

())

co

-;;

ex. Tables
65. 66

*~

ADDITIONAL NOTES

1.

Pit water levels are fixed according to the priority set down in
Guideline 5. Table 6.4, text.
In priorities 1 and 2 assigned
water level is the LOWER of the competing levels (Guidelines 4
and 5); in priority 3, the HIGHER of the competing levels is
assigned. The Case 3 developme11t involves only priority 1 pipe
components. The Case 4 development. fol 1owing, i 11cl udes componel1ts from all three priorities.

]~

]~

-"
~~ ~"

pipe 11ominal diameter

derived
t:olumns
17&18

00

]~

derived
columns
12&17

.=:~

"'

sec Note 7

Notes 5 & 6

~8

4.

Pipe friction headless: see equation 5.15. text. nonnal concrete

roughness, f = 0.019.

5.

Hydraulic grade line is calculated from columns 23 and 1g (adopted value) i.e. equation 5.20, text, except where TEST 2 fails.
See remarks, column 24.

6.

First rou11d pipe diameters: data from columns6and8 are applied

to Figure 5.g (concrete pipes) or Figure 6.10 (FRC pipes). Pipe
sizes are set 'in direction of flow' throughout 11etwork. Guidelines 7 and 8, Table 6.4 are observed here.
Later trials are
listed below first rou11d diameters.
Velocity should be computed using area of
(column 12).

2::

)>

Gl
m
0
m
(f)

Gl

s:
)>

See Note 1

~~

::0

,,-

NIL
ex. Fig. 7

s:

(f)

MAIN DRAIN PIPELINES

pit identifit:ation;
gutter invert
levels ex. Flg.1A

::0

H.G.L. pit water levels listed in column 23 are maximum design

levels subject to, possibly, two DOWNWARDS revisions :
a)

b)

7.

Guideline 10 caseS _(cross-conl1ections) in which Dt D0 .

Guideline 13 : cases where equation 6.21 has been used in
Table 8/9 (part-full outflow from pits) and "where cover
requirements detennine level of pipe invert.

Pit floor levels : remarks column 24 includes data used in final

design detailing, STEP 11.

::0

~
z

()

s:

(jj

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 : STEP 1, FIGURE 1A

-

I
M3~ 1
(node pit) 1
'---

-,-11
1~1--;;;10::-m
10m

Vl

' 6 I ",

"., ;'

.>::;

...

~, "

Z I

...,

{!

"'

Vl

Vl

~ II~
%

1 z~.

I~

~ ~4J

~ I ~ :':"

'
.,

1il -:;:

t: J ;: f

~
::

~I ~ E

40

<0

,gl ~ 1<=

20m road reserve.

Pavement cross
Zb =

carriageway in

stope

%.

~I

dual channel

"' 12

.:
9l

10~

- j-75m.dual chan el
I carrtageways

~/

I _j

75 m single channel carriageway

in 16m roadway reserve

1::::
~- .~

r=

==t~~:~~j;;;!i,T[JoD:i,J"!!:;;:;Jl~;;;,;,T[O:::~~"c:;:;;::}v.r:~:ss~o~e

M2J.1
(node pit) I
I

'''"

I~
o

I "

9t"'"
t;j~Ji

"'

t:~

ao

1::~
~-

"'

,.,o I =
I"

C>~l
...

~f:!.l

1 road: 024ha

road:;

VI

terminal
node pit

(road' O.OSha

s.,: o-oos

M4
(node pit)

75m dual channel carriageway

in 16m roadway reserve

._

0-08ha~

=~~
--/ i.t~:='~::::;:;''~'::,'
,_,-- ~~:;,::s"" t H10s I

LEGEND

.., I~

t'road, 008ha

so" o-oos

Zb =30

sub-area boundaries
shown---primary drainage area
shown - - - - -boundaries
terminal gutter inlets
shown ............ o

~:e

"'"I''
I
:C~r-'/

~
.:f ;'

t;~,=
. .
o...f

~Vl_l~.

:r~f~

M 5 I s,.o01
node p/t)
I

~1~1
I,
l
1

cross stope Zb = 30
g_A!,l

100m_

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Figure 1A:
Catchment dataCase 4

90

1. Catchment location: Adelaide foothitls South Australia

(see Figure 5.2; Rainfall Chart figure 5.1 )
2. Contour plan of catchment see Figure 7.3 text.
3. Roads: 16m and 20m roadway reserves
7.5m and 10m carriageways
kerb-and-gutter, concrete; width= 375mm; Z8 =8
pavement, hot mix; cross slopes Zb =30 and 40
longitudinal slopes, S0 ,are at receiving inlets
hydraulics, Figure 6.3 text.
4. Stormwaterdisposal point: M.O(see Figure 7.3,text.)
design flood level at M.O, Rl10000
5. Residential land use areas{see section 9.1, text.)
design residential density, 20res I ha.
stormwater passes to fronting gutters or rear of
aUotment drainage easements.
6. Policy items :
adopt design ARJ = 5 years for minor system;
"preferred inlet":side-entry inlets 1m, 2m with and
without deflectors; hydrautics,Figure 6.7, text.
pipes :FRC pipes throughout, poor condition.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 : STEP 1 , FIGURE 1B

10m\ \6m

M3N1R~_M3N1l
1 . I' M3E1
M3J "7m

-I-

Inspection Pit
(see Guideline 3, Table 64 text)
7m

I.P.

I.P.

<1

8m

"'
I.P.

NOTE ' Pipe location fixed by

Guideline 1, Table 64( text)
major and' minor roads

Drawing not to scale

Stormwater disposal point

.1...--MO-

Design flood level' Rl10000

Figure 1 B : Terminal inlets and basic underground network layout

ARRB SR 34, 1986

91

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4:
CATCHMENT

z
w
>:

=>

0:

0
0

z
w

:E
w

''=>

"'v>

"'1
"'v>=>
3
5

OEFINITlON
z
i--

r
r

>-

"'rwz
4

"'>w

"'"' "'

"'w
v>

:E

=> >
w

;::

r
r

z
w
z

_j

"'Q:ci
" "' so

rr

w-

o;W

o.;"'~"'
oo:"'
>-=>""

.;>

~w~

o;f_
w,

:I:Vld

"'"

E1

f"-'''

11040 75m road 1 sf.~Qrade

residential 20 res/ha.

086

~.

~
c
rn" ;:;:.::;

'

g.~

~
~

v>~

REMARKS

a.:'!:!

12

13

14

15

200

45

200

03

30

65

290

50

180

40

180

03

30

65

90

02

30

76

185

~3

30

65

005

30

75

minimum travel time (road)

90

20

40

10

1sa~:~de

013

200

70

089

185

6~

16

see minimum travel lime

provision,sedion 5-5, !text)

0 06

90

05

40

02

E1l 10303 75m road 1sf"~-',

:_-cirade

006

90

OS

90

005

30

75

minimum travel time

N1R 11425 10m road 1 s'eovr~~e 007

N1l 11425 10m road 1 s~a;:a~e 025

70

07

70

01

40

70

minimum travel time

310

60

pervious

038

114 40 lSm road 1 stgrade

!"'-~
park
pervious

014

250

128

200

55

280

eo

180

55

90

--

node 11420

40

60

01

40

70

250

03

30

65

200

04

40

65

11180

04

40

65

II

9o

03

30

65

200

02

40

76

1 2oo

02

40

76

005

30

75

005

30

75

oooe 10BO

residential 20 res/ha

077

10l50 7-Sm road 1 s~~r~~e

residential 20 res/ha.

012

90

20

080

45

10

N1R 102-30 10m road ts~a~~a(Jde 015

10230 10m road 1st_
!"-~~Cirade 015

200

45

200

45

minimum travel time (road}

node 10220

park

pervious

084

10225 75m road ls~_a;r~de

park
pervious

015

290

068

E1l 10225 75m road 1st!"-~~Qrade

006

90

E1

->:

~:-:'

11

012

N1l

~~

080

E1
1

:;:::: E

080

N1R 10780 10m road tsl-Qi-ade

1"'~- 015
N1l 10780 10m road 1/t~vr~~e 021

residential 20 res/ha.

E1
2

10

.2! ::'

residential 20 res/ha

10315 7-Sm road

park

-~

c:E

103-03 7-Sm road 1 ft_a~(a~e

E1

ro E

rn
c "

node 10JOO
N1

g' ~
~"'
o
o .2!.!::
w,_;

. . g.. "
-""
"'"
.
.
" ~~ -. . . "
.

node 11030

residential 20res/ha

zv>

DATA - CASE 4

DRAINAGE LINE CONVEYING FLOW

TO TERMINAL INlET

~z
1;
<tw r>-o
w r~

N1R 11065 75m road 1s~_aci~a0de 012

N1 110 65 7-Sm road 1 s~.a~:~de 019

STEP 1, TABLE 1

70
05

90
90

minimum travel lime

flood isposa point

desig water eve! RL !JOOOO

CASE 4:

STEP 2,

CASE 4: STEP 3, TABLE 3

Table 63, text

Table 64, text

Guidelines 1-5

Guidelines 1-13

aod

92

TABLE 2

aod

Section 63,1ext

Section 65, text

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 4, FIGURE 4A

LEGEND
Road ID
}
10 Road Reserve:0-25 ha.l
Drainage Network Components
Reserve
Park: 038 ha.
I
gutter inlets .....................
007 ha.
M 3 -=:;c;{"'.r,,._-,---.c-= concentrated
M3E1~ D Road' 014hal contribution .... C junction pits ......................---e-combined inlet/ J.P..
----D-Park' 1-26 hal distributed
contri bution .... 0 concentrated flow entry........... ~
Road Re&021ha.l
main drain pipeline ....~
" R"'o-ad,----, I. R
Residentiai:0-77 ha./
cross connection ......... ()----.-IJI
1Reserve
~
1~.
I 015 ha.
Residential
Road: ID
D IRoad Re.,019ha.
~ i!
D
D
Reserve
!Residential:0-86ha.
~~
060 ha.
~12 ha.
MSN1
c &0
c
MS
M~~1_49 ~- _y MSE2
----{~}M~2_E~ !<~'!! __ M2E2

o-:-

~lJ

,....-;;;- D(Road Res: 012 haj

D !Road Reserve' 012 ha.l

r;;c:-::-:;---,

Road
Reserve
01Sha
0

rn:==;:;~~~==-=-~lnspedion
Road Reserve:0-15 ha.

I.P.

ro~
~~

m'!'

Pit

62
v;
&:ii

Park' 064 ha.

0

~?
1
M

I.P.
MO

,./

!Road Reserve:015ha.l
D I ParH66 ha.
I

~~

M4N1

o &&

r::-

~~

cx6

t;.c
~~

&.

g_

tro

~ro

-~a

M4E1 .~~
C
)---!&ill __ M4E2
xM1E1
M4
)
Cf-.c;::::,n==:n-o.Ci::l
jiR:::-oa:-cd"R"'ec:-s:::-erccve:l
l)-"D"''"
. ._. .
!Road Reserve: 006 ha.l
I 0 06 ha
FIGURE 4A' STAGE 1 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

CASE 4: STEP 4, FIGURE 4B

FLOW ACCUMULATION & CAPTURE GRAPHS FOR DRAINAGE LINES TERMINATING ATInlet
Inlet
~
MSN1, M4N1 & M2N1
Additional Notes
2
1
2
M2N1~
M4N1
1.The values 6SL/s and 79L/s are obtained from
~32m
~
Figure 67,text. They represent gutter(approachl
100
flows which can be 80% captured in drainage
93
Inlet[~ . ~
90
tines having 50 =003 &004,respectively, in their
MSN1\..~
;:-85L/s
terminal inlet vicinifies{see column 13, Table 1J
~27m
J~
~ 80'i--+-tf'"-1.-..._c-i~t- 2.The ftow accumulation graphs for lines terminating
120 - '
~ :
70
...
at MSN1 &M2N1l are plotted together because
~ 110~r-- ~~~ ; : :!
~ fiJ
l'i... their effective drainage line lengths are, by
~
N
u:
8l/s
f"-. coincidence,both equal to 180m (see
~ 100~=9 >= >:
50
"-column 12, Table 11
1
1
06
"~
M4N1 Line
I '
:'i, 90
"-N.fr6SL/s- 40I---t-HHHISo~003) --+--+--f'-t'---t-

"'J 2

FP--1

e:l ,._~Lis
, -..._~

30~~i~~~~~~f=+=+=+=++~4+

"g? 60
2s
1
-...._
N -~
" 70
E
"t..s
ypass TIL s
'I
1 1
.~ 60
.2 i;.c-- -'N~w,
rs. T
~
~ 50
ro
<w,(
~o
~ ~
rs0 , o.,;,--+-<s~o-+--l-t--+-.1oboc-f-L--'----'-1sboc-'-L--'1~6,ts
]I 40h33- ~~ ~
Y' ' 0 o~'f'>::<::--+--J-I---Drainage line length l m ) - - - - ro
'k--32 ~ ~
)
1
j
~
~u::~ 30 """ 1
MSN1 & M2N1l Line+-'~'"",-t--+- 3. Gutter inlet selections/placements
20
shown here are not necessarily"best
:;;_
17l/s
"~ bypass 16l/s
"'"- solutions':many satisfactory
101---l---t-t-1---t--t--t--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+'~
1
~arrangements are possible

! ..

%f-L_L_J_J_~s~o_L_L_L_L-d1o"oJ_J__L_L~1~so~~~160

Drainage line length from terminal inlet (m)

ARAB SR 34, 1986

93

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 4, TABLE 4

TIME
OF
ENTRY
COMPONENT
COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL
PRIMARY DRAINAGE
CONTRIBUTING AREA TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
UNDERGROUND PIPE
ENTRY POINT
TIME TO
overland allotment gutter or u/ground
ENTRY
z -: -~
flow
drain
2;~~~~\ f~~=l POl NT
--'

1-

zw

Q_

0:

cr

LL

Vl

L:

V1

0::

<(

:r:

Vl

Q_

Nl

_j

>-

5
7.5 m road

LJ

lL

::J

Q)

O<(V)~_!

LJ

LJ

ow~:!:cE

1-

.5 HlR

[analysis)

1 2 3

0
0
~~----.-+--.--.-t-~--~t-~~r-+-~~~~
1- L -o
<(aJ.._.

<(
LJ

:::>

_J

q-

g ::::ro

1.-

min.

'

...c.

~
c

QJ

o E
Vl:;::::

QJ

'E -~E

E
1
....c:

~
c

- E
.o:' ~
EEE
E 1 ...c
...c
I
---J

<lJ

1;

+ ~

~ ~

rr; .
4-

-~ full- part-

EE

..._

__.

area area
t( t j
nJ .
min. min.
I

....__

7,5 m road

ditto

residential

20 res/ha

15

2
2

200 4.
290 5

3
4

180 4 2

r-r- ---t--t--------r---- ---+-t-- -I--- -+-+--+- -- r-- -El

7.5 m road

f~~~ grade--r------

l'esidential
M

.4 Nl

20 1es/ha

first grade

residential

20 res/ha

El

7.5 m l'oad

ff,~:t grade

residential

20 res/ha

Ell

7.5mload

r-r-~.~~~------

CRITICAL STORti OURATION by i sp cti n,

15

mils

-5

180

mi s ( ee s ction
3

-----

15

10 m road

ditto

NIL

10 m road

ditto

mi s

185

19

l85

6 2

l7

CRITICAL STORN OURATION-

l7

18

--

---~-

40

.2

----- ----- -- --- -- 5 mi s - ---- -- --- ---- -- ---

------ ---- -- --- -- 5 mi s - ---- -- --- ---- -- ---

310

110

pervious

2! 32

32

CRITICAL ST0Rf1 DURATION---

El

l7

---- -- --- -- 5 mi s - ---- -- ---

15

mi s

l7

.5)- --- -40

21

200

=~~----1---r-r-r--~t---

.3 NlR

park

mi s

pav;~

7.5 m road

...._

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20

Qaved
first_ grade

~ --t----i'-------+-------~"--

7, 5 m road

f.f\Yif grade

park

pervious

110

~f~~~Qrade

250

2~ 32

32

-/ -

-/ -

32

7"1_
7__;
6

~~-+~~~~~~~~~1---1--~~-t---t-~-~~+--t--1--~-~~--~---~

CRITICAL STORl1 OURATION.2

N1 R 10mroad

--

2005,5 2

--

32
5

6~

6 __;
5

Nll 10m road

ditto
3
- 280 8 3
- 6
6
1----il--l-- c...::::_ ~--~- - - - - - - - - ~---l--+--+-+--l-+-~-l--t--t--+-+-+--l7---l--7---t
residential

El
M

.1

NlR

15

7,5 m road

QQVed
fll'st Qrade

residential

20 res/ha

15

10 m road

~1~~~

urade

in

------ ----- -- --- -- 5

mi s
-

180 5,5 2

CRITICAL STORI1 DURATION-

17

mi s - ---- -- --- ---- -- ---

180

200 4. 5 3

45

18

N1L 10m road

ditto
3
- 200 4.5 3
- 6
6
~~~~--+------ --r---------+--+--~---t---t---J--t-+--+-1-+---l--t--t----+-------i
park
pervious
175 3 40
- - - 40
6~

CRITICAL STORM OURATIONE1

7.5mroad

pave~

first grade

1-t--+-+---lp<ar-k----1-'p-'-e"rv"'i--'ou,._s=-+-_-+l-7-5~-3+40+-_-f--i_c.-_,

94

29of 7
- -L

- I -I -

.lI

40
5

-I -

40

CRITICAL STORM DURATION---

40

6 __;
5

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

FLOW ESTIMATION IN PRIMARY DR AI NAG E LINES: N =5-YEARS

RAIN FALL
INTENSITIES Ln
FOR STORM
DURATIONS WHICH
ARE CRITICAL
tutt- area part-area
analysis analysis
Ln tor

Ln for

N=5 year N=Syears

ARRB SR 34, 1986

PRIMARY
w
z CONTRIBUTING AREA z
0
TOTAL FLOW
-'
w<ll
IAT NOMINATED
REMARKS
o'-.
::::>
--'
en
::::>
ENTRY POINT
L:J,_ !Gutter inlet
a
Iz
I L selections for
I-0

<(

LJ

<(

0
~
LJ

.f
II

lL

tutt- part- , W
Q_
area area >I-

--'

~- DETERMINATE

rn
w.

-D

lines included
here)

95

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 5, FIGURE 5

Road

liliUlJ)
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A.

Reserve

007 ha.
Road Reserve: 014ha.
Park' 1-26 ha.

Road Res,019 ha.

Residential: 086ha

Road Res' 021 ha.

Residential :077 ha
Residentia I

060 ha.
45rn

~-~LP.
Road
Reserve

--~-_('R=o=ad=R=e~se,..r:,:ove'-''~0:_c12"h~aCJ. Inspection
Pit
Road Reserve' 015 ha.
M4N2
Park, 064 ha.

015ha.
Road Reserve:015 ha.

Park' 066 ha.

M4
Road Reserve:006 ha.

FIGURE 4A' STAGE 2 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

CASE 4: STEP 6, Fl(iURE 6A

refer Case 4, Step 4,Figure 4A

26

66

62
J.P.

60

All flows Lis

derived from Table 4
j62

81

I.P.

62{~~ '22) ~ 61

see note re (Ombined flows in]

62
11

MO
Case 3, Step 6, Figure 6A
FIGURE 6A' DESIGN FLOWS IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES OF CASE 4 -N

96

5 YEARS

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 6- ADDITIONAL NOTES

TABLE 6

The Case 4 network involves an extensive

system of main and lateral pipelines,
Its
design must therefore consider 'total catchment' aspects of flow estimation which were
avoided in designing the Case 3 network already reviewed. These aspects find expression in Fig, 6B, Table 6 and Fig, 6C of STEP
6,

Table 6 relates to Fig, 6B in the same way

Table 4 relates to Fig, 4A and includes many
i tMs transferred directly from the earlier
tabulation. With the aid of Table 6, the
designer is able to execute the required
sub-area gathering and storm duration comparison processes, and consequently determine
design flows in each segment of the main
pipeline network. The origins of the following notes are found in Table 6,

FIGURE 68

The interpretation of the Stage 2 Hydrological Model presented in Fig, 68 shows, schematically, how catchment sub-areas are gathered
at successive node pits - commencing at the
most remote- to provide the hydrological
basis for flow estimation in successive reaches of main drainage pipelines, Where main1i nes are branched, as in Case 4, then the
two (or more) branches must be considered
separately down to their point of bifurcation.

I.

The 'from upstream' component entered

under node pit M,4 is that contributed
from its adjacent (upstream) sub-area,
M,5, Thus, the value for (CA)s= 1,07 ha
entered in columns 28 and 29
has been
transferred directly from columns 30 and
31 respectively,

2,

Critical storm durations shown at node

pit M,5 are:

The design flow conveyed from such a

junction must be determined for the total
catchment contributing to that point, Application of the Two-Value Rational Method (see
Chapter 4) to determine this flow requires
that critical storm durations in the contributing branches be evaluated and compared,
Node-to-node travel times are shown in Fig,
68 to enable these durations to be determined,

tc = 19 mins and ti = 9 mins

(columns 22 and 23)
Because travel time between M.5 and
M,4 is 2 minutes (see Fig, 68), travel
times for sub-area M.5 relative to node
pit M,4 are 21 minutes and 11 minutes
respectively (columns 20 and 21).

CASE 4: STEP 6, FIGURE 68

L_

M3

IL_,___

_j

1"-3--1 ~~3~E1::'313=~
~

I L________.ji

kf

6 I r ( M 2E1
M~J)--'

:;,2 __.../
11NJ

from node to node

L___

45m

61&

~
~

M2E2

I.J"::.c1

catchment:J, <

LEGEND
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A.
Note:Ali main pipeline travel times are for lengths

"'
&

MSE1

40m.

MSE2

-=====::::..1

J
t-;l'',>,\'f._'\~ ~_~\ ~y""" ~ ~
., ,., ,. 'i '"""'"' ;"'"' "'' ""' ~ J4=0m==~M~4~E2

'>

f,~~~i~~1~:1 ~s,L1tEI
~

r-

r'._ __1 "" >

_LC-s

6)---;:::

s,4

TOTAL CATCHMENT

FIGURE 68'"SUBAREA GATHERING" SCHEMATIC HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

ARRB SR 34, 1986

97

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 6, TABLE 6

SUB-AREA

COMPONENT

10.
1- UJ

zUJ

::;:
1-

:r:

UJ

';;;:

1-

LJ <(
UJ

L)

LJ <(

0
0.

V) V)

UJ

1 2 3

fl

. 5 IHR

V)

5
-+

u.

V)
V)

<(

-'

LJ

M.l

7.5mroad

~~i-~1

Qtade
ditto

residential

20 res/ha

El

7.5mroad

~1~~~

El

residential

20 res/ha

7.5 m road

1~~~ 1ade
20 res/ha

El

residential
7.5 m mad

Vf~~~ arade

El

!'esidential

20 res/ha

Ell

7.5mroad

Vf~~

"'

.,.-o
~

~~

:0

'E

c full- part-. full- part-

E .c
"'"' '
' E 'E .c' E E .c' E E
-~ .c
'
'
' c ' "'E' c ~ "''
o=e
"' "'E "'
c -' "'
c
E "'
"' - E
"'
min. ~ Vi :;: "' "' :;: ~ "' :;: ~ "' ~

'- E
0

CL
0

- - -

area area

area

ti
min.
21

tc
min.
22

area
ti
min.
23

19

21

ll

40

14'

32

34

40

11'

40

14

42

16

tc
min.
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
same values as listed Table 4 but
5
results only !columns 20 & 21) needed.
Travel time entry point-node =ZERO
6

~-ro

r--

see Note Nq 2
see additional
t--Note Nq1Table 6
Table 6

1-E:;;:

5
6

l7

19

21

ll

17.
5

.7
5

grade

24

14

El
Ell

7,5 m t'Oad

El

park

19

from upstream
7.5 m road
~~~i_~ qrade

.1

ENTRY
COMPONENT PROGRESSIVE
CHANNEL OR U/G
TOTAL
CRITICAL
PIPE TRAVEL .TO
TRAVEL
STORM
NODE PIT
TIME TO
DURATION
gutter or u/ground NODE PIT
IN TOTAL
natural
pipe
UPSTREAM
channel travel
AREA
analysis
analysis

made

from upst1eam

ditto

pervious

40

14

H.2 _,. M.l

.3 IHR
IHL

V1~~

10 m road

10 m road

ditto

El

7.5mr-oad

ditto

ll1l

park

pervious

El

patk

d1 tto

32
32

7
7

.2

arade

from upstream
10 m road
10 m road

v~~~~

residential

20 res/ha

"El

7,5 m road

E1

residential

~~~~~ orade
20 res/ha

tHR
Nll
and

ll2l

"

.4

BRANCH 11.3

"

u.
"'
0
"'
>- =>
:I:

7.5 m road

ll2

"

LJ

N1
and
ll2

Ill
and

fl

UJ
LJ
<(

UJ

LJ

BRAUCH H.S _,. H.4

11

""

-'

V)

<(
LJ

"'

::;:

(() (()

>=

0
10.

z
UJ
z

<(
LJ

1-

0
0.

"' >:r:
' ' 1';;;: => => "'
z:
::;:

-'

TIME
Of
-COMPONENT TRAVEL
TIME TO CHANNEL OR
UNDERGROUND PIPE
0
overland allotment
c
flow
drain
o-

.1

qrade
ditto

from upstream

tHR
/Hl

10 m road
10 m road

~f~~i

NIL

park

pervious

qrade
ditto

see Note N%
Table 6

34

l7

1B

36
6
6
40

11

6
6
ll

BRANCH Ml -+ M. 0
Contribution from branch M.S-+ H.4-+ M.l at M.1
Contribution from branch

"
98

~l.3-+ ~1.2

~1.1

from upstream

.0
IIIL

at

~1.1

40

14

40

11

42

16

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

RAINFAll INTENSITIES
ln mm/h FOR
PROGRESSIVE CRITICAL
STORM DURATION IN
TOTAL UPSTREAM
CATCHMENT AREA
full- area
analysis

part- area
analysis

Ln for

Ln for
N=5 years

~=5years
24

45

42

29

33

FLOW ESTIMATION IN MAIN DRAIN PIPELINES:

<
w

a:

<

CUMULATIVE
MAINLINE FLOWS
COMPONENT CUMULATIVE FROM TOTAL
UPSTREAM
(CAln
(CA}n
CATCHMENT
Ln Lis
0 n= lCAln
036
0
analysis
analysis
full-area part-area
w
analysis analysis
c full-. part- full- partu..
II

area

area

area

area

ha.
28

ha,
29

ha.
30

ha.
31

1.07

1.07

ha.
25
26 27
see note results
only (col's 28&29}
needed

0.10

0,10

0.16
0.37

0,16
0,37

0.10

0.10

0.34

0.34

1.07

1.07

0.11

0.11

0.38

0,38

0.05

0,05

63

0.34

0.34
0.05

2.00

2.00

0.13
0.05

0.13

0.07

l\tx .0

58

2.00

29

28

0.06

0.12

0.12

...........

322

--

input at M.4 ; 71 L/s

~esign

flow at M.4

= 30

2.25

2.20

181

318

design flow to M.l

0.56

0.43

51

81
(75)

design flow at M.3

L/s

0.21

0.04

ilo X

0.13

1{,-x .1

0.56

0.43

,0

0.13

0.13

0.18

0.18
0.33

0.10

0.10

0,34

0.34

1.64

1.51

0,13

0.13
0.13

input at M,2 = 23 l/s

input to M.3/M.2 :
0.51 X 63 _ gg l/
0.36
s

input at M.2
1.64

63

II* X

58

1. 51

146

264
(243)

.0

= 77

l/s

design flow at M.2

input at M,l

21 L/s

input at H.l

24 L/s

1.98

1. 79

160

288

design flow to M.l

4.23

3,99

341

576

design flow from M.l

2.20
1. 79

52

ARRB SR 34, 1986

233

Nq 4
6
Nq 5
6

input to H.5/H.4 :
0.6:3~ 58 - 79 l/s

input at M,lEI

68

49

2.00

design flow at M,5

187
(172)

0,05

0.06
0.21

2.25
1.98

134

34

(288)

52

0.08

On for
On for
N=5 years N=5years
L/s
L/s
32
33

rsee Ofell" 3
I Table 6 I
see Note
Table
see Note
Table

0.05

0,13

29

REMARKS

0.33

32

N=5-YEARS

4.23

3.99

(543)
4.23

3, 99

329

543

design flow at M.O

99

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

3.

The flows required in Task 1 for the

M.5/M.4 and M,3/M,2 pipeline segments can
be derived from information contained in
Table 6 : the results are reported under
'Remarks', column 34, They are:

The flow '{172 L/s)' listed in column 33

is the design flow contributed from subarea M.5 relative to node pit M,4,
It
can only be determined after all entries
under M,4 have been evaluated to find
critical storm durations (tc and ti) and,
hence, design rainfall intensities, Thus
the 172 L/s listing is derived from (CA)
5
= 1,07 ha and \ = 58 mm/h :1,07

58

--'-::-~-- =

0.36

(0.11 + 0,38) x 58

17 2 L/ s

segment M.5+M.4 : flow entries at M,4N1

and M.4N2

segment M.3+M,2 : flow entry at M.2N2

7g L/s

0,36

segment M.3/M.2
(0.18 + 0,33) x 63
0.36

= 0,51

x 63

= 89

L/s

0,36

The distribution of these flows

(Task 2) and, consequently, the magnitudes of flows passing to the main pipeline(s) at the points of interest, are
found by a procedure similar to that
(using the same graphs) employed in Fig,
48 (see figure below).

In general, entry of flow to main drain

pipelines takes place at or near node
pits. This is not always the case, e.g,:
o

0,4g x 58

0.36

The flow '187 L/s' shown in column

33 is the design flow (N = 5 years) into
and from node pit M,5, and should only be
used for design in the immediate vicinity
of M.5,
Where flows in pipe segments
near node pit M,4 are required, the subarea M.5 'relative flow' - 172 L/s should be applied (see Fig, 6C),
4.

segment M,5fM,4

5,

Flow input to the main drain pipelines at

other significant locations can be found
in the manner indicated above (Task 1).
Results of these computations, derived
from the data presented in Tab 1e 6 are

also listed under 'Remarks', column 34.

6,
Determination of flows input at
these points in design storms which are

critical for mainlines involves two tasks:

Task 1.

storm durations

Find the flows contributed from

their connected primary drainage

areas in such design storms;
and,
Task 2.

Flow estimation in Branch M,5+M,4+M,1

concludes with branch design input to
node pit M.1 of 318 L/s. Corresponding
input from Branch M,3+M,2+M,1 to M.1 is
288 L/s. These flows arise from design

which

are

critical

in

their individual catchments and hence

storm rainfall intensities which are significantly different (52 mm/h versus 58
mm/h), The storm duration and hence intensity which is critical in the remaining segment of the network (Branch M.1
+ M.O), must be resolved in accordance
with Rational Method theory (Chapter 4)

Find the distribution of these

flows, including gutter inlet

capture, in the respective

drainage lines.

INLET &%& Q INLET

M4N1 W
\1.) M4N2

NOTES'

1.Ail flows derived from Table 6

2. Flow accumulation relationships
superimposed on Figure 48

INLET
M2N1L

~
~100

INLET
M2N2L

-79
72 L/s

32m

60

0~

ro 80
E
l"
60
.~

~~

40

"

20

27
"'-._

'4-7L!s(bypass)

20

00

40

60
Drainage

80

100

120

140

160

180

line length (m)

flow accumulation in drainage line

terminating at M2N1LISo=004)

'---l-11 L/s I bypass)

;;.

"

-141

;,~
~I

."!

20

73 Lis

terminating at M4N11So = 003)

<t-j~

89

~
~

"'-l"

flow accumulation in drainage line

1'1

-t.J~
~~-~

1W

Drainage line length from terminal inlet lml

'Total catchment' flow accumulation in drainage lines M5/M4 & M3/M2

100

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

before the flow estimation procedure can

continue.

FIGURE 6C

Resolution is achieved in a short

tabular entry at the commencement of
Branch M.l + M.O flow estimation computations. Thereafter the procedure continues in the manner set out for catchment upper branches,

As a result of the flow estimation computations carried out in or derived from Tab 1e 6
{see 'Remarks', Column 34 and Note 4 above),
it is possible to declare a design flow {N =
5 years) in each segment of the main pipeline
network of Catchment M. These flows are presented in Fig, 6C : only flows essential to
mainline segment design are included,

CASE 4 : STEP 6, FIGURE 6C

ORAINAIGE NETWORK COMPONENTS
'd
l 'me ............. ~
~
Mam
ram' 'p1~e
Cross-connect10ns ............. .

Concentrated flow entry ...... .

Junction pit...... . ......... .

81

I.P. M2N3
75

61

M5
181
164
I.P. M1N1

All flows Lis

derived from TABLE 6

I.P. M4N3

65

112

bypass 7'

14

143

311

22

--a

M4 11

FIGURE 6C DESIGN FLOWS IN

MAIN PIPELINES OF
CASE 4-N =5 YEARS

Design Flood Leve:l

RL.10000

CASE 4

STEP 7, FIGURE 7
See

Additional Note

re STEP 1

I.P. M1N3

M5N1

15

11
62
M1N2

M5E2

M1E1

All flows Lis

derived from
Figures 6A and 6C

Inspection
pit

243

I.P.
MO
543

ARRB SR 34, 1986

543

30

321

M4

81

62 M4E2

FIGURE 7 DESIGN FLOWS IN ALL

PIPE COMPONENTS OF
CASE 4-N=5 YEARS

101

CASE 4: STEPS 8 & 9, TABLE 8/9

"'

PIT
WATER LEVEL

n:

""'
a..

v>

1-

:....

Cl

Cl
1z ""'
0::
0
1""' z a.. ""'
::E
>
1- :c
z
z 1- z0 0::
""'

""'
::E
1- 0::
:r:
1""'
u ' co
' z 11- a:>
=>
=>
=>
=>
Vl Vl
t.:J
ci

-'

0
z 1""'
z a..

a..

1 2 3

::E

Vl

"'""'

Cl

-'

"-

"'

""'

-'

-'

-.o

-'

=> "'
=> "' '-"S
'-"t::
9

10

111.20 n.a.

""-'
R.L.
11

m
12

)>

1-i

JJ
JJ
OJ
(/)

JJ

"'
"'
"'

_..,.

00

E1

77

111.15 n.a.
58

;:;

13

2g

V>

14

~ -"'
0
0

-'

htKw[~6 ]

Vl':'
Vl -.o

"'
-' ,_.o
""' -"'
a..c::
>
0

Kw

0::

$
>

~
>?

- ""

"
.<:

;,

m m m
15 16 17 18

htl5Do

-'

a:>

;;.

v>

::>

(AWL- BWLI

Eq. 617

-'

Eq. 618

3:

m
20

""'

1-

a..

0
Cl

m
21

J-3

2.0 .0< .u" ;.u!

U.15

~A/2S

LO .uo .U< 1-UO

u.uo

0.97

0.53

0.10

U,4/

l3nn

B':JL FROM MAIN PIPELINE (BRAtlCH) COt,PUTATIONS

110.40 110.15
103.10 n.a. 103.10

4.0 .05 .07 .19

0.26

.00

J-S

.suu il.lO I-3A

102.85 102.78 102.78

0.68

0.52

hnn

0.32

2.0 .U4

""

.uo

0.35

0.55

CO!~PUTATIONS

U.l/

0.58

u.o4

0.5 .U/ .U< .us

U.UD

0.41

U,4/

300
300

BWL FR0t1 W\IN PIPELINE (BRANCH) eotPUTATIONS

.suu

.00

J-3

2.0 .U4 .lU .uo

U.lO

1.00

u.oo

U.lU

0.20

u.o

300

107.35 108.15 107.35

.suu I'"
107.15 107.25 107.15

.U/ .us
I ii:12B 1.0

"

BWL FROM IIAIN PIPEUNE (TRUNK) COMPUTAT!Ol/S

BWL:bottom [pit) water level

Cl

300

JJ

s:
0

-'

JJ

)::o::

)>

)>

24

Gl
m
0
m

TEST 1 OK for Do = 300; fails

TEST 2; u/s inv. max. RL 110.79
~{ mJ.U~I A~Ei' BWL at E2,
TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 00 = 300;
upstream inv. max. RL 109.87
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at E1,
RL 110.23 by eqn (6.20)

(/)

1 OK for Do - 300 fails

111.15 TEST
TEST 2; u/s inv. max. RL 110.5
I~{
A\sr~x. BWL at N2,

300

108.25

7 .029

:c:::; AWLassi gned (pit) water level

..,

(/)

-i

>- z

110.15

102.88 103.00 02.88

108.25 n.a.

Jp with
E1
!07.50 utter flow
~1 pe
80
1 7 ~1.2

Ie"r. 1.5 .14 .10 .22

BI'L FROII NAill 'r!PELINE (BRANCH)

.suu

62 45 .020

REMARKS
""'

110.47
.300 1.68

5 .006

0::
Cl

300

110.50 111.05 110.50

62 40 .006

110.23

.300 .96 1-1

119 12 .029

::::;
=>

co t.:J
mm (Pit Wl:s)
23
22

19

Cl
Cl

AWL-BWU

UJ

::E

3:

""'

1-

111.15

27 .024

L.~unction

i\ug7.30
7E M:' JP

1-

"UU LU>

5 .020

2 10E4o 01

m~lti-pipe

,...-

.300 .35

110.15 liD .15 110.15

JP, gutter
1
10 o3 flow lat'
o1pe
81
:::1 .... M.4
t'(lro' pi~e
NP~J.Jb-4 w1th
lat s

~~P! El

"
-:?

..,..a

""'
Vl':>

TEST 2

110.25 111.10 110.25

-z L;iunction
4 103.25
~1pe
-~

't._
0

v20

TEST 1

"'

111.20

r;ooE
r-6- 5 T.~unction ~;~;~~~1Y..- 110.15
110.3 D1

111.20

60 40 .024

JP. gutter
110.65 flow lat'
1'-5

-Vl>
""' -'

""'
""'
'"
Cl -'" Vl..,
0::
z 10

~n

>

""-

Cl-

N:::
JP with
111.30 utter flo

'

:>:

t.:J

110.30

p.jP

""'

1-

'\u,u,c .... ;iunn1on

p~p_: .,,

""'

UJ

t.:J

d\o cutter flo

~i- P! .-1. 5

0::

:c

LATERAL PIPELINES
M 5 nl:3s LitJUnction
p1pe
E2 -~ El
J-P with

:::;-.o

E
1-

3:
0
-'

0::

)::_,
Ci
_,.
Cl3:
"'
z
a..
UJ~ ""'
..,Cl ""' z
n:
z
.
z"'
"'
=>
t.:J -'

-'

1-

Cl

1-

1-

Vl

1-

PIT WATER LEVELS. PIPE DIAMETERS & H.G.L. ANALYSIS: N = 5-YEARS

m \H;I

TESTS 1 and 2 OK for Do = 300;

upstream inv. max. RL 109.95
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at N1,
RL 110.47 by eqn (6.20)

110.15
1 OK for 00 - 300; fails
103.10 TEST
TEST 2; u/s inv. max RL 102.68
bt egn (6.I1)A r~x. BWL at E2,
R 1 3.10 - WL
102.52 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 00 = 300;
upstream inv. max. RL 102.19
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at~
RL 102.52 by eqn (6.20)
102.47
108.25 TEST 1 OK for 00 - 300 fails
TEST 2;b~:s inv. max. RL 1DL.S:
I ~g~ 6.f;l lOJ~~X- 8WL at E2,
107.25 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 00 = 300;
upstream inv. max. RL 106.88
by eqn (6.19); max. BWL at E1,
107.15 RL 107.25 by eqn (6.20)

gr

Gl

z
(/)

s:
)>
r
r

JJ

CD

)>

)>

-i

s:

-i

(/)

)>

MAIN PIPELINE

:n
:n
aJ

(f)

:n

"'
-"""

: BRANCH M.5-M.4-M.1

1-41"PPUo9~!r~l~i~~~~m~g~a 1 Y I
~e->N3 11871 IODI.D361

Ml

--~3 ,1;~ro'

CD

"'

N2
103.70
1
N -103.15

I .30012.64 J-2B

I I

1-1

W!

83 _036

W!

17 _032

N2
172
JP with
outter flo
N
237
1

---r-1

11.013612.0Z!-36 L2.38

106 55 110 05 106 55

"'"-"' ''"

I
,,.
I.

())

pipe

I I

lnD.l51

.3oo 2.43 J. 1

0 _2 .3D 1.42

.375 2.15 1 _28

o_.s _.24

.os

13.601

2.47

1.48

3 _00

1.87

D.30

0 _89

0.74

103.55 106.45 1D3.55

1_28

.18 .12

I II I

L_ ___

0 5 .26 .66 .13[

1 I
0.191 0 53_

lno."lmi!OKforD-=300:fails
~ 1c~1 ~; U/S inv: max RL 109.31
I
I ~n~s.fn;) Aw~f BWL at M.4
106 55 TEST 1 OK for D0 = 300; fails

TEST 2; u;s 1nv. max RL 1D6.16

1
D
~f i8fsl2~)Awl'!x.
swL at N3,
30
TE~"
1 OK ~or Do - 375; fails
1D3.55 TEST.2; u/s inv. max RL 102.99
~L i8gJ~-g)Aw~~x. BWL at N2,
375
102.66 ITESTs1&20Ki'orDo=375:
u;s 1nv. max RL 102.15 b eqn
1
1
1(6.19_J_:__ max. BWL at N1,
375
102_._66 b_y eon (6.2D)
---;TTE~STS 1 & 2 OK for Do = 525;

Lno

1 1
o.62

gutter
flow lat's

102.10 102.68 102.10

R1 pe

318
M.l
~~ tl-plpe

El

101.89

8 00

525
102.05 102.00 102.00

BWL FROtl MAIN PIPELINE (TRUNK) COMPUTATIONS

101.80

-1

:n

s:
0

u/s inv. max RL 101.72 by eqn

:n

ln?_A7

(6.19); max. BWL at M.4, RL

JP~

(f)

hv ~nn (h

?n)

TESTS 1 and 2 OK forDS = 525;

upstream i nv. max RL 1 1.30 by
eqn (6.19); max. BWL at El,
RL 101.89 by eqn (6.20)

)>

Gl
m
0

(f)

MAIN PIPELINE : TRUNK M.3-M.2-M.1-M.O

I~II

Gl

21 NODE M.

114.~

,.

lthro' pipe
110.60 JP
p1pe
N3 + N2
N2
108.40
N3

lA

_.J._

N100p'7'3,'),a mJuP~Itl-plpe p~~rgg~aiY_..107.15 104.75 107.15

a
p1pe
264 JOO .02 5
M.2 + N2

Nz
104 . 80

'T

Jthpro' pipe
pipe

N2 -r

M.1

243

10 5 . 025

104 65 102.10 104 65

_ L_ _ j___j__

""'~~ctlJ-,

_,,

1oe '

.37 2.2 J-1

3.0

Io . 2

_t___j_

-<'1','

TEST 1 OK for 00 = 300;

TEST 2; u/s inv. max RL
by egn {6.21); max. BWL
Rl 114.05 {= AWL)
TEST 1 OK for 0 = 300;
TEST 2; u/s inv.0 max RL
by egn {6.21); max. BWL
RL .lllJ~45 ( = AWLl
TEST 1 OK for D0 = 300;
TEST 2; u/s inv. max RL
_ L_ _ __j_.:.:___L_ _ __l.=LJ_..JL_.LJ<Jb_leWn'-""-6.J..2~)lw~x. BWL
.01

.251.1 .05

<.
1.22

2.5

28

1.oo

1.73

375

375

IAI
IT1

10 ~1 90
M.O

~~~~ro' pipe

100.75 100.10 100.75

p1pe
543 100 009
N1 + M.O
I DESIGN FLOOD LEVEL RL 100.000

1 1 1 1

1 1
.600
I

BWL

*Design of this pipe fa11s into the 'Outcome 1/0utcome 2' situation
described in Section 6.8 of text

1.9~

J-l

2l .19T.53i.041
0 "I
1 . I
I

1
u.>J

o 751
-r

1.43

600

fails
113.45
at M.3

(f)

s:
)>
,...,...

fails
107.66
at N2,

:n

(=

.uW! \

fails
110.13
at N3,

106 84 TEST 1 OK for Do= 375; fail;

TEST 2;_ u/s 1nv. max RL 105.60

bv eon (6.19): max. BWL at M.2
Rt 106.84 by eqn (6.20) ~
104.65 TEST 1 OK for Do = 375; fails
TEST 2; u/s inv. max RL 104.19
bv eon (6.21); max. BWL at N2,
RT 104 /;J:;

TESTS 1 & 2 OK for Do = 600;

u/s inv. max RL 100.57 by eqn
(6.19); max. BWL at M.1, RL
101.8b by eon (6.20)
100.57 TEST~ 1 & 2 OK for Do = 600;
~/s ~~;v. max RL 99.9::s by eqn
. 6.19 ;max. B~L at N1, RL
00.5 nv onn ,_ 20)
100.00

aJ

)>

)>

-1

s:

-1

(f)

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 7- ADDITIONAL NOTE

(water level) value, Kw, which should be used

at the junction pit, and are:

The design flow distribution set out in Fig,

7 uses the greater flow - where there is
choice - shown for each component in Figs 6A
and 6C, While this gives appropriate values
for use in the design of the components themselves, it represents a loss of data which
may be of importance in some design practices,
Consider the alternative flows presented
for pipe M,4E1+M,4 :
from Fig, 6A (primary drainage considerations)
flow
81 L/s
from Fig, 6C ('total catchment' considerations)
flow
71 L/s
Pipe M.4E1 + M.4 should be designed to
convey a design flow (N = 5 years, ARI) of 81
L/s,
The design of mainline component M,4 +
M,1El, however, involves not only its design
flow of 322 L/s but also the flows entering
node M. 4 under corresponding design conditions, These flows determine the pit headloss

251 L/s from the northern pipe; and

71 L/s from pipe M.4E1 + M,4,
The procedure adopted in the Handbook
for selecting values for Kw (see Tables 6,5
and 6,6) is an approximate one which is insensitive to the difference discussed here.
Designers who employ the full 'Missouri
Charts', however, should be aware of the
difference and should use the correct (alternative) values in their appropriate contexts,
A further interpretation which has been
made in preparing Fig, 7 should be observed :
this concerns the aspect discussed in STEP 6,
Table 6, Note 3, above,
Pipes carrying discharge directly from
node pits are shown with the appropriate values collated from Fig, 6C, Flows from the
locations where these pipes are interrupted

downstream by a junction pit, inspection pit,

etc., use the relative flow
bracketed in Fig, 6C),

CASE 4' STEP 10, FIGURE 10

(shown

CASE 4, STEP 11, FIGURE 11

NOTES:
1 All pipes FRC
2_Pipe diameters in mm.
3.Gutter inlets :see legend Fig 65
4. Pipe diaP.eters for cross-connections
found from Guideline 10, Table 6.4
5. For design flows see Fig. 7

H3N1R

H3Ntl

PIT flCHI

f11

Rl113$0

R111350

M3

"

PIT F4ifJR
Rllll ~0

RL1J~}l

1 Pipe inverts at pits coinc1de with

M3El
PIT FLGCq

"
~

Rllll b)

g
J.P.

HSN2
H2N2l

~~' .~\~f rco'lY' ~~z rm~

pit Inverts
2 Pit floor levels -see Table 8/9
and Guidelines 11 - 13.
3 AH pipes FRC- classes X andY

~~

M2N2

NOTES:

fl(fl~

'

-i>o "'-'

~?~l~0R

'"

value

PIT FLOOR
1 Rl110 SS

HSN1R

3-l,

~~

HS

,,,,,

~~

""
JCO

MSE2

~g

l_p

l.P

::;;g

IP.

IP

H1N2

M1N1R
PIT fl(r()R
RL 1'J15S

"~4>"
!}. ~
H1i'><~,J:~;--49------J;\';~"'--~H~~0-,'ls:"c;-fl'l-':!1,~0"'HM-4E2

.);:<)

LP.

M 4N3
E an 1t:~t1J
~ gM4N2

M4N3

'

H1N2
PIT fLOOR
Ill 1)~ (0

1 PIT flC1lR
IH 101 99

M1Ntl
PIT fl[.(IR
Rll)lSS

M1E1l
PIT FLOOR
RL10150

M-~S>GN

HOOD

104

FLOC~

~g

MON1

~ IIAHR lEVEl' Ill 1~)W

FIT

RL1!079

fiT flOOR

FIGURE 10: APPROXIMATE NETWORK

DESIGN- N ::5- YEARS

H4E1L
PIT Fl(oJR

RL n218

FIGURE 11: APPROXIMATE NETWORK

DESIGN WITH PIT FLOOR LEVELS

ARRB SR 34, 1986

IZ
Concluding discussion

12.1 RESUME

Three aspects of master drainage planning

(runoff quantity} have been addressed in the
Handbook 0

stormwater retention/detention/retardation measures,

major drainage system planning,

minor drainage system design

and information provided and procedures described enab 1i ng these categories of works to
be incorporated into Australian urban landscapes.

In Chapter 3, designers are urged to

select from a wide range of retention/detention/retardation measures which offer the
following benefits for urban drainage systems:
0

reduced cost of works

increased on-site soil moisture

reduced risk of injury, drownings, etc.

improved living environment.

Caution is advised, however, in locating

on-site retention/detention structures near

etc., can be carried out swiftly by hand using the procedure described in Chapters 8 and
9. There is little need for computer assistance.

A well-planned minor drainage system, on

the other hand, should be designed to control
a specified level of storm runoff identified
in terms of an adopted design ARI. Although
not a high precision task, it is multi-faceted
and time-consuming to execute by hand. The
need for machine assistance by way of spread
sheets or appropriate software in all but the
simplest networks is therefore indicated,
The acceptance of computer i nvo 1vement
in this aspect of master drainage planning
raises important questions of data qua 1ity
input and expected error in minor drainage
system design procedures, What level of model
sophistication and/or computational precision
is warranted by the quality of the technical
data base and by the procedures used to estimate flows in ungauged catchments and to design appropriate minor drainage system networks?
12.2 DATA QUALITY AND ERROR IN THE DESIGN OF
MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Design of a minor stormwater drainage system

for a small ungauged urban catchment involves:

buildings and in areas where soils are un-

stable.
Chapters 4 - 7, inclusive, provide the
hydrological/ hydraulic data base for the
major and minor drainage system design procedures of Chapters 8 - 11. The close interrelationship which must exist between these
networks within a Master Drainage Plan is emphasised throughout. While this link must be
constantly recognised by designers, they
should also be aware of important differences
arising from the contrasting goals of each
system and the ways in which these goals are
achieved.
Major drainage system planning employs
a 'broad brush' approach to achieve its goal
-that of mitigating the effects of runoff
generated in the wake of great storms. Precision in the prediction of flow quantities
and behaviour in such events is neither poss i b1e nor warranted.

Major system planning,

including the checking of alternative routes,

ARRB SR 34, 1986

a}

data extraction from plans, field surveys

and technical information,

b)

classification of components into categories for which data from a variety of

related and unrelated sources are available,

c)

interpretation and adoption of appropriate data values,

d)

application of data into mathematical

models (computation process}, and,

e)

review and judgement.

Tasks arising from these sub-sets of the

design process are perfonned many times in

each design. For example, there are at least

30 measurement and data transfer acts [i tern
(a} above] involved in the design of even the
simplest segment of a main drainage pipeline,
About two-thirds of these are new data inputs
105

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

while the remainder are data transfers between
steps. Corresponding numbers for the other
categories listed above are: b), c) and e)
about ten acts each, and d), 20 acts.
While the potential for error is undeniably great the use of hydraulic data from
tested components only and careful execution
of the design processes by hand or with competent software should restrict the overall
error likely in the bulk of these acts to
between 5 and 10 percent. The error potential of the remaining acts, drawn mainly from
categories b), c) and e) above is reviewed in
the following sub-sections.
Error In peak flow estimation In small urban
catchments
The two main catchment characteristics upon
which the simple mathematical models of urban
hydrology devolve are (see Chapter 4):1)

runoff coefficient, C, and

2)

critical storm duration, tc or ti.

Schaake et a 1 ( 1967) showed in an experiment-based study of the Rational Method applied to small urban catchments, that errors
made by experienced practitioners are 1ike ly
to exceed 10 per cent in estimating c and
30 per cent in estimating critical storm dur-

ation.

Flow estimation errors of more than

20 per cent can be expected. Argue (1982)

confirmed this finding for a hypothetical urban subdivision in which critical storm duration was set equa 1 to tc and showed that in
cases where critical storm duration equalled
ti - paved area trave 1 time - flow estimate
variation was reduced by about one third.
This is explained by the lower level of uncertainty that designers face in estimating
t; in urban catchments and, to some extent,
by its magnitude compared with tc
Overall variation in design peak flows
estimated for ungauged urban catchments by
experienced practitioners using the Two-Value
Rational Method of Chapter 4 is 1 ikely to
fall within the range 15 per cent to 25
per cent.
Corresponding flow estimates produced by
more sophisticated and time-consuming models
such as ILLUDAS (Terstriep and Stall 1974),
ILLUDAS-SA (Watson 1981) and ILSAX (O'Loughlin 1986) applied to Australian catchments
show much the same range of variation. The
great value of these models resides in their
abi 1 ity to generate runoff hydrograph data.
Error In network hydraulics of small urban
catchments
Hydraulic phenomena, unlike their hydrological counterparts, are universal in their behaviour, and are reproducable and repeatable
in full-size or scale laboratory rigs. Hydraulic data deficiencies can therefore be
overcome by short-term relatively low cost
field and laboratory studies and can be
transferred from anywhere in the world.
106

Despite these advantages, comprehensive

testing of many components used in Australia,
in particular various gutter inlets (gratings,
side-entry inlets), junction pit configurations, underground network flow conditions,
etc., has never been undertaken. Enough is
known from experimental work carried out on
similar units, however, to partly overcome
this deficiency by providing 'first approximation' data of the type presented in some
Appendix A cases. While this is satisfactory
as a stop-gap measure, it shou 1d be rep 1aced
by a programme of systematic testing of units
used widely in Australian practice.
One of the main issues which the designer of urban drainage networks in small urban
catchments must decide is the use to be made
of available data on the junction pit headloss
parameter Kw and on the Darcy-Wei sbach friction factor, f. Should accurate values for
these parameters be obtained from the Missouri and Moody charts, respectively, or are
approximate values satisfactory?
This question has been decided in the
Handbook procedures in favour of fixed values
(Tables 6.5, 6.6 and Section 6.7) selected on
the 'high' side of average in each category
1eadi ng to 5 - 8 1ess minor coll'jlutat ions and
two less chart consultations per pipe, compared with procedures requiring full Missouri
/Moody consultation. This tally applies only
where trial pipe size proves to be satisfactory. The saving on coll'jlutations/consultations where trial and final sizes differ is,

of course, greater.
The criticism that accuracy has been
compromised in the interests of developing a
simple procedure can be partly answered by
reference to the Case 3 and Case 4 i llustrat ions presented in Chapter 11.
Reworking
TABLE 8/9 in each case with headlosses determined by reference to Missouri and Moody
Chart data yields the following outcome:Case 3:

pipe network - no change in component sizes

pit water levels (H.G.L.) pit XA.3E1
maximum water level reduced
by 0.03 m
other pits : no change
Case 4:

pipe network - no change in component sizes

pit water level (H.G.L.) 50 per cent no change;
50 per cent lowered by maximum of 0.20 m
The apparent oversizing produced by the
Handbook procedure reflected in elevated pit
water levels and, in other cases, a small

percentage of oversized pipes, provides

margin for unknown headless discrepancies

arising from laboratory-to-field transfer of

data as well as unknown gap and misalignment
headlosses in pipes.
It is concluded from these observations
and from the design flow error assessment
conducted in the previous sub-section, that
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

design outcomes produced by the Handbook procedure are well-matched to input data quality
and that therefore the procedure is appropriate for the range of urban catchment cases
for which it is intended,
12.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND THE
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

Extensive use of formal runoff collection and

conveyance networks has been made in the four
case examples which illustrate the design
procedures of Chapters 8 - 11, Some may interpret this as a denial of the use of onsite retention/detention measures and informal drainage line treatments recommended in
Chapter 3,
No such retreat is intended, The networks have been adopted, primarily, to demonstrate the Handbook's planning/design proced-

Urban catchment hydrology

The runoff coefficients presented in Tab 1es

5,3 and 5,4 are based on records from six
gauged urban catchments - four in Me 1bourne,
Victoria, one in Canberra, A,C,T,, and one in
Sydney, N,S,W, The foremost need in urban
catchment hydrology is for a greatly increased and representative network of gauging stations to provide data for improved design information and for testing of alternative
rainfall/ runoff mathematical models,
Other aspects of catchment hydro 1ogy
which are imperfectly understood and which
would benefit from association with an expanded gauging network are:1.

per cent impervious area measurements in

the full range of land uses (see Section

5,6)

large

2.

fraction of paved area which is directlyconnected to the formal collection system

in different land uses (see Section 5,6)

Use of the stormwater retention/detent; on measures and swa 1es recommended in Sect-

3,

ion 3,6
3 X w-6
example,
drainage

field values for the overland shallow

flow parameter llim (see Fig, 5,3),

Storm runoff management

ures in

circumstances

which

involve

storm runoff flows,

(soil hydraulic conductivity, Kh >

m/s) in the Case 4 catchment, for
would reduce design flows in all
paths by at least 30 per cent, with

consequent network initial

cost

savings

of

over 10 per cent, This illustrates one of

the main benefits which follow the use of

Research on aspects of storm runoff management

is needed to provide:-

s tormt~ater management measures, where appropriate, in urban landscapes.

!,

appropriate parameters to assist designers in their prediction of 'ultimate development' likely in catchments (see
Section 5,1)

2,

information on design ARI for a wide range

of land uses based on case studies which
have given adequate consideration to technical, cost-sharing (developer/council),

12.4 RESEARCH NEEDS

Average annua 1 expenditure in Au stra 1i a on

urban storm drainage works has been estimated

by Professor D. H. Pilgrim (U,N,S,W,) at

around $150,000,000, With the cost of damage
suffered by the community in the wake of
major storms in urban areas added to this,- a

total cost may be declared which significantly exceeds annual expenditure on all major
dams and flood mitigation schemes,

community, political and environmental

inputs (see Sections 2,4, 2,5 and 2.6)

3,

soil characteristics (see Sections 1.3,

By contrast, the sum invested annually

3,3 and 3,6)

in research on urban storm drainage, is un-

documented but is certainly less than 0,1 per

cent of the above total.

4.

hydraulics, many structures (gutter inlets,

information and advice to designers on

performance and public acceptance of in-

formal drainage channel treatments (see

Sections 3,5 and 3,6),

Some of the consequences of this poor

research support are revealed in Section
12.2. Expected error in urban catchment flow
estimation procedures can range to 25 per
cent and in the area of drainage network

advice to designers on the use and siting

of retention/detention installations taking account of building proximity and

Drainage networks: surlace hydraulics

junction pits, etc.) in common use have not

The main roadside channel kerb-and-gutter

profiles used in the various Australian
states fall into three categories:-

sign data exist.

!.

150 mm kerb, 450 mm gutter, Za

N.S,W, and Tasmania

2.

150 mm kerb, 300-375 mm gutter, Za =

8-10: Victoria, S.A., N.T., Queensland
andA,C.T.

been adequately tested and there are pipeline

flow conditions for which no satisfactory deResearch needs may be separated into
four domains:-

a)
b)
c)
d)

urban catchment hydrology

storm runoff management aspects
drainage network surface hydraulics
drainage network underground pipeline
hydraulics,

ARRB SR 34, 1986

3,

12

150 mm kerb, no gutter : Western

Australia.
107

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Within each of these categories there is
a range of gutter inlet types and geometries
to be found, some used widely by main road
authorities, others found only in their municipalities of origin.
Of the total number of gutter/inlet combinations present in this array, re 1at i ve ly
few have been the subject of c~rehensive
model tests, and of these only a handful have
been tested in the field or in full-size
rigs.
While the advantages of uniformity may
be apparent to a 11 taking a nationwide perspective, the realities of local custom and
fami 1i ari ty are advanced as strong arguments
against standardisation. For this reason a
programme of testing is recommended, whose
aim is to elevate to the highest quality level
possible, the data bases of the principal
roadside channel types and inlets now accepted
in Australia. These are presented with, mainly, 'first approximation' flows for roadside
channel, carriageways, etc., and capture performance (inlets) information, respectively,
in Appendix A.
Drainage networks: underground pipeline
hydraulics
Of the four research domains listed above,
that of underground pipeline hydraulics has
the most satisfactory data base, This may be
accounted for partly by the long interest
which hydraulicians have had in conduit flow
phenomena, and partly by the substantial programme carried out by Sangster et al (lg58)
which yielded the 'Missouri Charts'. Later
research has built on these foundations,

There are three areas of research in

underground networks which deserve attention:
1,

108

headwater build-up in junction pits disella rgi ng under the part -fu 11 condition
(see Table 6,5)

2,

drainage pipeline headlosses caused by

gaps and misalignment at joints

3,

junction pit headless coefficients (water

level) for configurations having two or
three inflow pipes making angles other
than 'in line' or at right angles to the
discharge pipe alignment.

12.5 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The data, guidelines, design steps and tasks

described in the Handbook have been compi 1ed
from manuals of leading local government,
urban drainage and State Road authorities,
from Australian and overseas research literature and from consultations and discussions
with numerous practitioners and researchers.
The data base and main procedures have been
the subject of open forums and have been reviewed by a wide range of potentia 1 users.
Despite this background, the document
should not be regarded as a final and 'ironclad' textbook of practice but, rather, a
first statement subject to revision and finetuning as a consequence of its use in the
field.
It is intended that the p reject which
has resulted in this document be ongoing, and
that it wi 11 be the repository of case study
information drawn from the full range of
Australian experience and will include com-

ment on the performance of systems, information on the consequences of cost and costsharing initiatives, shortcomings of procedures, review of guidelines, updating of research data, etc, Contributions on all of
these aspects will be welcomed by Austral ian
Road Research Board and the author, and will
form the extended data base for future revisions and editions.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

References

AITKEN, A.P. (1975). Hydrologic investigation

and design of urban stormwater drainage
systems. Aust. Water Resources Council
Tech. Paper No. 10, (AGPS: Canberra.)
ALLEY, W.M., and VEENHUIS, J.E. (1983).
Effective impervious area in urban runoff modelling. ASCE ~draulic Eng, 109
(2), pp. 313-19, February.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (1982).
Stormwater detention facilities. Proc.
Conf. co-sponsored by ASCE Urban Water
Resourced Research Council and Engineering Foundation, B.Urbonas, editor.
(ASCE: New York.)
ARANSON, D,A. and PRILL, R.C. (1977). Analysis of the recharge potential of stormwater basins on Long Island, New York.
Res, U.S. Geological Survey 5(3) pp.
305-18.
ARCHER, B., BETTESS, F. and COLYER, P.J.
(1978). Head losses and air entrainment
at surcharged manholes, ~draulics Research Station, Wallingford, Oxon, Rep,
IT 185, 11 pp.
ARGUE, J.R. (1981). Urban stornwater collection systems

- a review.

Road Research Board.

AIR 1093-1.

Australian

Internal Report,

ARGUE, J.R. (1982), Stormwater flow estimation in small ungauged urban catchments,
Proc. 11th ARRB Cont. 11(2), pp, 193205,
ARGUE, J.R. (1984), Design flow estimation in
small ungauged urban catchments. Proc.
Third Int. Conf. Urban Storm Drainage,
Gotenborg, Sweden, June, pp. 255-64.
Reprinted as ARRB Internal Report,
AIR 391-1,

BATES, M.A., NOLAN, C. and O'LOUGHLIN, G.G.

(1984), Physical modelling and decision
making for an urban drainage problem.
Proc, I.E, Aust, Cont. on Hydraulics in
Civil Engineering, Adelaide, pp, 40-43.
BELL, P.R., BROWN, J.D., GORONSZY, M.C. and
LACEY, D,T, (1979). Measurement and
analysis of the effects of stormwater
on the Lane Cove estuary. Proc, I.E,
Aust. ~drology and Water Resources
Symposium, Perth, September, pp.254-58.
BLACK, R,G, and PIGGOTT, T,L, (1983). Head
losses at two pipe stormwater junction
chambers. Proc. I.E, Aust, Second
Nat. Local Govt Eng. Conf. Brisbane,
September, pp. 219-23,
BLISS, P,J., BROWN, J.D. and PERRY, R, (1979).
Impact of storm runoff from urban areas
on surface water quality. Proc. I,E,
Aust. ~drology and Water Resources
Symposium, Perth, September, pp. 249-53,
BLISS, P.J., RILEY, S,J, and ADAMSON, D,
(1983), Towards rational guidelines for
urban stormwater disposal into flora
preservation areas. Shire and Municipal Record, July, pp. 181-85,
BOENISCH, M.E. (1984) On-site detention experience at Wollongong, Proc.
Seminar on Prob 1ems of Existing Stormwater Drainage Systems, N.s.w. Committee, Water Research Foundation of
Australia, G.G, O'Loughlin, editor,
Sydney, 28 pp.
BONHAM, A,J, (1974). Storm drainage design
and new city planning. I.E. Aust,
Civ, Eng. Trans. CE16(1), pp. 67-70.
BROOKS, L,G, and COCKS, G.C. (1983). A rational approach to the design of stormwater sumps, Main Roads Dept, Western
Australid, Materials Rep. 83/42M.

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL (1985).

Guidelines for floodplain management in
Australia. Water Management Series No.
6. (AGPS: Canberra,)

BROTCHIE, J.F, (1977), Urban development

without spoiling creeks. Habitat Aust,
Conservation Foundation, 5(1), June,
pp, 8-13.

BANNIGAN, J.M. and MORGAN, D.B, (1981).

Hydraulic design of piped stormwater
systems. Proc. I.E. Aust, Cont. on
Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Sydney,
pp. 49-53.

BURGI, P,H, and GOBER, D.E, (1977), Bicyclesafe grate inlets study. Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-77-24, U,S, Oept. Transp. Nat,
Tech, Info, Service, Springfield,
Virginia.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

109

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

BURTON, T.M., TURNER, R.R. and HARRISS, R.C,
(1976), The impact of highway construction on a North Florida watershed,
Water Resour. Bull, 12, New York, pp.
529-38.
CAMERON McNAMARA (1985), Kensington flooding
drainage works investigation.
Report
to Public Works Dept, N,S,W. Civ. Eng.
Div. Rep. 84030, January,

DEPTARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS, NEW SOUTH WALES

(1979), Model analysis to determine
hydraulic capacities of kerb inlets and
gully pit gratings,
DOWD, B,P., IOAKIM, R. and ARGUE, J,R, (lq8Q),
The simulation of gutter/pavement flows
on South Australian urban roads, Proc.
lOth ARRB Conf. 10(2), pp. 145-52,
DURU, J.O.

CITY OF FORT WORTH (1967),

Storm drainage
criteria and design manual.
Prepared
by Knowlton-Ratcliff-English, Consult-

ing Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas,

December.
CLARKE, W,P,, STRODS, P,J, and ARGUE, J.R.
(1981). Gutter/pavement flow relationships for roadway channels of moderate
or steep grade, Proc. I.E. Au st. First
Nat. Local Govt. Eng. Conf., Adelaide,
pp 130-37.
COLMAN, J. (1978). Streets for living. Australian Road Research Board.
Special
Report, SR 17.

(1982).

On-site

detention

s tornwater management or mismanagement

technique? Urban Stormwater Quality,
Management and Planning. B.C.Yen,
editor. Water Resources Pub., Colorado,
u.s.A., pp. 341-49,
EARLEY, P.C. (1979), Gully inlet spacing design, Faculty of Eng, Univ.
Western
Australia.
ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1980a).

Proposed model

policies for urban drainage management.

Report of the Urban Drainage Policy
Committee to the Urban Drainage Sub-

committee, Environmental Protection

Service, Environment Canada. Research
Report No. 102.

CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION (1985),

Concrete
pipe guide, Concrete Pipe Association
of Australia, Elsternwick,
CORDERY, I. (1976a). Some effects of urbanisation on streams.
I.E. Aust. Civ.
Eng. Trans, CE18(I), pp. 7-11,
CORDERY, I. (1976b). Potential value of
treatment of urban stormwaters.
I.E.
Au st. Ci v. Eng. Trans, C18(2), pp.
60-63,
CORDERY, I. (1977), Quality characteristics
of urban storm water in Sydney, Australia. Water Resour. Res, 13, pp. 197202,

ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1980b).

Manual of prac-

tice for urban drainage. Environment

Protection Service, Environment Canada.
Research Report No. 104.
Sewerage and Sewage
ESCRITT, L.B. (1965).
Disposal, 3rd Ed. (CR Books/Applied
Science Publishers: London,)
FINLAYSON, C,M, (1983), Use of aquatic plants

to treat wastewater in irrigation areas

of Australia. Proc. lOth Federal Convention Aust, Water and Wastewater
Assoc., Session 22,
Sydney, 10 pp.
FORBES, H,J,C,

(1976).

Capacity of 1atera 1
Ci vi 1 Eng, South
Africa, 18(9), pp. 195-205. Discussion,
19(5). pp. 95-99.

stormwater inlets.
COUNTRY ROADS BOARD, VICTORIA (1982). Road
design manual, Chapter 6 : Drainage,
CULLEN, P., ROSICH, R. and BEK, P. (1978).
A phosphorous budget for Lake Burley
Griffin and management implications for
urban lakes. Aust. Water Resources
Council Tech. Paper No. 31,
(AGPS:
Canberra.)
DANDENONG VALLEY AUTHORITY (1980).
Melton
drainage study.
Master drainage p 1an
prepared for Melton-Sunbury Management
Committee by Dandenong Va 11 ey Authority, March,
de GROOT, C.F, and BOYD, M,J, (1983), Experimental determination of head losses in
stormwater systems, Proc. I .E. Au st.
Second Nat. Conf, on Local Govt. Eng.
Brisbane, September, pp. 2I4-18.
DICK, T,M. and MARSALEK, J. (1985), Manhole
head losses in drainage hydraulics,
Proc, 21st Cong. Int. Assoc. Hydraulic
Res. Melbourne, August, Vol. 6, pp.
123-31,
110

GORDON, A.D. and STONE, P.B. (1973).

Car
stability on road floodways. Univ. of
New South Wales, Water Research Laboratory, Rep. 73/12.
GOYEN, A.G. and McLAUGHLIN, D.A. (1978). Can
we afford to treat urban stormwater
runoff? Proc. I .E. Au st. Hydrology
Symp. Canberra, pp. 57-61.
GOYEN, A.G., MOODIE, A.R. and NUTTALL, P.M.
( 1985). Enhancement of urban runoff
quality. Proc. I.E. Aust. Hydrology
and Water Resources Symp. Sydney, pp.
202-08.
GRIGG, N.S., BOTHAM, L.M., RICE, L., SHOEMAKER, W.J. and TUCKER, L.S. (1976).
Urban drainage and f1 ood control proj-

ects, economic, legal and financial

aspects. ~drology paper, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado,
u.s.A.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

GUTTERIDGE, HASKINS AND DAVEY PTY. LTD.

(1981). Characteristics of urban
stormwater runoff. Aust. Water Resources Council. Tech. Paper No. 60. (AGPS:
Canberra.)
GUY, H.D. and JONES, D.E. (1972). Urban sedimentation in perspective. ASCE J.
Hydraulics Div., 98(HY 12), pp. 2099 116.
HALL, M.J. (1984). Urban Hydrology. (Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers: Essex, U.K.)

INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1987),

Australian rainfall and runoff. 3rd ed.
(I.E. Aust: Canberra) (in press).
IZZARD, C.F. (1946). Hydraulics of runoff
from developed surfaces (and discussion). Proc. Highway Res. 26, pp.
129-50,
Textbook on
JAMES HARDIE PTY LTD (1985).
Pipeline Design, (James Hardie,
Sydney)

HANNAM, I.D. and HICKS, R.W. (1980). Soil

conservation and urban land use planning. Soi 1 Conservation Service of
N.S.W. Soil Conservation, 36, pp. 13445.

JOHNSON, R.L. and PUTT, R.A. (1977). Storm

water retention and detention. Lehigh
Univ. Fritz Eng. Laboratory Report No.
426.2, December, 35 pp.

HAWKEN, H.W. (1921). An analysis of maximum

runoff and rai nfa 11 intensity, Trans.
I.E. Aust. 2, pp. 193-215.

JONASSON, S.A. (1984a). Determination of infiltration capacity and hydraulic conductivity, Proc, 3rd Int. Conf. on
Urban Storm Drain., Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1073-82.

HEEPS, D.P. (1977). Efficiency in industrial,

municipal and domestic water use. Aust.
Water Resources Counci 1. Tech. Paper
No. 20. (AGPS: Canberra.)
HENDERSON, F.M. ( 1966). Open Channe 1 Flow.
(MacMillan: New York,)
HENDERSON, F .M., FIELD, W.G. and WILLIAMS,
B.J. (1980). Urban Drainage. Notes for
a refresher course, Dept. Civ. Eng.
Univ. Newcastle, N.S.W.
HENKEL, G.G. (1981). Land-use planning must
relate to drainage. Proc. I.E. Aust.
First Nat. Local Govt. Eng. Conf.,
Adelaide, pp. 83-89.
HOLMSTRAND, 0, (1984). Infiltration of stormwater : Research at Chalmers University
of Technology, results and examples of
application. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on

Urban Storm Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden,

June, pp. 1057-72.
HUGHES, H. (1974). Road surface drainage - a
review. Australian Road Research Board.
Research Report, ARR No. 33.
ICHIKAWA, A. and YAMAMOTO, T. (1984). Experimental field for the quantitative analysis of the pervious pavement at the
baseball field, University of Tokyo.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Urban Storm
Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden, June, pp.
1009-18.
INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1958),
Australian rainfall and runoff. First
report of the I.E. Aust. Stormwater
Standards Comm., Sydney.

JONASSON, S.A. (1984b). Dimensioning methods

for stormwater infiltration systems.
Proc, 3rd Int. Conf. on Urban Storm
Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden, June, pp.
1037-46.
JONES, E.D. (1967). Urban hydrology, a redirection. ASCE Civ. Eng. 37(8),
August, pp. 58-61.
JONES, E.D. (1971). Where is urban hydrology
practice today? ASCE Hydraulics Div.
97(HY2), pp. 257 - 64.
KARR, J.R. and SCHLOSSER, I.J. (1978). Water
resources and the land-water interface.
Science 201, pp. 229-34.
KIOD, C.H.R. and LOWING, M.J. (1979). The
Wa 11 i ngford urban subcatchment model.
U.K. Inst. Hydrology Report No. 60,
November,
KUICHLING, E. (1889). The relation between
rainfall and the discharge of sewers in
populous districts. Trans. ASCE 20, pp.
1-60.
LAND COMMISSION, NEW SOUTH WALES (1984).
The streets where we 1i ve - a manu a 1

for the design

estates.

of

safer

residential

LIGHTHILL, M.J. and WHITHAM, G.B. ( 1955). On

kinematic waves : I. F1 ood movement in
1ong rivers. Pro c. Roy a 1 Soc. Series
A, Vol. 229, pp. 281-316.
LINSLEY, R.K. and FRANZINI, J. (1979). Water
resources Engineering, 3rd edition.
(McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Tokyo).

INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1983).

Seminar on retarding basins. Proc. of
seminar organised by Sydney Di vision
Water Resources Panel. G,G. O'Loughlin,
editor, 19April, Sydney.

LLOYD-DAVIES, D.E. (1906). The elimination

of storm water from sewerage systems.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 164, pp. 41-67.

INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1977).

Australian rainfall and runoff. 2nd ed.
(I.E. Aust: Canberra.)

LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (1983). Standard - Stormwater Drainage Manhole losses.

Chart
A, Chart B, date 11/1/83.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

111

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

McPHERSON, M.B. (1969). Some notes on the

rational method of storm drainage de~
sign. ASCE Urban Water Resources Re-

O'LOUGHLIN, G,G, and AVERY, G,C, (1980).

Re-

currence intervals for minor urban

6,

drainage works. Proc. I.E. Aust. Hydrology and Water Resources Symp, Adelaide, pp. 39-43,

MAKIN, I.W. and KIDD, C.H.R. (Jg79), Urban

hydrology project: collection and archive of U.K. hydrological data. Inst.
Hydrology Report No. 59, October.

O'LOUGHLIN, G,G, (1986), The ILSAX program

for urban drainage design and analysis,
School of Civ. Eng, N.S.W. Inst, Techno 1 ., Sydney.

MATTHEWS, T.M., PITTS, J.R., LARLHAM, R.C.

and KOCSAN, J. C. ( 1983). Hydro-brake
regulated storage system for storm"ater management. Snell En vi ronmenta 1
Group Inc. for Cleveland Dept. Public
Utilities, Ohio.

PHILLIPS, D.I. (1985).

search Program,

Tech.

Memor.

No.

Ne" York, January.

MELBOURNE AND
(1981).

I~ETROPOLITAN

BOARD OF WORKS
Interim drainage basin manage-

ment criteria manual.

MILLS, S.J. and O'LOUGHLIN, G.G. (Jg84).
Workshop on urban piped drainage systems. Swinburne Inst. Technol./N.S.W.
Inst. Technol., Melbourne.
MOODIE, A.R. (1979). Modelling of water
quality and hydrology in an urban

watercourse,

Aust, Water Resources

Counci 1 Tech.
Canberra.)

Paper

No.

45.

(AGPS:

MAIN ROADS DEPARTMENT, QUEENSLAND (1980).

Urban road design manual,
MULVANEY, T.J. (1851). On the use of self
registering rain and flood gauges in
making observations on the relation of
rainfall and of flood discharges in a
given catchment.

Trans. Inst. Civ.

Eng., Ireland, 4(2), pp. 18-31.

MURPHY, G.B., MacARTHUR, D. A., CARLEO, D.J.,
QUINN, T.J. and STEWART, J.E. (1981).
Best management practices implementation: Rochester, New York. U.S. Env.
Protection Agency Report PB-82-17I-067,
Chicago Il, April.
NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(1981). Guidelines on engineering and
environmental practices - hydraulics.
NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL AND U.K. DEPARTMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT (1981). Design and
analysis of urban storm drainage, the

Wallingford procedure. National Water

Council, Vol. 1-5, London.
NEW SOUTH WALES HOUSING COMMISSION (1976).
Road manu a 1.
NICHOLAS, D. I. and COOPER, G. (1984). On-site
detention - experience in Kuring-Gai,
Proc. Seminar on Problems of Existing
Stormwater Drainage Systems, N,S,W,

Committee, Water Research Foundation of

Australia. G.G. O'Loughlin, editor,
Sydney, 21 pp,
NOVAK, P. and NULLURI, C, (1984).

Incipient

motion of sediment particles over fixed

beds, J.
97.
112

~draulic

Res. 22(3), pp, 181-

performance of

An evaluation of the

an

on-site

stormwater

detention storage.
Proc. I.E. Aust,
Hydrology and Water Resources Symp.
Sydney, May, pp. 197-201.
POLIN, M,J, and CORDERY, I, (1979), An economic approach to the selection of a
design flood, Proc, I.E, Aust, Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium,
Perth, September, pp. 194-98,
POERTNER, H,G, (1973), Practices in detention of urban storm water runoff, u.s.
Dept Interior, Washington, D.C.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NEW SOUTH WALES
(Jg85). Hydraulic capacities of gutter
inlets for N,S,W, Housing Commission,
Manly Hydraulics Laboratory Rep. 419,
January,
RAGAN, R,M, and DURU, J.O. (1972).

Kinematic
wave nomograph for times of concentration. Proc. ASCE, J. ~draulics Div.
98(HYIO), October, pp. 1765-7I.

REID, J, (1927). The estimation of stormwater

discharge, J, Inst. Municipal County
Eng. (U.K.) 53(23), pp. 997-1021,
RILEY, D.W. ( 1932). Notes on calculating the
flow of surface water in sewers. J.
Inst. Municipal and County Eng. (U.K.)
58(20), pp. 1483-95.
ROBINSON, D, and O'LOUGHLIN, G,G, (1983).
Introduction -what is a retarding
basin? Proc. I.E, Aust, Seminar on

Retardiny Rasi11s. Organised by Sydney

Division Water Resources Panel.
G,G,
O'Loughlin, editor, Sydney, April.
ROSS, C,N, (1921), The calculation of flood
discharges by the use of a time contour
plan. Trans, I.E. Aust, 2, pp. 85-92.
R(MBOTTOM, I.A., PILGRIM, D.H. and WRIGHT,
G.L. (1986), Estimation of rare floods
(between the probable maximum flood and
the 1 in 100 flood), I.E. Aust, Civ.
Eng, Trans. CE28(1), pp. 92-105.
SANGSTER, W,M,, WOOD, H.W., SMERDON, E.T, and
BOSSY, H.G. (lqSR),
Pressure changes

at stormwater drain junctions, Bull.41,

Eng. Experiment Station, Univ. Missouri,

u.s.A.

SATOR, J.D., BOYD, G,B. and AGARDY, F,J,

(1974), Water pollution aspects of

street surf dee contaminants. ,J. Water

Pollution Control Federation 46, Washington D.C., pp, 458-67.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

SCHAAKE, J.C., GEYER, J,C. and KNAPP, J.W.

(1967). Experimental examination of
the rational method. ASCE J. Hydraulics Div. 93(HY 6), pp. 353-70.
SCOTT AND FURPHY PTY LTD (1984). Engineering
standards for residential land development. Report prepared in association
with Coopers & Lybrand Services for
Dept Housing and Construction. (AGPS:
Canberra.)
SIEKER, F. (I984). Stormwater infiltration in
urban areas. Proc. 3rd Int. Con f. on
Urban Storm Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1083-91.
STEPHENSON, D. (1981). Stormwater hydrology
and drainage. (Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers: Amsterdam.)
STORM DRAINAGE RESEARCH COMMITTEE (1956). The
design of stormwater inlets. Report of
the Storm Drainage Research Committee
of Dept. of Sanitary Eng. and Water
Resources, Johns Hopkins Univ. Baltimore, Maryland, June.
TE~STRIEP,

M.L. and STALL, J.B. (1974). The

Illinois urban drainage area si1nulator,
ILLUDAS. Bull. 58, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, U.S.A.

THEIL, P.E. (1977). Urban drainage design for

new development, Proc. Urban Drainage
Conf. Organised by the Urban Drainage

Subcommittee, Environment Protection

Service, Environment Canada, Toronto,
March.
THOLIN, A.L. and KEIFER, C.J. (1960).
rology of urban runoff. Trans.
125, pp. 1308-79.

HydASCE

THOMPSON, D.G. (1983). The one percent probability flood as a basic drainage design criterion. Proc. I.E. Aust.
Second Nat. Conf. on Local Govt. Eng.
Brisbane, September, 1983, pp. 207-13.
TOUBIER, J, T. and WESTMACOTT R. (1980).

Stormwater management alternatives.

Water Resources ce-ntre, Univ. Delaware,
Apri 1.
ULI/ASCE/NAHB (1979), Residential storm water
management. Report by Urban Land Institute/Am. Soc. Civ. Eng/Nat. Assoc.
of Home Builders, Washington, March,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION (1972). Guidelines for erosion

and sediment control planning and
implementation. u.s. Env. Protect.
Admin., Washington.
VALLENTINE, H.R. (1967). Water in the Service
of Man. (Penguin Books: Hamondsworth.)
van DAM, C.H. and van de VEN, F.H.M. ( 1984).
Pro c.
I nfil trat ion in the pavement,
3rd Int. Conf. on Urban Storm Drainage,
Goteborg, Sweden, June, pp. 1019-28.
WALKER, J.H. (1979), Characteristics of
pollution in urban stormwater runoff.
Proc. I.E.Aust. Hydrology and Water
Resources Symp. Perth, pp. 244 - 48.
WANIELISTA, M.P. (1979). Stormwater Management - Quantity, Qua 1ity. (Ann Arbor
Science, Michigan).
WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION (1984). Seminar on
problems of existing stormwater drainage systems. Proc. Seminar organised
by N.S.W. Committee of WRF of Australia, 28 November. G.G. O'Loughlin, editor, Sydney.
WATSON, M.D. (1981). Application of ILLUDAS
to stormwater drainage design in South
Africa. Rep. 1/81, Hydrological Research Unit, Univ. Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg.
WATTS, B.A. (1983). Hydraulic losses in
stormwater pits.
Nichols, Watts

and

Associates, Consulting Engineers,

Liverpool, N.s.w.
WEBER, W.G. and REED, L.A. (1976). Sediment
runoff during highway construction. J.
ASCE Civ, Eng. 46(3), pp 76-9.
WHIPPLE, W., GRIGG, N.S., GRIZZARD, T., RANDALL, C.W., SHUBINSKI, R.P. and TUCKER,
L.S, ( 1983). Stormwater Management in
Urbanising Areas. (Prentice Hall,
Englewood -Cliffs)
WILLING AND PARTNERS PTY LTD (1978). Canberra
stormwater system : side entry pit capacities -field assessment. Final draft,
July.
National Capital Development
Commission, A.C.T.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

(1978). Best management practices for
erosion and sediment control. U.S.
Dept. Trans. Fed. Hi ghw, Admin., Washington.

WOLMAN, M. and SCHICK, A.P. (1967).

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

(1979). Design of urban highway drainage - the state of the art. U.S, Dept.
Trans. Fed, Highw. Admin., Washington.

WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN, ENGINEERS (1969),

Urban
storm drainage. Criteria manual, Vols
1 and 2. Denver Regional Council of
- Govts, Denver, U.S.A., March.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

Effects
of construction on fluvial sediment,
urban and suburban areas of Maryland.
Water Resources Res. 3, pp. 451-64.

113

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

114

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Appendix A
Additional hydraulic data

The gutter/pavement and inlet examp 1es used

in the body of the Handbook to illustrate
major and minor storm drainage design procedures are not employed universally in Australian practice.
Additional hydraulic inforn~ation for other widely used gutter/pavement geometries and inlet types is therefore
needed. Appendix A presents hydraulic data
for four roadway reserve and inlet combinations which, together, account for the bulk
of Australian practice,
In most cases the following data are
presented:(a) roadway reserve (half-carriageway) flow,
Ot. versus longitudinal slope, S0 , limited by Criteria 1 and 2 of Section 6,1,
text (see eqns 6.10 and 6.11). Data are
presented for carriageway half-widths of
4.D m and 5.0 m, zb = 25-30-40. These
data are needed to plan major drainage
systems (see Chapters 8 and 9).

LEVEL 1

A.

LEVEL 2 : Flow/capture relationships derived

from one set of test results obtained for a particular inlet case
(mode 1 or prototype) supported by

results obtained

= 25-30-40

for

inlet

cases

(models or prototypes) having different geometries. Broken lines Gr

curves with 1ong i nterva 1s between
breaks are used to present Level 2
data in Appendix A.
LEVEL 3

Flow/capture relationships inferred

from test results obtained for
inlet cases (models or prototypes)
having different geometries.

Broken lines or curves with short

intervals between breaks are used
to present Level 3 data in Appendix

(b) half-carriageway flow, Ot, versus longitudinal slope, S0 , for spreads of 1.0 m,
2,0 m and 2.5 m, zb = 25-30-40.
(c) grated inlet data, zb

Flow/capture relationships formed

from at least two independent sets
of test results obtained for inlet
cases (models or prototypes) having
identical or similar geometries.
Unbroken 1i nes or curves are used
to present Level I data in Appendix

A,

on-grade inlets, full gutter width

(undepressed), capture 80% and 95%.

sag inlets, Lig = 1.0 m, 2.0 m (undepressed), capture 100%.

In short, Level I data may be regarded

as 'dependable', level 2 data as 'satisfactory' and Level 3 data as little better than
informed guesses. A side benefit of Appendix
A is its indication of the directions which

inlet test programmes should take in order to

improve the reliability of urban drainage de-

(d) side-entry inlet data,

Zb = 25-30-40 :

sign in Australian practice.

on-grade inlets, Lis = 1.0 m, 2.0 m,

depressed 50 mm, with and without
deflectors, capture 80% and 95%.

Performance data presented in Appendix A

for side-entry in 1ets with deflectors assume
deflectors similar to those illustrated in
Fig. 6.5, text. Minor departures from this

sag inlets, L; 5 = 1.0 m, 2.0 m, depressed 50 mm, capture 100%.

arrangement will result in marginal changes,

only, to indicated performance.

Data items (b), (c) and (d) above are

needed to design minor drainage systems (see
Chapters 10 and 11).

The main differences between the four

roadway reserve and in 1et combinations addressed in Appendix A relate to their roadside
channel geometries (see Fig, 3,7),
These

The data relating to inlets are not of

equal quality. Some graphs and tables present
results obtained from substantial test programmes conducted on full-size models while
others present information inferred from
tests on models having different geometry.
Three levels of data quality have been recognised:-

are:-

ARRB SR 34, 1986

TYPE 1

concrete gutter, 300 mm wide, crossslope Za

TYPE 2

10

concrete gutter, 375 mm wide, crosss 1ope Za = 8

115

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3

concrete gutter, 450 mm wide, cross"

slope Za = 12

TYPE 4

no gutter, pavement carried to kerb

All data for each type and combination

are presented together,
The following references form the literature data base for the graphs and tables set
out in Appendix A : Department of Main Roads,

TYPE 1

N.s.w.

(1979); Earley (1979); Burgi and Gober

(1977); Storm Oral nage Research Committee of
John Hopkins University (1956); Henderson et
al (1980); Willing and Partners (1978); Hughes
(1974); Public Works Department, N.S.W,(1985);
Forbes ( 1977); United States Department of
Transportation (1979). Additional data have
been obtained from full"size rig tests conducted in connection with preparation of the
Handbook at S.A. Institute of Technology in
Adelaide.

GUTTER/PAVEf1ENT PROFILE

TABLE A1a
CAPTURE BY 300 mm GRATED INLETS: z, = 10

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

Zb = 30 - 40

zb = 25 - 30
95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 10 L/s

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Ot = 8 L/s

80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 18 L/s
Notes:

1. grated inlet- full gutter width with transverse bars

2. length not less than 0.75 m
3. grating open area not less than 60% of total area
4. gutter longitudinal grade, S0 , not greater than 0.05
5, grated inlet not depressed; no kerb opening
6. Listed flow values are conservative but make no allowance
for blockage.

TABLE A1b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 300 mm)

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

DESCRIPTION

Zb = 25 - 30

Zb = 30 - 40

1.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

40 L/s
59 L/s

29 L/s
42 L/s

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2.5 m

65 L/s
96 L/s

47 L/s
68 L/s

1.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2,0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

46 L/s
60 L/s

37 L/s
47 L/s

2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2.5 m

92 L/s
120 L/s

74 L/s
94 L/s

Notes:
1.

Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.

2.

Grated inlets - 300 mm wide

3.

Grated open area not less than 60% of total area .

.

116

ARRB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 1- GUTIER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

"''

Kerb&Guller

!100

1--

!/ ~"::

---

~~~- """
VI
K
/(

--.----

"~

Hotmix paverr.ent

\,2::1'

- -

""

'-.!

,,

"

"'o

NOTE For f 5h se I rarr agewa s red

indica ed flo vatu
3%

"'

--

'-it
__

02030~(6\(:.07

-----

--

Kerb& Gutter

""'

---

""
---.._

't
OTE:

0
200 0

"

02

Zb:25,30 or40

Guller/P<l'emenl Prof1le

---.._

"" 4 ~
?

---

~-

--- t--------r---!'---- ?h
f--'------ !'---- "'25
:------ !---'-

C6

(6

Guller longitudinal

Figure A1a : Hydraulic capacity, Ut, data for 60 m carriageway

with 300mm gutter

,, ;;;?'"'f
~-~za: to

---

For ll sh se I tarri geW'ay redu e

indica ed flo vatu 5 by 16%

04

03

;!

-------

<00

11

""
"-

"

Holmix pavement

(each case)

'\,

llj I"'
0

10

Guller longitudinal Slope, So (m/ml

""

il
WI
:;I

---

470rn to l

Contre~~J,U

-1

!100

~----

~
' _,

<00

25,30 or 40

'---..._

"" -----

:o

300rnm

1100

Gulter/P<!verrenl Prof1\e

--

,__ - ~ ------

Zb

Za: 10
(each easel

"" ~

""

3-70m to t

30<lrr.m

concre'.~-4W
:!

1200

01

So

Stope,

09

10

11

11

(m/ml

Figure A1b: Hydraulic capacity, Ut, data for 100 m carriageway

with lOOmm gutter

0
GUIIH ln!ef

Gi.JHer Jnl~l ll)'Cirautic Oah

Capture perfomance of lOrn and 1 Q"' s;de-enlry
inleh .,.;th ar;:l wlthcut deflectors

H~raul!c Oafa
Ccpl~re perforNnce of 101'1 a~d 20m side-entry
inleh 'o'ilh cr.:! l<llhout defleckrs

10

-~'\:II
1SOmni!J
:~:_: ;::;ti

lYPE 1

10 0

NOTES

liQIES
1.1nlels vilhcul defledors: lip depressed
9utter lnnrt fOI' full lenglh,lts

Unlels without defled~: lip depre~ed SOm"' hlw

gullu innrl foc full length, lis

7.
N

w~h defl"lorst lip depressed SOmn, defledcr

depressed 100mm belo-~ 9u!fu in<ut.

3.Approach llolo', OJ, fcr inlet length,hs, Q!t,er I han 1Om

~nd 20 "' nriH as lli. s ), ~ppro~n.,ale!y .
4 In lei widlh equols gulte,r wid!h in ~II cases

!!

,"'

"

lO

10

l/

1',

"

"--..

z;.,. ""
,,

oo

\r:;l
001

--1. Si ra,
Zi':i.

""" "'

006

GUTTER LONGilUOINAl

So (r/n)

Figure: A1d

--1--

"""

"'f:VI

80

""

(', ~ ~

~re

~~~-- P2 -

004

'

Q;(

' ,___ ,;::><:

~~T ~
0:J,
' ~
IV
'

G% Ca_plu

Q~

20

ARRB SR 34, 1986

telc..

5()t1n

"

rt

GUTTEr! LONGHUDINAL SLOPE

bas~

"

Coltation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

data- 300 mm gutters, Za =10

2.lnlels

"

l-fttt+-f-1---l---+--+--+--+--+--+--+-l--+--+----l

Figure: A 1c

lb: }J-1/.1
Gulter/Pavel"'enl Prof1le

Gulter/PaveNnl Proftle

2.1nlels 'o'~h defledors: lip depressed 501'11', def!edcr

bose depre>sed 1Wnr> telw qutler invert.
).Approach fllilo',Ot, fer kn!ellength,Lts, ol~er than 10n
end 2 0 n V<HlB as !ll 5 )~ apprQ~imal<ly.
4 Inlet lo'idlh rcquals ~u!!er vidlh in all c~>es

T'l'PE I

\lt\
-- - 008

SlOPE

010

1-

r--__::

011

So (r/m)

Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

data - 300 mm gutters, Za =10

117

'

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 2

GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A2a
CAPTURE BY 375 mm GRATED INLETS: Z, = 8

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

zb = 25 - 30

zb = 30 - 40

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 24 L/s

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s

80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 52 L/s

80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 43 L/s

Notes:

1. grated inlet- full gutter width with transverse bars

2. length not less than 0.75 m
3. grating open area not less than 60% of total area
4. gutter longitudinal grade, s0 , not greater than 0.05
5. grated inlet not depressed; no kerb opening
6. Listed flow values are conservative but make no allowance
for b1ockage.

TABLE A2b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 375 mm)

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

DESCRIPTION

Zb = 25 - 30

Zb

30 - 40

1.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2.5 m

40 L/s
61 L/s

30 L/s
44 L/s

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2.5 m

63 L/s
96 L/s

47 L/s
69 L/s

1.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

57 L/s
72 L/S

47 L/s
59 L/s

2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

114 L/s
144 L/s

94 L/s
118 L/s

Notes:

118

I.

Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.

2.

Grated inlets - 375 mm wide

3.

Grated open area not less than 60% of total area.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 2- GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE
BlO

- ~75rnm

Concre~~-4U

1100

Kerb& Gutter

1100

f--

-~

H25m to t
Holmlx pavement

._.,
:.\-:;2"5'

Zb:25,30 or40

j~

!/

W; """"
~

rndical

"--._

: :,:~1 ~;;~!3
f--

~'
:I! K "
!'--- 1------ ,,_
1~/
~

,_

pu_

--- r--.,

II

f/

!...!l.S

!I
1-----

1ll
/. 'I

1----- 1-----

r----

T[;

400

Gu!ler/Pai"E~enf

020304050607
Gu!lu longitudinal Stope, So !m/ml

10

09

11

---

"

"""" " " !'--~"---

----:

1'----

---

'-'.(

~
1;, .?t '"-

N ,,
~ f--

'-"

car~iageway

Figure A2a: Hydraulic capacity, Ut. data for 80 m

with 375mm gutter

r-- r----

---- ---------

02030405M07
Gutfer looglludina\ Slope, 5Q {m/m)

"

Prof1le

iOTE: or flu h sea carri gevay reduc

ndicat l!ov values by 15 i'o

300

"'o

e'o'ays reduce
by 1 %

Zb=25,30 or40

Za; 8
!nth tasel

Holmlx paverr,ent

Kerb&Gutter

1100

Gutlef/P.M>menl Profrle

"--._

Concre~~4U
A~l

ii

WTE: or flu

4625m fo t

315rcm

Za" 8

luch easel

II

""
1100

10

09

11

11

figure A2b: Hydraulic capacity, Ot. data for 100 m carriageway

with 375mm gutter

1Jl!!lar Inlet Htdrau!ic Oala

GtJI!er Inlet Hytlrcu!lc Data

{cplure performance of 10m and 2-0m s;de-enlry

Capture ~trforNnce of 10m and 20"' s;de-enlry

inleh 'o"ilh and Wilhcul defledors

inlels with cr.d 'o'ilhcul ddledors

TYP 2

TYPE 1

2b=25 -30
Gutter/Pavement Profo!e

NOlES

110

t.!~le!:s wit~oul

dtfledcrs:lip depressed SOnn hlw

gut!H inv<rl for fuH length, Lis

18 0

1.1nlels without ddledcrs:!ip depress~d

guHer invHI for full lenglh,Lts.

~He depress~d

f-

'-f-~+~+--1

"g '"

~ultH

mverl.

).Approach flow, at, fer in!elJength,lts, o\~er than 10m

~nd 2 0 m nriH as lli. ~ )~ appro~om~te:~.
,--,----wodlh e~<nls gulfn w1dlh in all cases

lApproHh flow,Ot, rcr inlelJength,tts, ol~er !Man 10m

~nd

~ lnl~l

. -f- --c--f--- --

;"

<

I r;

"

['L

1'-

r-z; ~

'

I;

!Ji
II

"

10

0
GUTTil; LONGITUDINAL

SLOP

So lr/m)

ARRB SR 34, 1986

"'

"-:;~ ~\ ,v F---

/5/'
0

---- r-

001

.,

~
""'
!el.l.lr
""- ~ D::
Y..

Figure: A2d

95% (a fu e

"' """'" a'(a

5%

a lur

006

'ooa

GUTTER LONG\TUOINAL SlOPE

--

Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

data- 375 mm gutters, Za = 8

1.1

"'--

--

' w

'::::: ---.__

'I ."----

"

Figure: A2c

"-

1/t;
60

ca~es

" >-Yt'

80

oppro~malety.

;:.

>
~

as !tis),

:s

~ o

1'1 ~aroas

--

,/

J,-.-+-,-+-i

20

I.. Inlet 1o'idlh e.;uals qull<r w1dlh in o\1

+-+-~~- ---~~~-~+-1---

g 110

1(;)"'" tek.;

belt-_.

2.1nlets w~h deflectors: lip depresed SOml'l, defrHfc.r

base de~ressed 100 nl'l belc.. qutlu invert.

2_tnlets wdh deflHIOrs: lip d<ptessed SOI'In, defledcr

1!0

~O"'m

010

'"

011

So (10/l'l)

Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

data - 375 mm gutters, Za = 8

119

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3

GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A3a
CAPTURE BY 450 mm GRATED INLETS: Z, ~ 12

{DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 1)

Zb = 25 - 30

Zb = 30 - 40

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 23 L/s

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 L/s

80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 54 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 47 L/s
Notes:

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

grated inlet - full gutter width with transverse bars

length not less than 0,75 m
grating open area not less than 60% of total area
gutter longitudinal grade, S0 , not greater than 0.05
grated inlet not depressed; no kerb opening
Listed flow values are conservative but make no allowance
for blockage.

TABLE A3b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (GUTTER: 450 mm)

{DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

DESCRIPTION

Zb = 25 - 30

zb = 30 - 40

1.0 m grated inlets {undepressed)

allowable spread= 2,0 m
allowable spread = 2,5 m

41 L/s
63 L/s

29 L/s
45 L/s

2.0 m grated inlets {undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2,5 m

63 L/s
95 L/s

45 L/s
68 L/s

1.0 m side-entry inlets {depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2,5 m

47 L/s
61 L/s

39 L/s
50 L/s

2.0 m side-entry inlets {depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2,0 m
allowable spread = 2,5 m

94 L/s
122 L/s

78 L/s
100 L/s

Notes:

120

1.

Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.

2.

Grated inlets - 450 mm wide

3.

Grated open area not less than 60% of total area.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3- GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

llOO

{j

1100

--

~ "'

aoo

J"

}/ """

WI

""' " ""'

5 50 0

---- - -

""' "
~-

~
400

Guii~/Pi!l'e~renl

"----

~~-"-

-r1

1100

Prof1le

""-!

"t___

'---- 4_,

---

I - 1-- f-

reduc
by 1%

e>~ays

10

09

07

ffi

11

11

Slope. So lm/m)

Gut!er longitudinal

'-'-.

""'

1'---- --.l '

se~

'---

Gui!H/Pa~er:ent

" '"
~
~

110

"I .,
"~
<

>

eo

3.ApproHh flw.Ct ft.r inlellenglh,lh, ol~er lhan \Or~

and 21) n v.mes <JS IlLs), appro~uoolety.

'
-

gull<r llidlh in a\1 uses

Caol

'~"

!"--- 1--

,,

--;;..

:I/
o:f I

"'

'di

'if

'
'
'

"

'-,

' ~ :v

'~ ?
'.?-~

o,

,_-,_

---

-tr: -

001

f.Q,~

"

--

~~ ~!Ye
006

;~

,,

"'

i.'

mi.

(a lure

""

"-.v

r-v

_! ~~

~-

'"

'"

--m

012

.:!..
C2 lu e

"

SS%
ss~.r,

10

'>

- ----'-

~-

Gj

'"

'

--'

:-::!l

M.'Y.

t.m. . '"

~l!L

006

GUlTER LONGITUDINAL

So I 0>/m)

Figure:

'

'
' ' v

A~d

r-

...._
-

,.

"

lur

iJip.

aolu

.$7/'

H'

-fA ~%
~ :..t

"

Coltation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

data - 450 mm gutters, Za = 12

ARRB SR 34, 1986

95'

+---

I!

"'

lApproa(h llo11_,0J, lei inleiJenglh,Lts, otMer than 10m

and 20 m vanes as ILL 1 ), oppro>~malely.
width equals guller llidt~ in otl cases

~-lnlel

"

I ,,

GUTTER 10NG1TUOJNAL SLOPE

Figure: A3c

~
~

Profo!e

2 lolels w~h dellec!ors: lip depres1ed SOmn, defledor

base de~ressed 100 "'"' telw guller ioverl

li 1-L

11

11

Unlets llii~<Ju! def!ec!Ofs:lip depre~-Sed SOmm telc..r

guiiH inverf for full lenglh, Hs

ll

~:

60

20

"

2_1nle!s ~o~tlh defledors; lip depressed SOmm, defl~d~r

b~s~ de~ressed IW""' ~elC'.; guHer in~ul.

equ~ls

10

NOTES

Unlels 11ilhwl defleda.rs:lip depre~ed 501'1'1 bek"

gutter innrf fer full length, lis.

4 Inlet widlh

09

TYPE 3

Guthr/Pave"'nl Prol<le

1'"

1---

G!JIIer llllet Hydr~IJ11t Oala

Capture pelf~rl"ance of \Om and 2Om side-entry
inleh lli!h a~d \iithovt deflectors

~ide-enfr~

---

carri el<'ays reduc

value by 12;%

TYPE 3

~ ,_____

1-----

02
03
04
OS
06
07
Gvlle-r longitudinal Slope, So {m/ml

{if.lller Inlet Hydraulic Oala

180

<'o"f.

Figure A3b: Hydraulic capacity, Ut, data for 100 m carriageway_

with 450mm gutter

FigureA3a: Hydraulic capacity,Ot.data for 80 m carri?geway

with 450mm gutter

Capture pedorNnce of tOn and lOm

inlels .. Hh cod without defletlors

<;,

"'-!q_

ndita d flo

"'o

Prof1\e

~ %;;;

....____

HOlE: For I! sh

,__.

3D 0

Guller/~m>ml

-"'-

"-..__

'--

iI

Zb: 25,31) or40

za:12

0
400

_:\.;:2'-'f
lea(h USl!l

'I

l1l__

-'

Holmix pavement

;!

Kerb&Guller

-~- --- -

r----W/ "1// "--""'

----

----

45Sm I

(onu~~~4U

1100

OlE :Fer fl sh sea carrl

indica d flo value

"'o

450n:m

Za "'11

g-600

~700

Zb=25,30 cr40

leach easel

~
""'
-II/v """

,,,.

~----

iI

Holmix pavell'.ent

Concrete-+,
l<erb&Guller ;:~.

1100

1,

BSm !o l

O~Pm

~ol\ation
d~t,a :-

Ca

'' '"
"'

..:::::. :L!'!...... ~~

;:;.:: b!!e ~

""

;:Q

oo
SLOPE

-'T- -

ow

.:!..

-- ~
-

011

So fnVml

of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic

450 mm gutters, Za = 12

121

'"

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 4

GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A4a
CAPTURE BY 500 mm GRATED INLETS: NO GUTTER

{DATA QUALITY - LEVEL I)

Zb = 25 - 30

Zb = 30 - 40

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 10 L/s

95% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 6 L/s

80% capture :
80% capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt = 26 L/s
gutter approach flow, Qt = 17 L/s
Notes:

I.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

grated inlet - bars transverse

length not less than 0.75 m
grating open area not less than 60% of total area
gutter longitudinal grade, S0 , not greater than 0.05
grated inlet not depressed; no kerb opening
Listed flow values are conservative but make no allowance
for blockage.

TABLE A4b
CAPTURE AT 1.0 m AND 2.0 m SAG INLETS (NO GUTTER)

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

Zb = 25 - 30

Zb = 30 - 40

!.Om grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

41 L/s
63 L/s

30 L/s
45 L/s

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread = 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

62 L/s
95 L/s

44 L/s
68 L/s

!.Om side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread= 2.0 m
allowable spread = 2.5 m

31 L/s
44 L/s

23 L/s
31 L/s

2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m
allowable spread= 2.5 m

62 L/s
88 L/s

46 L/s
62 L/s

DESCRIPTION

Notes:

122

!.

Flows listed above have been calculated using eqn (6.12), text,
modified by behaviour observed in full-size rig tests. Listed values
are conservative but make no allowance for blockage.

2.

Grated inlets - 500 mm wide

3.

Grated open area not less than 60% of total area.

ARAB SR 34, 1986

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 4- GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

1500

1<00

. ""- ~
;sljj f'..
~(\ -~
I

Holmi~

- iI

pa~m1ml

Coru:rele '-"
l<erb --.:1

~I"

BOO

1500

4-0m fu

1"'-

'
-

600

""'

0r

1<00

Guller/Pa~ameot

t/ '\.

"" -;I/\

Zb:25,30or40
Profile

1/

!'--I'--- ~'-!
~

'b

r--- t--- f-..l

OlE: FQr f!u h -sea urri

educe indic

t~

eways

Ito Yalu

'"
'"'

600

""'

(fJ
05
03
Gutter longitudinal Slope, So lrn/m)

""'

"-._

OTE: or flu h sea

educe ndical

"

1'\.

'

I'--- ._______ IQ. ,,

f-._

"'

I/\

erion

II

09

" "

Figure A4a: Hydraulic capacity, Ut, data for 80 m carriageway

no gutter

hl-bf-1-----l--1
100

h,ilc:il'----jf--l--1

Kerb/Pa~eme,,l

i
I

Zb=25,30or40

""

1----

1:- ~
b

""
1----

1<l(otfi

....___

2 (f, 6

r--

1'- ~
~

"25

g~way

value

""

by 2 %
---~

12

(fJ
Slop~,

So 11!1/nl

f-+l-1----i--1

in\els vilhoul dtfleclc..-s

TYPE

F~~r----===,=..~,~-,~0~

'"

Wiler Inlet H)11taulit 'OJIJ

C~plure perfo;mante of 2 On side-entry

TYPE 4
N

pave~eol

Figure A4b: Hydraulic capacity, Ut. data for 100 m carriageway

no gutter

Wiler Inlet H)'draulic oata

Capture perform.Jnce of 20m sk.le-enlry
inlets wit~oul del!eclt>ts

Hotmix

Gutler/Pal'err.enl Prof1le

04
05
Gutter Longitudinal

12

SOm

I
Concrete .':~
Kerb :i~r

{\

100

1-.Jf--1-+-1

F~~r--=:::::;,:;;;;, ~
_,_:;;;=:.,

t<e,b/Pa\emenl Profole

Profle

O On

"

et

ups r am.

efer o Fi

--

belo

"
~

"

lm ,......-

'i'

~~

""
~

30

-1-i-+-1--+-+-+-1

"
10

fiUTTER lONGITUDINAL SLOP

Figure : A4 c

Collation of hydraulic data for 20m inlets in single

cross slope(no gutter) carriageways- Zb =25-30

ARRB SR 34, 1986

GUTTER LOWilTUOIIiAL SlOPE

So lm/nl

Figure : A4d

$ 0 lm/n)

Collation of hydraulic data for 20m inlets in single

cross slope {no gutter) carriageways- Zb = 30-40

123

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

124

ARRB SR 34, 1986

AppendixB
Forms for use by designers

Heading blocks for the four main forms used

in the minor drainage system design procedure
are provided in this appendix. Designers may
copy the blocks and incorporate them into
blank forms appropriate to their needs without
penalty under Section 40 of the Copyright Act
1968.
TABLE I : Catchment definition data
This table lists all basic catchment data
needed for the design process. The required
data are drawn from development plans, topographic surveys and hydraulic charts.
TABLE 4 : Flow estimation in primary drainage
1i nes
Catchment data transferred from Table I to
Table 4 form the base for calculating maximum
design flows in all primary drainage lines.
The table also includes provision (Remarks
column) for listing gutter inlet type/size
selections made for DETERMINATE drainage
lines. Catchments in Northern and Intermediate Australla (see Section 5.3, text) which
include resi denti a1 components show two runoff coefficients in Column 25 -one for fullarea analysis and one for part-area analysis
as explained in Section 5.6, text.
TABLE 6 : Flow estimation in main drain pipe1i nes
Hydrological data transferred from Table 4 to
Table 6 provide the base for calculating maximum design flows in all main drain pipelines.
The layout of the table aids the sub-area
'gathering' process undertaken in STEP 6.
Provision is made in Column 27 for the inclusion of two runoff coefficients in the case of
residential components in Northern and Intermediate Australia.
TABLE 8/9

Underground network hydraulic

design
Table 8/9 brings together catchment data selected from Table I and design flows collated
from Tables 4 and 6, Its layout enables pipe
sizes to be selected and hydraulic grade line
computations to be performed. The Remarks
column is used to record junction pit invert
levels subject to possible downwards correction as part of the final design process, Designers must select an appropriate value for
the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, f, to be
inserted into the heading of Column 17.
Values off are listed in Section 6.7, text.
ARRB SR 34, 1986

. CATCHMENT

"'

SUB-CATCHMENT

SUB-AREA NODE PIT

...

ENTRY POINT

"'

GUTTER INVERT
LEVEL RL

-l
)>

OJ
rn

._.

COMPONENT

"'
_,
0>

"'
~

:::
~

"'
~

...
~

"'

DESCRIPTION

,.....n

HYDROLOGICAL
SURFACE
CLASSIFICATION

"'

"'"'z

....
AREA OR .
EQUIVALENT AREA
0
TYPE OF CONTRIBUT'N "'
-n
z
CONC. OR DISTR.
=<
Total length,
0
L, metres

Fall, metres
Effective length,
Leff, metres
Slope So near
terminal inlet

0
:0

:z

,.

...

:z

0"'

.... "'
,..,,-

,.~

:o:z

"'"'

zn
)>0
r-:z

_<

Carriageway

:z"'
,-::<:

cross -slope, Zb
Capacity flow
Guideline 1' L/s

""'"',--n

m:z
0

,.;:

:0
~

"'

"'
,.

"'

:0

""

V\

125

<!)

-"'"'
TABLE 6
SUB-AREA
(/)

1--

0:

~~

zO
~0

:::;

::c
(.)

1--

<3
z
~

COMPONENT

~"'

z~
~~

r<
,~

:5

"'

0.

0..

0
0.

"'
~

"'

~
~

"""

2 3

z
0
;:::

""
>~.e:
~
~""
z
u~ "
~.~
1

~
~

r"' z

""c;
0
0

o ~

!: i

TIME
OF
COMPONENT TRAVEL
IME TO CHANNEL OR
UNDERGROUND PIPE
overland allotment
0
-:.:
flo.,..
tlrain

~
~

"' "6

--

travel

IJ')~:.e,E.eeE.c:.eE.z:.ee

._,

~=;; go'"~ g'f- E g'~ ~ g': E lc

Ql!.!!- ... "'1 :;;;; m1n

-.... -~.:::
.., 1- -Gl E--=
1 min.
7
6191"1>111 l12l13l14l15l16f17f16f19f 20

ti

lanalys~
fuli- Ipart-

P
area area

tc

min

min.

21

22

-full-area I1 part-crea
...
~---:
in for
"'""'1~

:::l

aJ

<(

=
u
"

analysis

i.n for

"
:3

ha.

ha.

26

27

REMARKS

part-area
part- analysis analysis
On tor
On tor
N::: years N: years
tulh:~rea

2s

'

a:

(/)

a:
a:

On= !Ct~36i.n Us

t i N= years N: years
min.
24
25
23

""'"'a:

N:: -YEARS

CUMULATIVE
MAINLINE FLOWS
COMPONENT iCUMULATIVE FROM TOTAL
UPSTREAM
ICA)n
ICA>n
CATCHMENT

AREA

(analysis)

5. ~ ~ @ .S ~ 5 T .~ ~ .S tuu-1 partI'
ll'loo-CII'-'-'-' area area
~

a ""
"'
>- "' :S
~

ENTRY
COMPONENT PROGRESSIVE RAINFALL INTENSITIES
CHANNEl OR U/G
TOTAl
CRITICAL
i.n mm/h FOR
PIPE TRAVEL TO
TRAVEL
STORM
PROGRESSIVE CR111CAL
NODE PIT
TIME TO
DURATION
STORM DURATION IN
utter or u/ground NODE PIT
IN TOTAL
TOTAL UPSTREAM
natural
pipe
UPSTREAM
CATCHMENT AREA
.ot

channel

FLOW ESTIMATION IN MAIN DRAIN PIPELINES:

ha

29

ha.

30

ha.

L/s

Lis

31

32

33

34

...J
...J
<(

:::;
(/)

z
z

(!)
(/)

TABLE 4

(!)
<(

z
:;;:
a:

....

:::;
a:
0

I(/)

>-

:z

0
w
"-'!;;: 0::
":>:,_,

>:r:,

:z

'
~:::> :::>

'-'CXl CXl

wv>

"'

TIME
ENTRY
OF
COMPONENT
RAINFALL
COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL INTENSITIES lnmm/h.
TIME TO CHANNEL DR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
FOR STORM
UNDERGROUND PIPE
ENTRY POINT TIME TO DURATIONS WHICH
ENTRY
ARE CRITICAL
overland allotment gu:;er or u/grouno
0
natural
p1pe
-c
POINT
drain
flow
--'
:z: ~channel travel

~ 0 ~
(analysis) full-area part-area
w
>- ~"0
<( ~
~
w
analysis analysis
0"-'- -c E ~ C
c:: full- part" E c: E
--' w ~ " ~ ,
E.
e
e
'
o < r - ~.!:
.c I I .c' E. E' .:: e e ...c:::: E E area area i..n for i.n for
0:: u.. ~ -o_
0
I
~
~ .!_ OJ
0
0:: o ' ' 0.
~ c - E g'~E
li
>-:::>__, ~ "' "'
c o E
r:::
E t,
N= years N= years
CJ
tg OJ
~ - ~ ~:;:
OJ

:r: "' u min.

~min. min.
6
7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21
22
23

PRIMARY DRAINAGE
CONTRIBUTING AREA

"-

w
....
z 00
:>:
"' :z:
o-:r:

FLOW ESTIMATION IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES' N = -YEARS

0::

>zw

1 2 3 4

:z:

>zw

~
,_

"-

0::

"-

w
w
0

:>:

"'

0
u

--

-11i

---

;g

"'"
0

:;:

y
~
~

w
0::

$>

..E

---

~
~
~

"

"

ha

24

25

PRIMARY
CONTRIBUTING
AREA
z
COMPONENl 0
TOTAL FLOW
;::
:::> AT NOMINATED
ICAln
CXl
ENTRY POINT
o:
....
On=
ICAln Ln L/
:z:
036
s
0
I analysis) w
full-area part-area
analysis ana.!.l:>is
0
full- part- w
On for
On for
area area ">- N= years N= years
~

>-

ha.

ha. Oar(

26

27

26

--'
...,,;

o'-

3--'
~

....

REMARKS
!Gutter inlet

:r::>: selections for

>-::J
3 - DETERMINATE
....
~
o::-<> lines included
~
o_-

:>:~

here l

0>-

L/s

L/s

u-

29

30

31

32

<!)

"'

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CATCHMENT
SUB-CATCHMENT
SUB-AREA NODE PIT
JUNCTION PIT AND

~
N

GUTTER INVERT R.L's

COMPONENT
U1

DESCRIPTION
a-.

FLOW L/s

LENGTH m
LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

"' GUIDELINE 4
=E:
1-+(_:_Ta..:.b:..:l.:_e. . :6:.. .4.:..:1:.___ _ _-J ~
c; GUIDELINE 5
"' -u --1
!-+_:_(T....:a:..:b..:.le::.....:6_4.:. :1_ _ _ _--1 ~ ""'
~ ;o ASSIGNED WATER
~
~
~ r LEVEL (AWL)
co
3
-a
;:;\
TRIAL PIPE DIAMETER Do

6;

VELOCITY, V0 =
~

PIT LOSS CASE

!Tables 65 & 661

"'

YAo m/s

AWL minus BWL

z+

v,

.o
0

'

i3

? ADOPTED

-<

Vl
"'
-<
N

DIAMETER

~ BWL & HYDRAULIC

w ~ GRADE LINE

Vl

z
II
I

-<
~

"'

Vl

ARAB SR 34, 1986

127

STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

128

ARRB SR 34, 1986

Symbols and abbreviations

drainage unit area (ha)

gravitational acceleration, 9,81 mfs2

A;

impervious drainage unit area

hf

pipe friction headloss

Ao

junction pit 2outflow pipe area

(= nD /4)

hw

junction pit headloss (water level)

H.G.L.

hydraulic grade line

pervious drainage unit area

average rainfall intensity (mm/h)

AEP

annual exceedence probability (years)

ARI

average recurrence interval (years)

AR&R

'Australian Rainfall and Runoff'

AWL

junction pit assigned water level

(see Fig. 6,12)

pipe boundary roughness (mm or m)

junction pit bottom water level

(see Fig. 6.12)

coefficient of S0
Fig. 6.2

BWL
C

runoff coefficient

C;

runoff coefficient - impervious area

runoff coefficient - pervious area

iy

average rainfall intensity,

ARI = 10-years, duration = 1 hour

lf2

(CA)

equivalent impervious area (ha)

triangular channel flow depth (m)

kerb-side flow depth

Kw

junction pit headloss coefficient

(water level)
length of overland travel as shallow
sheet flow (m) (see Fig. 5.3)

llim

limit of overland travel as shallow

sheet flow

carriageway or pipe length (m)

Leff

effective length of drainage path

(see Table 1, Chapter 11)

pavement edge flow depth

di

in eqn (6.9),

hydraulic conductivity (m/s)

weighted runoff coefficient

[see eqn {4.7)]
runoff coefficient, ARI = Y-years

average rainfall intensity,

ARI = Y-years

grating inlet perimeter (m),

excluding kerb

gutter sag inlet water depth above

1 ip

side-entry inlet opening length (m)

pipe diameter (mm or m)

Do

junction pit outflow pipe diameter

Dt

diameter, cross-connection pipe

(see Table 6.4)

Manning's 'n' (see Section 5.5'

Darcy-Weisbach friction factor

[see eqn (6.14)]

na

Manning's 'n' - gutter

frequency conversion factor

(see Table 5.5)

nb

Manning's 'n' - pavement

Fy

NR

Reyno 1d's Number =

FRC

fibre-reinforced cement {pipes)

ARRB SR 34, 1986

M-years design ARI for major system 'gap

flow' (see Table 5.2 A & B)
Table 6.1)

VoDo
v

129

drainage channel longitudinal slope

N-years design ARI for minor system

(see Table 5.2 A &B)

(m/m)

discharge rate (m3 /s or L/s)

time (mins)

Oc

roadway reserve capacity flow

(see Table 9.1A)

tc

time of concentration or travel time

from extremity of pervious area

discharge rate - full area

(see Section 4.5)

ti

travel time from extremity of

impervious area

triangular channel gutter flow component or 11 frontal flow 11

TAi

tributary (impervious) area

(see Table 9.2)

Og

gutter flow to junction pit via inlet

T,N,P,

terminal node pit (see Section 7,1)

T.N.S.
Ogap

'gap flow' (see Section 5,4)

terminal node section

(see Section 7.1)

Oi

gutter sag inlet flow

velocity (m/s)
channel flow average velocity

lateral pipe flow to junction pit

Vave

01
On

peak discharge rate, ARI

Oo

outflow discharge from catchment or

from junction pit

width of flow spread from kerb (m)

Op

discharge rate - part area

(see Section 4.5)

Y-years

general ARI expression

Opeak

peak discharge rate

reciprocal of channel cross-slope

Osc

roadway reserve storage-corrected

flow (see Table 9.1B)

Za

reciprocal of gutter cross-slope

Ot

triangular or composite channel

tot a 1 f1 ow

Ou

upstream pipe flow to junction pit

Oy

peak discharge rate, ARI

hydraulic radius (m)

(see Section 6,1)

RO

residential density (residences/hal

slope of natural surface (m/m)

130

junction pit outflow pipe average

velocity (= 00 /Ao)

N-years

= Y-years

reciprocal of pavement cross-slope

triangular flow correction factor

(see Section 6.1)
A

channel flow multiplier

(see Fig. 5.4)

upstream-downstream pipe deviation

angle at junction pit (see Table 6,6)

kinematic viscosity (water)

= 1.14 x lQ-6 m2js at 15C

ARRB SR 34, 1986

.I