WEFTEC®.

07

TRACTIVE FORCE DESIGN FOR SELF-CLEANSING OF SANITARY SEWERS

(WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

LaVere B. Merritt
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng’g
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602

ABSTRACT

The new edition of the WEF FD 5/ASCE MOP 60 manual recommends use of the tractive force
approach for self-cleansing design of gravity sanitary sewers. The tractive force approach is a
major improvement in designing gravity sewers to achieve self-cleansing. This approach results
in a self-cleansing slope value, Smin, for the combination of sewer diameter, design particle size,
d, and design minimum flowrate, Qmin, for each reach in a sewer system. The fundamental
relationship used is τ = γRhS. Design minimum flowrate, Qmin, is defined as the largest one-hour
flowrate during the lowest flow week over the design life of the sanitary sewer pipe being
designed. A Qmin value for a reach is normally generated by using the relationship Qmin = Qavg1 ×
P1, where P1 is a peaking factor. In general, past design practice has not required accurate
estimation of Qmin values, but they are crucial to tractive force design. Design equations and
plots are available that facilitate obtaining Smin. The end result of using the tractive force
approach is a design minimum slope tailored for each pipe reach. As compared to traditional
minimum slopes, these slopes will be flatter for smaller diameter sewers carrying typical to
larger Qmin values and steeper for larger diameter sewers carrying typical to smaller Qmin values.

KEYWORDS: tractive force self-cleansing design, sanitary sewer self-cleansing, sewer self-
cleansing,

INTRODUCTION

The new edition of the WEF FD 5/ASCE MOP 60 manual, Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and
Construction, recommends the tractive force approach for self-cleansing design of gravity
sanitary sewers. Most engineers have not had experience with this methodology. The Tractive
Force approach is a major advance in more accurately designing gravity sewers to achieve self-
cleansing. This paper presents an overview of the “new” tractive force design methodology.
Proper application of the tractive force method hinges on selection of an appropriate “design”
sediment particle and even more on a good, realistic estimate of design minimum flowrate, Qmin,
for each sewer reach. This approach results in a tailored self-cleansing slope value, Smin, for the
combination of sewer diameter, design particle size, d, and design minimum flowrate, Qmin, for
each reach in the sewer system.

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3818
 WEFTEC®.07

DESIGN MINIMUM FLOWRATE

For each reach in the sewer, a realistic estimate of Qmin is needed to apply the tractive force
design approach. Design minimum flowrate is defined as the largest one-hour flowrate for the
lowest flow week during the design life of the sewer. Note that the absolute lowest flowrate is
much smaller than Qmin. The underpinning concept is that Qmin will occur often enough to move
deposited solids before they congeal and form a cohesive mat. Qmin will occur more frequently
than once a week during all periods except the design low flow week--as flowrates build up in
the sewer, the required self-cleansing will occur several times a day or even continuously.

CALCULATION OF DESIGN MINIMUM FLOWRATE. Using one of the approaches

outlined in Chapter 3 of the Manual, average daily flowrate, Qavg1, is established for each reach
in the sewer system. This Qavg1 is for the low flow period in the pipe, usually when it is first
placed into service; it is needed to generate Qmin. See Table 1 for typical average flows; most
communities have average flowrate values in the 60 to 80 gpcd (230 to 300 lpcd) range, which
considerably less than the 100 gpcd (380 lpcd) that is used widely for design. The most direct
way of generating the needed Qmin is to use the equation Qmin = Qavg1 × P1, where P1 is a peaking
factor. Obviously, accurate estimates for Qmin depend on good estimates for both Qavg1 and P1.
Downstream from pumping stations, Qmin is determined by pumping capacity and indirectly by
Qavg1 upstream of the pumping station.

PEAKING FACTORS

In general, peaking factors decrease with increasing average flow; this downstream decrease is
mainly due to the out-of-phase combination of upstream peaks from contributing tributaries.
Most empirical peaking factor equations are based on the general form: P = K × Q -n where P =
peaking factor, K = a coefficient, Q = average daily flow, and n = an exponent < <0.5 . Figure 1
was developed by the Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, California, and has been in
use since 1962; in equation form, it is P = 2.64 × Q-0.095. The Los Angeles curve has been
checked against recent actual flow measurements in that area and found to be quite accurate.
Other ways, some are mentioned in the Manual, may be used to determine peaking factors;
however, the goal is accurate values for peaking factors. The use of overly large “conservative”
values for P, that in the past have been used primarily just for capacity design, is strongly
discouraged since inflated values result in flatter design minimum slopes than are actually
needed.

Most of the upper peaking factor curves given in Figure 2 are actually “envelop” curves from an
earlier era. When they are applied to new system design they often result in overly large P
estimates that, in turn, generate overly large Qmin values. The lower curves in the maximum-flow
group are closer to the values obtained from Figure 1. Again, the use of inflated Qmin values
results in minimum slopes that are too flat for the situation—the quest must be one for accurate
estimates for Qmin values; not values intentionally estimated to be too small or too large. It might
also be noted that the “minimum flow” curves in Figure 2 are not for the Qmin described in this
section, but rather are related to the “absolute” lowest flow expected in the sewer.

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3819
 WEFTEC®.07

TABLE 1. Residential Wastewater Average Daily Flows

(Used with permission of ASCE & WEF, Table 3-6, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3820
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 1. Ratio of peak flow to average daily flow in Los Angeles

(Used with permission of ASCE & WEF, Fig. 3-3, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3821
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 2. Ratio of extreme flows to average daily flow.

(Used with permission of ASCE & WEF, Fig. 3-1, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3822
 WEFTEC®.07

SUMMARY OF STEPS TO GENERATE DESIGN MINIMUM FLOWRATES

For the design minimum flow period—usually for the beginning of service of the sewer--the
recommended procedure to estimate design minimum flowrates, Qmin, is:

1. Tabulate the average flows for each subarea, including residential, nonresidential, and I/I
flows. These flows are the estimated average daily flows coming from each of the subareas.

2. Accumulate (add together) subarea average flows down through the entire system. The
resulting accumulated flows are the estimates of average daily flows point by point (manhole by
manhole) down through the entire sewer system.

3. Apply peaking factors (equations) to each point (manhole) down through the system, thus
generating the self-cleansing design flows. These flows generated from Qavq1 are the Qmin values
needed for self-cleansing design using the tractive force method.

The same procedure may be used to generate the design maximum flowrates to be used for
capacity design. Those calculations are for the design capacity day and are based on average
flows, Qavq2, for the design day and are likewise multiplied by peaking factors to generate Qmax
values needed for capacity design.

TRACTIVE FORCE

The average shear stress exerted by flowing fluid on a conduit can be expressed as τo = γRhS.
Where τo is the average fluid shear force acting on the pipe, γ is the unit weight of water, Rh is
the hydraulic radius (Rh = Water cross-section area/Wetted Perimeter), and S is the pipe slope.
Tractive force design is based on the concept that there exists a design discrete grit particle that
will be transported often enough so that it does not accumulate into a permanent cohesive
sediment layer along the pipe invert. All other solids are considered more easily transported than
this design particle. At design minimum flow, Qmin, this design particle is not suspended in the
turbulent flow but is dragged along the conduit invert as moving bedload. This occurs since the
fluid shear stress on the particle is larger than the frictional resistance acting on the particle.

REQUIRED TRACTIVE FORCE. Experiments done by Raths and McCauley (1962)

identified critical tractive forces needed as a function of particle size. Their results may be
expressed as τc = kd0.277 (Haestad, 2004) where k = 0.0181 for BG units (τc in lb/ft2) and 0.867
for SI units (τc in N/m2) and d is the nominal diameter in mm for a discrete mineral particle of
2.7 specific gravity. This equation can also be used to evaluate existing systems. It yields the
largest particle moving down an existing pipe of given diameter and slope for a given flowrate.

DESIGN PARTICLE SIZE. A 1.0 mm design particle is considered appropriate for typical
domestic sewage. Using the equation above, a 1.0 mm design particle is associated with a
critical shear stress of 0.0181 lb/ft2 (0.867 N/m2). In sewers where larger quantities of larger grit
occur than is typical, it would be judicious to increase the design particle size somewhat, maybe
to 1.5 to 2.0 mm, or even larger in extreme cases where an extraordinary amount of larger grit is
expected in the sewer.

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3823
 WEFTEC®.07

MANNING n VALUES

The Darcy-Weisbach equation is generally accepted as the most accurate equation for fluid flow.
By combining the Manning and Darcy-Weisbach equations, setting S=HL/L and D=4Rh in the
Darcy-Weisbach equation, one obtains n = kRh1 / 6 f 1 / 2 , where k = 0.0926 for BG units and 0.1129
for SI units. Thus the Manning n depends on hydraulic radius and φ(diameter, velocity, viscosity
and pipe roughness). Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between these variables. Water
temperature effect via viscosity in the Reynolds Number is relatively small over normal
temperature ranges in sewage. Likewise, for the common range of sewer conduit roughness--
from about 0.0001 ft (0.03 mm), a value for smooth-finish concrete, to about 0.000005 ft (0.0015
mm) for plastics—physical roughness differences cause relatively small differences in n.
However, for large roughness values, greater than about 0.0001 ft, n values begin to increase
very significantly with increasing effective roughness—as increasing roughness, ε, values move
the flow regime away from the hydraulically smooth boundary. For increasingly rougher
conduits, ε/D values become increasingly important and significantly increase Manning n values.

FIGURE 3. Manning n vs velocity for selected roughness values for an 8” pipe.

(Used with permission of ASCE & WEF—Fig. 5-8, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3824
 WEFTEC®.07

RECOMMENDED VALUES FOR MANNING n

Most sewer design codes and reference sources, that typically recommend a Manning n value of
0.013 for sewer design, are based on observations and judgments from about 100 years ago.
More recently, researchers report that n actually ranges from about 0.008 to 0.011 (May,1986;
Straub, et. al., 1960; Tullis, 1986). These values are about the same as calculated from the Darcy-
Weisbach equation. Thus, it appears that for operating sewers, Manning’s n values are predicted
well by the empirical Darcy-Weisbach equation, and they range from about 15% to 40% less
than the traditional value of 0.013 used for n.

Some argue that in operating sewers a higher n value covers possible significant flow retardation
caused by pipe misalignment and joint irregularities, interior corrosion or coating buildup, cracks
and breaks, protruding or interfering laterals, sediment buildup, etc. While these factors result in
higher operating n values, their combined effect is normally moderate and causes far less
increase in n than exhibited by the traditional 0.013 value. Manning n values continuously
increase with increasing diameter. However, even for the larger diameters shown in Table 2 they
are still substantially lower than the traditional 0.013 value. With good installation and
maintenance, actual pipe capacities are significantly larger than capacities calculated using the
traditional n value of 0.013. Regulatory agencies are encouraged to allow informed discretion in
selecting n values. Values given in Table 2 are suggested (Haestad, 2004). Agencies are
encouraged to adopt similar values into their codes and guidelines.

Table 2. Suggested values of Manning’s n for sewer design calculations,

____________________________________________________________________________________
Pipe Diameters in inches
Condition. 6. 8. 10. 12. 15. 18. 24. 30. 36. 48. 60.
Extra care: 0.0092 0.0093 0.0095 0.0096 0.0097 0.0098 0.0100 0.0102 0.0103 0.0105 0.0107
Typical: 0.0106 0.0107 0.0109 0.0110 0.0112 0.0113 0.0115 0.0117 0.0118 0.0121 0.0123
Substandard 0.0120 0.0121 0.0123 0.0125 0.0126 0.0127 0.0130 0.0133 0.0134 0.0137 0.0139
______________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Extra care values are calculated from the Darcy Weisbach equation for 60o F, 2.0 fps velocity, ε=0.0001 ft., typical values
are 15% higher than extra care values, Substandard values are 30% higher than extra care values. (After Haestad et al., 2004).

PROCEDURE FOR USING TRACTIVE FORCE TO CALCULATE SELF-CLEANSING

SEWER SLOPES

The recommended approach to determine Smin is to use the equations from the variable n column
of Tables 3 or 4. These equations give the Qmin vs. Smin relationships for a depth range of 0.10 to
0.50 full. Alternately, the designer may use the plotted Qmin vs. Smin relationships from which the
equations were developed and pick the required Smin from the graph. Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 give
these relationships. A third approach can be used for any values for pipe diameter, design
particle size and design minimum flowrate—it is the iterative solution of the cross section,
hydraulic and tractive force equations that describe the situation—see the Manual.

TABLE 3. Design Equations for Smin -- BG – Units

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3825
 WEFTEC®.07

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Table 5-5, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

TABLE 4. Design Equations for Smin -- SI Units

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Table 5-6, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3826
 WEFTEC®.07

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3827
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 4. Self-cleansing slopes as a function of Qmin -- calculated Manning n (BG units)

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Figure 5-9, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3828
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 5. Self-cleansing slopes as a function of Qmin – Manning n = 0.013 (BG units)

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Figure 5-10, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3829
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 6. Self-cleansing slopes as a function of Qmin – calculated Manning n (SI units)

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Figure 5-11, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3830
 WEFTEC®.07

FIGURE 7. Self-cleansing slopes as a function of Qmin – Manning n = 0.013 (SI units)

(With permission of ASCE & WEF, Figure 5-12, WEF FD 5 /ASCE MOP 60)

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3831
 WEFTEC®.07

OBSERVATIONS

1. When design minimum flow rates are larger than about 0.04 cfs for 6 inch (0.001 m3/s for 150
mm), 0.06 cfs for 8 inch (0.002 m3/s for 200 mm), 0.12 cfs for 10 inch (0.003 m3/s for 250 mm),
etc, required Smin values are increasingly smaller than traditional minimum slopes. Conversely,
for smaller Qmin ranges, steeper slopes than the traditional values for full-pipe, 2 fps (0.6 mps)
velocity are needed.

2. If a larger pipe is selected in order to use a smaller minimum slope, as sometimes done under
past criteria, the self-cleansing situation is actually worse than if a smaller size were used at the
larger pipe’s minimum slope. For example, for Qmin = 0.06 cfs, an 8-inch diameter pipe would
require a 0.004 slope for self-cleansing, while a 10-inch diameter pipe would need an ~0.006
slope, rather than the 0.0028 minimum slope under old criteria

3. Smin values are quite sensitive to changes in Qmin, especially for the smaller diameters and
lower flow rates. This fact highlights the need to establish the best possible estimates for Qmin so
that the Smin values selected are likewise appropriate.

4. Relatively speaking, traditional minimum slopes for larger diameters do not self-cleanse as
well as those for smaller diameters. This finding has been reported earlier by others, Merritt
(1998) and Yao (1974). They have shown that the use of a given full-pipe velocity value (i.e., 2
fps) often results in over-design of small diameter pipes (steeper than needed) and under-design
(flatter than needed) of larger ones.

CONCLUSION

The tractive force approach to self-cleansing design of sanitary sewers now provides a more
accurate approach than traditional methods. Its inclusion in the new edition of Gravity Sanitary
Sewer Design and Construction, WEF FD 5/ASCE MOP 60, should facilitate a timely transition
to this improved design approach.

______________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES CITED
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007, Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction,
WEF FD 5/ASCE MOP 60
Haestad Methods, T.M. Walski, T.E. Barnard, E. Harold, L.B. Merritt, N. Walker, and B.E.
Whitman, 2004. Wastewater Collection System Modeling and Design, Haestad Press,
Waterbury, CT.
May, D.K., 1986. A Study of Manning’s Coefficient for Commercial Concrete and Plastic Pipes,
T. Bench Hydraulics Laboratory, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Merritt, L.B., 1998, Manning Roughness Coefficient in Sewer Design, Sewer Design Paper #98-
2, Brigham Young Univ, Provo, Utah.
Raths, C.W. and R.R. McCauley, 1962. Deposition in a Sanitary Sewer, Water and Sewage
Works, 192-197.

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3832
 WEFTEC®.07

Straub, L.G., C.E. Bowers and M. Puch, 1960. Resistance to Flow in Two Types of Concrete
Pipes, Technical paper No. 22, Series B, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Tullis, J.P., 1986. Friction Factor Tests on Concrete Pipes, Hydraulic Report No. 157, Water
Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Yao, K.M., 1974. Sewer Line Design Based on Critical Shear Stress. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 100, No. EE2, 507-520.

Copyright © 2007 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved

3833