Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ModernSewer Chapter4
ModernSewer Chapter4
Hydraulics of
Storm Sewers
89
90
91
V1
V2
X
Uniform Flow
V1= V2
Bernoulli Equation
92
EGL
HGL
V1 2/2g
y1
1
1
hf
Sf
Sw
V2 2/2g
V1
y2
1
Z1
V2
So
DATUM LINE
Z2
#1
#2
H=y+
V2
+ Z + hf
2g
h f = Headloss
V = Mean Velocity
Z = Height above Datum
HGL = Hydraulic Grade Line
S f = Slope of EGL
Sw = Slope of HGL
V2
2g = Velocity Head
EGL = Energy Grade Line
S o = Slope of Bottom
The total energy at point #1 is equal to the total energy at point #2 thus
yl + Zl +
V12
V2
= y2 + Z2 + 2 +hf
2g
2g
For pressure or closed conduit flow, the Bernoulli Equation can be written as:
2
V12
P1
P
+
+ Zl = V2 + 2 + Z2 + hf
2g
2g
Where P = pressure at given location
= specific weight of fluid
Horizontal
Line
V1 /2g
Sf
P1
Sw
hf
1
1
V2 2/2
g
HGL
P2
V1
V2
Z1
Z2
DATUM LINE
#1
#2
EGL
93
SPECIFIC ENERGY
or
V2cr T
=1
gA
Vcr = (g A/T)1/2
Subcritical range
(upper-stage flow)
Depth, y
yu
Vu2
2g
Vc2
2g
yc (critical depth)
VL2
2g
yL
Q = constant
E
Supercritical range
(lower-stage flow)
V2
Q2
=y+
2 g A2
2g
1/3
94
Q
1000
D
Diameter (mm)
Discharge Q (m3/s)
1000
Pivot Line
10000
10
ycr / D (m)
0.1
ycr
100
Vcr2 / D (m)
1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.99
4
6
10
40
100
0.1
0.01
95
ENERGY LOSSES
96
700
Pipe Arch
600
500
400
ycr Cannot Exceed Top of Pipe
300
1030 mm x 740 mm
910 mm x 660 mm
680 mm x 500 mm
560 mm x 420 mm
200
100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
Discharge - Q (m3/s)
Figure 4.6A
1200
Pipe Arch
1000
800
600
400
2130 mm x 1400 mm
1880 mm x 1260 mm
1630 mm x 1120 mm
1390 mm x 970 mm
200
0.2
Figure 4.6B
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
Discharge - Q (m3/s)
CRITICAL DEPTH
STANDARD C.S. PIPE-ARCH
Figure 4.6 Critical depth curves for standard corrugated steel pipe
97
2000
Pipe Arch
1500
1000
ycr Cannot Exceed Top of Pipe
3400 mm x 2010 mm
2590 mm x 1880 mm
2240 mm x 1630 mm
2060 mm x 1520 mm
500
Figure 4.7A
Discharge - Q (m3/s)
3500
3000
Pipe Arch
2500
2000
1500
1000
6250 mm x 3910 mm
5490 mm x 3530 mm
5050 mm x 3330 mm
4370 mm x 2870 mm
500
10
Figure 4.7B
15
20
25
30
35
40
Discharge - (m3/s)
CRITICAL DEPTH
STRUCTURAL PLATE
C.S. PIPE-ARCH
98
Table 4.1
Round Pipe
Diameter
(mm)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Area
(m2)
0.07
0.13
0.2
0.28
0.39
0.5
0.64
0.79
1.13
1.54
2.01
2.54
3.14
Pipe-Arch
(13 mm Corrugation)
Size
(mm)
Area
(m2)
450 x 340
0.11
560 x 420
0.19
680 x 500
0.27
800 x 580
0.37
910 x 660
0.48
1030 x 740
0.61
1150 x 820
0.74
1390 x 970
1.06
1630 x 1120
1.44
1880 x 1260
1.87
2130 x 1400
2.36
Structural
Plate Arch
Size
(mm)
Area
(m2)
Size
(mm)
Area
(m2)
1330 x 1030
1550 x 1200
1780 x 1360
2010 x 1530
1.09
1.48
1.93
2.44
1520 x 8100
1830 x 8400
1830 x 9700
2130 x 8600
2130 x 1120
2440 x 1020
2440 x 1270
2740 x 1180
2740 x 1440
3050 x 1350
3050 x 1600
3350 x 1360
3350 x 1750
3660 x 1520
3660 x 1910
3960 x 1680
3960 x 2060
4270 x 1840
4270 x 2210
4570 x 1870
4570 x 2360
4880 x 2030
4880 x 2520
5180 x 2180
5180 x 2690
5490 x 2210
5490 x 2720
5790 x 2360
5790 x 2880
6100 x 2530
6100 x 3050
0.98
1.16
1.39
1.39
1.86
1.86
2.42
2.46
3.07
3.16
3.81
3.44
4.65
4.18
5.48
5.02
6.5
5.95
7.43
6.41
8.55
7.43
9.75
8.55
11.06
9.01
11.71
10.22
13.01
11.52
14.59
Area
(m2)
2060 x 1520
2240 x 1630
2440 x 1750
2590 x 1880
2690 x 2080
3100 x 1980
3400 x 2010
3730 x 2290
3890 x 2690
4370 x 2870
4720 x 3070
5050 x 3330
5490 x 3530
5890 x 3710
6250 x 3910
7040 x 4060
7620 x 4240
2.49
2.9
3.36
3.87
4.49
4.83
5.28
6.61
8.29
9.76
11.38
13.24
15.1
17.07
19.18
22.48
25.27
.157
.257
.356
.451
.541
.624
.697
.755
.788
.072
.167
.267
.365
.460
.550
.632
.704
.760
.081
.177
.277
.375
.470
.559
.640
.710
.764
.090
.187
.287
.385
.479
.567
.647
.716
.769
.03
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
.148
.216
.271
.312
.342
.360
.365
.355
.299
.078
.156
.222
.275
.315
.344
.361
.365
.353
.086
.163
.228
.280
.319
.346
.362
.364
.350
.094
.170
.234
.284
.322
.348
.363
.364
.348
.102
.177
.240
.289
.325
.350
.363
.363
.344
.04
.100
.197
.297
.394
.488
.576
.655
.722
.772
.04
.110
.184
.245
.293
.328
.352
.364
.362
.341
.05
.109
.207
.307
.404
.497
.584
.662
.728
.776
.05
.118
.191
.250
.297
.331
.354
.364
.361
.337
.06
.119
.217
.316
.413
.506
.592
.670
.734
.780
.06
.138
.237
.336
.432
.524
.608
.684
.745
.785
.08
.126
.197
.256
.301
.334
.355
.365
.360
.332
.07
.133
.204
.261
.305
.337
.357
.365
.359
.326
.08
Values of
.128
.227
.326
.423
.515
.600
.677
.740
.783
.07
Values of
.141
.210
.266
.308
.339
.358
.365
.357
.318
.09
R
D
.148
.247
.346
.442
.533
.616
.690
.750
.787
.09
A
BD
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.982
.997
.976
.932
.870
.784
.664
.486
.900
.986
.996
.971
.927
.863
.773
.649
.462
.914
.990
.995
.967
.921
.855
.763
.634
.437
.927
.993
.993
.964
.916
.847
.752
.618
.410
.03
.938
.995
.991
.960
.910
.839
.741
.602
.381
.04
= Depth of flow
= Rise of conduit
= Span of conduit
= Area of flow
= Hydraulic radius
= Top width of flow
Table 4.4
Determination of top width
y
.00
.01
.02
D
y
D
B
A
R
T
.948
.997
.989
.956
.904
.830
.729
.585
.349
.05
Table 4.3
Determination of hydraulic radius
y
.00
.01
.02
.03
D
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
Table 4.2
Determination of area
y
.01
.02
D .00
.956
.998
.987
.951
.897
.822
.717
.567
.313
.06
.964
.998
.985
.947
.891
.813
.704
.548
.272
.07
.971
.998
.982
.942
.884
.803
.691
.528
.223
.08
Values of
T
B
.976
.999
.979
.937
.877
.794
.678
.508
.158
.09
.000
.041
.112
.198
.293
.393
.492
.587
.674
.745
.785
.001
.047
.120
.207
.303
.403
.502
.596
.681
.750
.004
.053
.128
.217
.313
.413
.512
.605
.689
.756
.007
.060
.136
.226
.323
.423
.521
.614
.697
.761
.03
.00
.000
.063
.121
.171
.214
.250
.278
.296
.304
.298
.250
y
D
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
.007
.070
.126
.176
.218
.253
.280
.298
.304
.296
.01
.03
.020
.081
.136
.185
.226
.259
.284
.300
.304
.292
.02
.013
.075
.131
.180
.222
.256
.282
.299
.304
.294
Table 4.6
Determination of hydraulic radius
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
Table 4.5
Determination of area
y
.02
.01
D .00
.026
.087
.142
.189
.229
.262
.286
.301
.304
.289
.04
.011
.067
.145
.236
.333
.433
.531
.623
.704
.766
.04
.033
.093
.147
.193
.233
.265
.288
.302
.303
.286
.05
.015
.074
.154
.245
.343
.443
.540
.632
.712
.771
.05
.039
.099
.152
.198
.236
.268
.290
.302
.303
.283
.06
.019
.081
.162
.255
.353
.453
.550
.640
.719
.775
.06
.029
.096
.180
.274
.373
.472
.569
.657
.732
.782
.08
.045
.104
.157
.202
.240
.270
.292
.303
.302
.279
.07
.051
.110
.161
.206
.243
.273
.293
.304
.301
.274
.08
Values of
.024
.089
.171
.264
.363
.462
.559
.649
.725
.779
.07
Values of
R
D
.057
.115
.166
.210
.247
.275
.295
.304
.299
.267
.09
.035
.104
.189
.284
.383
.482
.578
.666
.738
.784
.09
A
D2
.000 .199
.600 .626
.800 .815
.917 .925
.980 .984
1.000 1.000
.980 .975
.917 .908
.800 .785
.600 .572
.000
.280
.650
.828
.933
.987
.999
.971
.898
.768
.543
.341
.673
.842
.940
.990
.998
.966
.888
.751
.510
.03
.05
.436
.714
.866
.954
.995
.995
.954
.866
.714
.436
.04
.392
.694
.854
.947
.993
.997
.960
.877
.733
.475
.457
.733
.877
.960
.997
.993
.947
.854
.694
.392
.06
y
i.e. Given y = 300 mm, D = 400 mm,
= 0.75
D
R
A
From tables;
= 0.632,
= 0.302, T = 0.866
D
D
D2
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
Table 4.7
Determination of top width
y
.00
.01
.02
D
D = Diameter
y = Depth of flow
A = Area of flow
R = Hydraulic radius
T = Top width
.510
.751
.888
.966
.998
.990
.940
.842
.673
.341
.07
T
D
.09
.543 .572
.768 .785
.898 .908
.971 .975
.999 1.000
.987 .984
.933 .925
.828 .815
.650 .626
.280 .199
.08
Values of
100
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
101
FRICTION LOSSES
In North America, the Manning and Kutter equations are commonly used
to estimate the friction gradient for turbulent flow in storm sewers. In both
equations fully developed rough turbulent flow is assumed so that the head
loss per unit length of conduit is approximately proportional to the square
of the discharge (or velocity). Both equations use an empirical coefficient
n to describe the roughness of the channel boundary. Tables 4.9 and 4.10
give suggested values for n for various corrugation profiles and linings.
Manning Equation
The Manning Equation is one of a number of so-called exponential equations. It is widely used in open channel flow but can also be applied to
closed conduit flow. The equation is not dimensionally homogeneous and
a correction factor must be applied depending upon the system of units
being used.
1
V = n R2/3 S f 1/2
Where
(m/s)
V = average velocity
(m3/s)
Q = discharge
(m)
R = hydraulic radius = A/P
(m2)
A = cross-sectional area
(m)
P = wetted perimeter
Sf = friction gradient or slope of energy line
n = Mannings roughness coefficient (see Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10)
Table 4.8
Closed conduits
Asbestos-cement pipe
Brick
Cast iron pipe
Uncoated (new)
Asphalt dipped (new)
Cement-lined & seal coated
Concrete (monolithic)
Smooth forms
Rough forms
Concrete pipe
Plastic pipe (smooth)
Vitrified clay
Pipes
Liner plates
Open channels
Lined channels
a. Asphalt
b. Brick
c. Concrete
d. Rubble or riprap
e. Vegetal
Excavated or dredged
Earth, straight and uniform
Earth, winding, fairly uniform
Rock
Unmaintained
Natural Channels (minor streams, top width at flood stage <30m)
Fairly regular section
Irregular section with pools
Manning n
0.011-0.015
0.013-0.017
0.011-0.015
0.012-0.014
0.015-0.017
0.011-0.015
0.011-0.015
0.011-0.015
0.013-0.017
0.013-0.017
0.012-0.018
0.011-0.020
0.020-0.035
0.030-0.400
0.020-0.030
0.025-0.040
0.030-0.045
0.050-0.140
0.030-0.0700
0.040-0.100
102
Table 4.9
Annular
68 x 13 mm
All
Corrugations Diametres
Unpaved
25% Paved
Fully Paved
0.024
0.021
0.012
38 x 65 mm
200
0.012
250
68 x 13mm
300
400
500
600
900
1400 &
1200 Larger
Helical - 76 x 25mm
Annular
76 x 25 mm
Unpaved
25% Paved
Fully Paved
0.027
0.023
0.012
1200
1400
1600
1800
2200 &
2000 Larger
Annular
125 x 26 mm
Unpaved
25% Paved
Fully Paved
0.025
0.022
0.012
1400
1600
2000 &
1800 Larger
*AISI
Table 4.10
Corrugations
152 x 51mm
1500mm
2120mm
3050mm
4610mm
Plain unpaved
25% Paved
0.033
0.028
0.032
0.027
0.030
0.026
0.028
0.024
Figure 4.8 provides nomographs for estimating steady uniform flows for
pipes flowing full, using the Manning equation. In cases where conduits
are flowing only partly full, the corresponding hydraulic ratios may be
determined from Figures 4.9 and 4.10.
Kutter Equation
The Kutter Equation is used for open channel calculations in certain areas
of the United States. It is an empirically derived relation between the Chezy
coefficient C and the Manning roughness coefficient n.
Q = A.C.R1/2 . Sf1/2
where
1
23 + 0.001 55 + n
S
C=
n
1+
23 + 0.001 55
R
S
103
Although the friction slope Sf appears as a second order term in the expression for C the resulting discharge is not sensitive to this term. Table
4.11 shows the difference (%) in discharge computed using the Kutter equation compared with that obtained by Manning. The table gives the relationship between the diameter (D) and the hydraulic radius (R) assuming full
flow in a circular pipe. The values in Table 4.11 are also valid for noncircular
pipes flowing partially full.
Q
D/R
S
0.4
70,000
60,000
0.3
50,000
0.2
40,000
0.2
30,000
0.1
10,000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.01
0.5
0.4
0.3
1000
900
800
700
0.2
600
500
400
300
100
90
80
70
60
0.5
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
200
50
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.6
0.7
0.03
0.02
0.8
0.015
0.9
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.008
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.05
0.0001
0.00008
0.00006
0.00005
0.00004
0.04
40
0.00003
0.03
30
0.006
0.005
0.004
SLOPE, S
2000
200
300
0.6
0.7
MANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFFECIENT, n
3000
400
0.03
0.02
3000
1000
900
800
700
600
500
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.3
4000
4000
2000
0.08
TURNING LINE
20,000
3
100
0.00002
20
4
0.00001
0.000008
10
5
0.000006
0.000005
0.000004
104
FULL
90
Wetted perimeter
80
Area
70
60
50
Discharge
40
30
20
Hydraulic radius
10
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
FULL
90
80
Area
70
60
50
Discharge
Hydraulic radius
40
30
20
Velocity
10
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9 1.0
1.1
Hydraulic elements in terms of hydraulic for full section
1.2
1.3
105
Table 4.11
0.013
D-metres
R-metres
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
0.625
0.75
0.875
1
1.125
1.25
1.375
1.5
-0.31
1.15
1.34
1.20
0.94
0.64
0.32
0.00
-0.32
-0.62
-0.92
-1.21
0.02
0.03
-5.50
-2.20
-0.96
-0.38
-0.11
0.01
0.03
0.00
-0.07
-0.16
-0.27
-0.39
-6.74
-3.62
-2.19
-1.35
-0.82
-0.45
-0.19
0.00
0.14
0.24
0.31
0.36
The two equations give identical results for values of R close to l.0m
which represents a very large pipe of perhaps 3600mm diameter. For smaller
sized conduits, the difference is significant especially where the roughness
coefficient is large.
SOLVING THE FRICITION LOSS EQUATION
Of the three quantities (Q, Sf, yo) of greatest interest in open channel analysis the discharge Q and the friction slope Sf are easily obtained as they
appear explicitly in the equations. Because of the exponential form of the
Manning equation it is a simple matter to compute the friction slope Sf as a
function of velocity or discharge for known cross-sectional properties. Even
with the Kutter equation, the second order term in Sf is of little importance
and can be safely ignored as a first iteration when solving for Sf.
The third quantity is the normal depth yo, which is the depth at which
uniform flow would take place in a very long reach of channel. The normal
depth is less easily determined as it appears in the expressions for both
area A and hydraulic radius R. A trial and error solution is required except
for sections of straightforward geometry.
For partially-full circular channels a convenient semi-graphical method
of solution is provided by the curves describing proportional ratios of discharge, hydraulic radius, area and velocity expressed as a function of the
relative depth y/D. Two simple examples should give an indication of how
these curves can be used:
Example 1: Finding the normal depth yo.
A pipe of diameter l.0m (n = 0.013) has a gradient of 1.0% . It is required
to find the normal depth yo for a discharge of 2 m3/s
Step 1: Calculate the full-pipe capacity using Mannings equation for
D = l.0 m
For full-pipe flow R = D/4 = 0.25 m
Q=
(1)2 (0.25)2/3 (0.01) 1/2 / 0.0l3 = 2.4 m 3/s
4
106
Uniform flow is seldom attained except in very long reaches, free from any
form of transition. Gradually varied flow occurs as a form of gentle transition
from one stage of uniform flow to another and non-uniform flow is found to be
the rule rather than the exception.
The flow profiles of gradually varied flow can be classified in relation to the
normal depth yo and the critical depth ycr and the slope of the channel.
Channel slope is described as:
(I) MILD when yo > ycr i.e. So < Scr.
(2) STEEP when yo < ycr i.e. So > Scr.
Note that the critical slope Scr is slightly dependent on the stage or magnitude of flow, so that strictly speaking the description of Mild or Steep should
not be applied to the channel without regard to the flow conditions.
Most textbooks show five classes of channel slope: Mild, Steep, Critical,
Horizontal and Adverse. In practice the last three categories are special cases
of the first two and it is sufficient to consider them. In addition to the channel
slope, a profile of gradually varied flow can be classified depending on whether
it lies above, below or between the normal and critical depths. The three zones
may be defined as follows.
Zone I Profile lies above both yo and ycr
Zone 2 Profile lies between yo and ycr
Zone 3 Profile lies below both yo and ycr
107
Using the capitals M and S to denote Mild or Steep channel state and
the Zone number 1, 2 or 3, profiles may be classified as M1 or S3.
Figure 4.11 shows the idealized cases of the six basic profile types along
with typical circumstances in which they can occur.
M1
Horizontal
Horizontal
yn
S1
M2
ycr
ycr
yn
S2
M3
2
S3
Steep slope
so > 0.0, yn < ycr
Mild slope
so > 0.0, yn > ycr
S1
M1
yn
yn
ycr
ycr
M2
S2
ycr
yn
ycr
yn
S3
M1
M3
ycr
yn
ycr
yn
108
HYDRAULIC JUMP
y1
V1
V2
y2
ycr
From the time storm water first enters the sewer system at the inlet until it
discharges at the outlet, it will encounter a variety of hydraulic structures
such as manholes, bends, contractions, enlargements and transitions, which
will cause velocity head losses. These losses have been called minor
losses. This is misleading. In some situations these losses are as
important as those arising from pipe friction. Velocity losses may be expressed in a general form derived from the Bernoulli and Darcy-Weisbach
equations.
109
V2
2g
where: H = velocity head loss
K = coefficient for the particular structure
The following are useful velocity head loss formulae of hydraulic structures commonly found in sewer systems. They are primarily based on experiments.
H=K
The energy losses may be expressed in terms of the kinetic energy at the
two ends:
Ht = Kt
V2
2g
Contraction:
Ht = 0.1
Expansion:
(
(
V 22
2g
V 12
2g
)
)
when V2 > V1
V 22
V 12
when V1 > V2
2g
2g
Where V1 = upstream velocity
V2 = downstream velocity
Simple transition in size in a manhole with straight-through flow may be
analyzed with the above equations.
Ht = 0.2
Contraction:
( ) [ ( )]
V22
2g
Ht = K
A2
A1
( V1 V2 )2
2g
K = 1.0 for sudden expansion
K = 0.2 for well designed transition
The above K values are for estimating purposes. If a more detailed analysis of the transition losses is required, then the tables in conjunction with
the energy losses equation in the form below should be used for pressure
flow.
V2
Ht = K
2g
Ht = K
( )
110
Table 4.12
0.9
.11 .10
.26 .26
.40 .39
.51 .49
.60 .58
.74 .72
.83 .80
.92 .89
.96 .93
1.00 .99
1.00 1.00
Table 4.13
1.2
.10
.25
.38
.48
.56
.70
.78
.87
.91
.96
.98
1.5
.10
.24
.37
.47
.55
.69
.77
.85
.89
.95
.96
1.8
2.1
.10
.24
.37
.47
.55
.68
.76
.84
.88
.93
.95
2.4
.10
.24
.36
.46
.54
.67
.75
.83
.87
.92
.94
3.0
.10
.24
.36
.46
.53
.66
.74
.82
.86
.91
.93
3.6
.09
.23
.35
.45
.52
.65
.73
.80
.84
.89
.91
.09
.23
.35
.44
.52
.64
.72
.79
.83
.88
.90
4.5
.09
.22
.34
.43
.51
.63
.70
.78
.82
.86
.88
6.0
.09
.22
.33
.42
.50
.62
.69
.76
.80
.84
.86
9.0 12.0
.09
.21
.32
.41
.48
.60
.67
.74
.77
.82
.83
.08
.20
.32
.40
.47
.58
.65
.72
.75
.80
.81
d2/d1 = ratio of diameter of larger pipe to diameter of smaller pipe. Angle of cone is
twice the angle between the axis of the cone and its side.
Angle of cone
d2
d1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.5
3.0
.01
.02
.02
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.01
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.01
.02
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.02
.03
.04
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.06
.03
.04
.06
.07
.07
.07
.08
.08
.08
.05
.09
.12
.14
.15
.16
.16
.16
.16
.10
.16
.23
.26
.28
.29
.30
.31
.31
.13
.21
.30
.35
.37
.38
.39
.40
.40
.16
.25
.36
.42
.44
.46
.48
.48
.49
.18
.29
.41
.47
.50
.52
.54
.55
.56
.19
.31
.44
.51
.54
.56
.58
.59
.60
.20
.33
.47
.54
.58
.60
.62
.63
.64
.21
.35
.50
.57
.61
.63
.65
.66
.67
.23
.37
.53
.61
.65
.68
.70
.71
.72
111
Table 4.14
0.9
.04
.07
.17
.26
.34
.38
.40
.42
.44
.46
.48
.48
.49
1.2
1.5
.04
.07
.17
.26
.34
.37
.40
.42
.44
.46
.47
.48
.48
.04
.07
.17
.26
.34
.37
.39
.41
.43
.46
.47
.48
.48
1.8
2.1
.04
.07
.17
.26
.34
.37
.39
.41
.43
.45
.47
.48
.48
.04
.07
.17
.26
.34
.37
.39
.41
.43
.45
.46
.47
.47
2.4
.04
.07
.17
.26
.33
.36
.39
.40
.42
.45
.46
.47
.47
3.0
.04
.08
.18
.26
.33
.36
.38
.40
.42
.44
.45
.46
.47
3.6
.04
.08
.18
.26
.32
.35
.37
.39
.41
.43
.45
.46
.46
4.5
.04
.08
.18
.25
.32
.34
.37
.38
.40
.42
.44
.45
.45
6.0
.05
.09
.18
.25
.31
.33
.35
.37
.39
.41
.42
.43
.44
9.0 12.0
.05
.10
.19
.25
.29
.31
.33
.34
.36
.37
.38
.40
.41
.06
.11
.20
.24
.27
.29
.30
.31
.33
.34
.35
.36
.38
Entrance Losses
He = Ke
Table 4.15
V2
2g
Coefficient Ke
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.25
Manhole Losses
112
Htm =
V2
2g
cos 0
=
A
g
A
g
A
2
2
1
3g
0
3
Flow
113
Bend Losses
V2
2g
For curved sewer segments where the angle is less than 40the bend loss
coefficient may be estimated as:
Kb = 0.25
o
90
Storm water inlets are the means by which storm runoff enters the sewer
system. Their design is often neglected or receives very little attention during the design of storm drainage systems. Inlets play an important role in
road drainage and storm sewer design because of their effect on both the
rate of water removal from the road surface and the degree of utilization of
the sewer system. If inlets are unable to discharge the design inflow to the
sewer system it may result in a lower level of roadway convenience and
conditions hazardous to traffic. It may also lead to overdesign of the sewer
pipes downstream of the inlet. In some cases the limited capacity of the
inlets may be desirable as a storm water management alternative thereby
offering a greater level of protection from excessive sewer surcharging. In
such cases, both the quantity of runoff intercepted and the resulting level
of roadway convenience must be known. Furthermore, overdesign in the
number of inlets results in higher costs and could result in over-utilization
of the sewer system.
No one inlet type is best suited for all conditions. Many different types
of inlets have thus been developed, as shown in Figure 4.17. In the past,
the hydraulic capacities of some of these inlets was often unknown, sometimes resulting in erroneous capacity estimates.
Storm water inlets may not intercept all runoff due to the velocity of
flow over the inlet and the spread of flow across the roadway and gutter.
This leads to the concept of carryover flow. As carryover flow progresses
downstream, it may accumulate, resulting in a greater demand for interception. It is imperative that more emphasis be placed on inlet design to
assure that the inlet type, location and capacity are adequately determined
to achieve the overall drainage requirements.
The hydraulic efficiency of inlets is a function of street grade, crossslope, inlet geometry and curb and gutter design. Generally, an increased
street cross-slope will result in increased inlet capacity as the flow is concentrated within the gutter. The depth of flow in the gutter may be estimated from Figure 4.14. The effect of street grades on inlet capacities
114
1.4
1.2
r
1.0
0.8
Loss Coefficient, Kb
Bend at Manhole,
no Special Shaping
Deflector
0.6
Curved
Bend at Manhole,
Curved or Deflector
0.4
Curved Sewer r / D = 2
0.2
Sewer r / D > 6
0.0
40
60
Deflection Angle O, Degrees
Figure 4.13 Sewer bend loss coefficient16
0
20
80
90 100
115
116
.7
.6
Zd
.5
d
Z 1/2 8/3
Equation: Q = .56 (n ) s d
n is roughness coefficient in Manning
formula appropriate to material in
bottom of channel
Z is reciprocal of cross slope
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
600
500
400
200
60
50
40
30
20
.30
.20
.10
.0003
.03
.02
.01
.008
.007
.006
.005
2. For shallow
v-shaped channel
as shown use nomograph
T
with z =
d
.004
.2
.1
.09
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
d
d1
a
b
3. To determine
discharge Qx in
x
portion of channel
having width x:
determine depth d for total discharge in
entire section a. Then use nomograph to
determine Qb in section b for depth
x
d1 = d ()
z
.003
( xz )
10
.3
.04
100
80
.08
.07
.05
.003
.002
.001
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Connect z/n ratio with slope(s)
and connect discharge (Q) with
depth (d). These two lines must
intersect at turning line for
complete solution.
.4
.06
3.0
2.0
1.0
.03
.02
.01
300
TURNING LINE
RATIO Z/n
800
10.0
.10
8000
10000
4. To determine discharge
in composite section:
x
zbd1
follow instruction 3
to obtain discharge in
= za (d d1)
section a at assumed
depth d: obtain Qb for
slope ratio Zb and depth d1, then QT = Qa Qb
.002
d1
.01
.009
.008
.007
.006
x
za
.001
.005
.004
.003
117
T = 2.5 m
2.0
0.08
T = 1.0 m
1.5
0.06
0.04
0.8
0.06
1.0
0.5
0.04
0.8
0.5
0.02
0.02
Sx = 0.04
0.00
0.00
0.10m/m
0.05
Grade
Sx = 0.06
0.00
0.00
1.5
0.08
3.0
2.7
2.5
0.06
1.0
0.06
0.8
2.0
0.04
1.5
0.02
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.04
0.5
0.02
Sx = 0.04
0.00
0.00
0.10m/m
0.05
Grade
0.10m/m
0.05
Grade
Sx = 0.06
0.00
0.00
0.05
Grade
0.10m/m
Sx = crossfall
T = spread
Figure 4.15 Sewer inlet capacity: as per curb and gutter in Figure 4.16
600 mm
150 mm 50 mm
400 mm
Crossfall = 0.02
75 mm
Curb & Gutter
Type B
50 mm
604 mm
600 mm
48 mm
552 mm
Curb Side
Figure 4.16
Catch basin grate
118
Table 4.16
Grade (m/m)
Crossfall Spread Depth
(m/m) (m)
(m)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.70
3.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
1.67
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.003 0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.005
0.008
0.010
0.013
0.022
0.034
0.051
0.059
0.073
0.012
0.018
0.026
0.051
0.089
0.142
0.017
0.028
0.044
0.092
0.113
0.023
0.040
0.065
0.099
0.012
0.020
0.025
0.033
0.055
0.087
0.131
0.153
0.189
0.030
0.046
0.068
0.133
0.230
0.365
0.043
0.073
0.114
0.237
0.292
0.059
0.104
0.169
0.255
0.014
0.024
0.031
0.041
0.068
0.107
0.161
0.187
0.231
0.037
0.057
0.084
0.162
0.281
0.447
0.053
0.089
0.140
0.290
0.358
0.072
0.128
0.207
0.313
0.016
0.028
0.036
0.047
0.078
0.123
0.186
0.216
0.267
0.043
0.066
0.097
0.188
0.325
0.517
0.061
0.103
0.161
0.335
0.413
0.083
0.148
0.239
0.361
0.020
0.034
0.044
0.058
0.096
0.151
0.227
0.264
0.327
0.053
0.080
0.118
0.230
0.398
0.633
0.075
0.126
0.197
0.411
0.506
0.102
0.181
0.293
0.442
0.023
0.039
0.051
0.067
0.110
0.175
0.263
0.305
0.378
0.061
0.093
0.136
0.265
0.460
0.731
0.087
0.146
0.228
0.474
0.584
0.117
0.209
0.338
0.511
0.026
0.044
0.057
0.074
0.123
0.195
0.294
0.341
0.422
0.068
0.104
0.153
0.296
0.514
0.817
0.097
0.163
0.255
0.530
0.653
0.131
0.234
0.378
0.571
0.008
0.014
0.018
0.024
0.039
0.062
0.093
0.108
0.134
0.022
0.033
0.048
0.094
0.163
0.258
0.031
0.052
0.080
0.168
0.206
0.042
0.074
0.120
0.181
Table 4.17
Grade (m/m)
Crossfall Spread
(m/m)
(m)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.70
3.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.005
0.008
0.010
0.013
0.023
0.034
0.037
0.042
0.007
0.012
0.016
0.027
0.042
0.057
0.010
0.019
0.030
0.048
0.013
0.027
0.038
0.007
0.012
0.014
0.023
0.035
0.046
0.050
0.055
0.013
0.021
0.027
0.046
0.064
0.078
0.015
0.028
0.042
0.062
0.023
0.038
0.050
0.010
0.014
0.018
0.029
0.040
0.052
0.056
0.061
0.017
0.027
0.035
0.054
0.070
0.081
0.021
0.033
0.048
0.069
0.029
0.042
0.047
0.011
0.017
0.021
0.031
0.043
0.054
0.057
0.062
0.020
0.030
0.039
0.057
0.071
0.081
0.024
0.036
0.052
0.071
0.032
0.046
0.061
0.012
0.018
0.022
0.033
0.044
0.054
0.058
0.062
0.022
0.031
0.040
0.058
0.071
0.080
0.026
0.039
0.054
0.072
0.035
0.049
0.063
0.012
0.019
0.023
0.035
0.044
0.054
0.057
0.061
0.024
0.032
0.042
0.056
0.070
0.076
0.028
0.042
0.056
0.071
0.038
0.054
0.068
0.013
0.019
0.024
0.034
0.043
0.052
0.056
0.059
0.024
0.031
0.040
0.053
0.068
0.073
0.030
0.044
0.055
0.068
0.038
0.057
0.072
0.012
0.017
0.022
0.032
0.041
0.050
0.052
0.057
0.021
0.028
0.038
0.050
0.064
0.072
0.030
0.043
0.051
0.063
0.038
0.057
0.074
119
CURB INLETS
(a) Undepressed
(b) Depressed
GUTTER INLETS
(d) Undepressed
(e) Depressed
Road
(h) Slotted Drain
Typical
Cross Section
Slot-In Sag
Figure 4.17 Stormwater inlets
From Table 4.16 the resulting spread in flow = 2.00m. From Table 4.17,
2.00m of spread results in an inlet capacity of 0.040 m3/s. Therefore, the
total flow intercepted = 2x0.040 = 0.080 m3/s. The carryover flow = 0.180.08 = 0.10 m3/s.
For roads where few restrictions to inlet location may exist (i.e., highways and arterial roads), these charts can be used to establish minimum
spacing between inlets. This is done by controlling the catchment area for
each inlet. The area is simplified to a rectangular shape of width and length
where the length represents the distance between inlets.
Under special circumstances it may be necessary to install twin or double inlets to increase the inlet capacity. For reasons of interference by traffic such installations are usually installed in series, parallel to the curb.
Studies17 have shown that where such installations exist on a continous
grade, the increases in inlet capacity rarely exceed 50 percent of the single
inlet capacity.
120
or
Q/l = 0.25 i0.579
( )
Qo
0.563
s/n
121
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Relative Length - (LA / LR)
0.9
1.0
Example: if 20% carryover (Qa / Qd = 80%) is allowed, then only 58% (LA / LR)
of the total slotted drain length is required resulting in a 42% savings in
material and installation costs.
Figure 4.18 Slotted drain carryover efficiency
20.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
.05
.04
3.0
.03
.02
0.001
48
40
32
24
16
7.0
Turning Line
.10
.09
.08
.07
.06
Length (m) - LR
Discharge (m3/S) - Q
10.0
9.0
8.0
.20
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.9
122
At sag inlets, the required length of slotted drain, LR, for total interception can be calculated from the following equation:
LR =
0.072 QD
h
For sag inlets, LA should be at least 2.0 times the calculated LR to insure
against the debris hazard. LA should never be less than 6m for sag inlet
cases.
The slot should be parallel to the curb and located in the gutter approximately as shown.
90 mm
Definitions
S Longitudinal gutter or channel slope, m/m
Sx Transverse slope, m/m
Z Transverse slope reciprocal, m/m
d Depth of flow, m
L Length of slot, m
Q Discharge, (m3/s)
LR Length of slot required for total interception, m (No carryover)
LA An assumed length of slot, m
Qd Total discharge at an inlet, (m3/s)
Qa An asssumed discharge, (m 3/s)
Slotted Drain is used effectively to intercept runoff from wide, flat areas
such as parking lots, highway medians even tennis courts and airport
loading ramps. In these installations, the drain is placed transverse to the
direction of flow, so that the open slot acts as a weir intercepting all of the
flow uniformly along the entire length of the drain. The water is not collected and channeled against a berm, as required by a slot-on-grade installation.
Slotted Drain has been tested for overland flow (sheet flow). These results are published.18
The tests included flows up to 0.0011 m3/s per metre of slot. The test
system was designed to supply at least 0.0007 m3/s per metre which corresponds to a rainstorm of 380mm per hour over a 20m wide roadway (6
lanes). Slopes ranged from a longitudinal slope of 9 % and a Z of 16, to a
longitudinal slope of 0.5% and a Z of 48. At the design discharge of 0.0007
m3/s per metre, it was reported that the total flow fell through the slot as a
weir flow without hitting the curb side of the slot. Even at the maximum
discharge of 0.0011 m3/s per metre and maximum slopes, nearly all the
flow passed through the slot.
123
REFERENCES
1. Davis, C. B., Sorenson, K. E., Handbook of
Applied Hydraulics, 3rd Edition, 1969.
2. FHWA, Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts, Hydraulic Design Series No. 5, Report
No. FHWA-IP-85-15, Sept. 1985, Federal
Highway Administration.
3. Design and Construction of Sanitary and
Storm Sewers, Water and Pollution Control
Federation Manual of Practice No. 9 and
American Society of Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No.
37, 1969.
4. Silberman, E., Dahlin, W.Q., Further Studies
of Friction Factors for Corrugated Aluminum
Pipes Flowing Full, Project Report No. 121,
April 1971, University of Minnesota, St.
Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory,
Minneapolis, MN.
5. Grace, J. L., Jr., Friction Factors for Hydraulic Design of Corrugated Metal Pipe, Dept.
of Defense, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Proceedings of the Highway Research Board,
U.S. Waterways Experimental Station, Vol.
44, 1965.
6. Webster, M. J. and Metcalf, L. R., Friction
Factors in Corrugated Metal Pipe, Journal of
the Hydraulic Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 85, Sept. 1959, pp. 35-67.
7. Brater, E. F., King, H.W., Handbook of Hydraulics, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1976.
8. Chow, V. T., Open Channel Hydraulics,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.
9. Marsalek, J., Head Losses at Selected Sewer
Manholes, Environmental Hydraulics Section, Hydraulics Division, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, July 1985.
10. Ackers, P., An Investigation of Head Losses
at Sewer Manholes, Civil Engineering and
Public Works Review, Vol. 54, No. 637, 1959
pp. 882-884 and 1033-1036.
11. Archer, B., Bettes, F. and Colyer, P. J., Head
Losses and Air Entrainment at Surcharged
Manholes, Report No. IT185, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, 1978.
12. Black, R. G., Piggott, T. L., Head Losses at
Two Pipe Stormwater Junction Chambers,
Proceedings Second National Conference on
Local Government Engineering, Brisbane,
September 19-22, 1983, pp. 219-223.
13. deGrout, C. F., Boyd, M. J., Experimental
Determination of Head Losses in Stormwater
Systems, Proceedings Second National Conference on Local Government Engineering,
Brisbane, September 19-22, 1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Handbook of Steel Drainage and Highway Construction Products, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1983.
73-3 Implementation Package for Slotted CMP
Surface Drains, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, July
1973.
Jones, C. W., Design of Culverts.
Bauer, W. J., Determination of Mannings n for
14 ft. Corrugated Steel Pipe, April 1969, Bauer
Engineering, Inc., Chicago, IL, 27 pp.
Debris Control Structures, Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 9, Feb. 1964, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, 37 pp.
Design Charts for Open Channel Flow, Hydraulic
Design Series No. 3, 1961, U.S. Bureau of Public
Roads.
Harrison, L. S., Morris, J. C., Normann, J. M., and
Johnson, F. L., Hydraulic Design of Improved Inlets for Culverts, Hydraulic Engineering Circular
No. 13, Aug. I972, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulics Branch, HNG-31, Washington,
D.C. 20590.
Silberman, E., Effects of Helix Angle on Flow in
Corrugated Pipes, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
96, Nov. 1970, pp. 2253-2263.
Normann, J. M., Hydraulic Design of Large Structural Plate Corrugated Metal Culverts, Unpublished Report, Jan. 1974, Hydraulics Branch,
Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
20590, 17 pp.