S

625.7 (94)
AUS
(SR 34)
-f .J .

Storm drainage design

in small urba AUSTRALIAN ROAD

catchments: RESEARCH BOARD

17 FEB 1987
l lB ? AR Y
a:A) =ve= "- " nmGIlO - nzm .- j ... _

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 would like acknowledge and thank John R. Argue AO, Adjunct
Professor of Water Engineering, University of South Australia, for allowing
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 Leeturer,
School of Civil Engineering ,
South Australian Institute of Technology

, 1.0
""'7
l .

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RESEARCH BOARD

South Australian Australian Road

Institute of Technology 1111111 11111 11111 11111 11111 111111111111111111 Research Bo~rd
0004077
 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Drainage Planning 1
1.2 Scope of this Handbook 2
1.3 Th e Goals of Urban Drainage (Quantity) Management 2
1.4 The Handbook and Goals 1, 2 and 3 3
1.5 Th is Handbook and Other Urban Drainage Publ icatio ns 3

2. FREQUENCY AND THE MAJOR/MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM

DESIGN CONCEPT 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Flood Classification 5
2.3 The Major/ Minor Flood Management Concept 6
2.4 Towards Design ARI : the Water Resources Approach 8
2.5 Design ARI - Major Drainage Systems 8
2.6 Design ARI - M inor Drainage Systems 9

3. RETENTION, DETENTION AND RETARDATION MEASURES IN

URBAN CATCHMENTS 11
3.1 Th e Natural Catchment and Urban Development 11
3.2 T erminal Retention Measu res 12
3.3 Non-Terminal Retention Measures 13
::J .4 Uetentlon Measures 15
3.5 Retardation Measures 16
3.6 I mplementation of Retention/ Detention/ Retardation
Measures in the Urban Environment 18

4. RAINFALl/RUNOFF MATHEMATICAL MODELS 19

4.1 Backgro und 19
4.2 Rational Method 19
4.3 Time-Area Representation 22
4.4 Why a 'New' Rational Method? 22
4.5 The Two-Value Rational Method 23

5. HYDROLOGICAL DATA BASE 25

5.1 Ultimate Development Assessment 25
5.2 Storm Rainfall Intensity-Frequency-Duration Data 25
5.3 Australian Climatic Zones - Urban Drainage 25
5.4 Design Average Recurrence Interval - Major/ Minor Systems 27
5.5 Travel Time Determ ination 28
5.6 Runoff Coefficients for Developed Catchments 31

6. HYDRAULIC DATA BASE 33

6.1 Open Channel Stormwater Drains 33
6.2 Gutter and Sag Inlets 36
CONTENTS Continued
6.3 Guidelines for the Management of Surface-Moving Flows in M inor 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

7. URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS : STRUCTURE 51

7.1 Introductio n 51
7.2 General Properties of Smal l Urban Catchments 52
7.3 Simple Urban Catchments 52
7.4 Complex Urban Landscapes 54

8. THE MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM - DESIGN

PROCEDURE OUTLINE 57
8.1 Introduction 57
8.2 Major System Planning Procedure 58

9. THE MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM - CASE STUDY

APPLICATIONS / 63
9.1 Introduction 63
9.2 Case 1 and Case 2 Developments: Steps 1-8 63
9.3 Non-Isolated Development Catchments 71
9.4 Concluding Comments and Summary 71

10. THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM - DESIGN

PROCEDURE OUTLINE 73
10.1 Introduction 73
10.2 Minor System Design Procedure 74

11 . THE MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM -

CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS 83

12. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION 105

12.1 Resume 105
12.2 Data Quality and Error in the Design of Min or Dra inage 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 Addit ional 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 compre-
hens ive range of subjects . The results of that research are disseminated to appropriate
organisations and to the scientists, engineers and associated special ists 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 ARRB '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 techn ical 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 IRRD data base of OECD in Australia .

DIRECTORS 1986-1987
M .J. Knight, B.Sc.(Eng.), M .Eng .Sc., F.I.E.Aust. , AFAI.M ., M .C.I.T ., Commissioner of
Highways, South Australia
I.F .X. Stoney, AA.S .A. , Dip.Bus.Studies, MAG.I., FAI.M ., Chairman and Managing
Director, Road Construction Authority , Victoria
D.H. Aitken , I.S.0., B.E. , F.I.E.Aust., F.C.I.T., FAI.M ., Commissioner of Main Roads ,
Western Australia
A .S. Blunn, L.L.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, AR.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, Execut ive Director,
Australian Road Research Board
Chairman: M.J. Kn ight
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
INFORMATION
RETRIEVAL
AN D ABSTRACT
Th e abstrac ts and keywords o n thi s page are prov id ed in the interests of improved information retri eval. Eac h
refe rence card is designed so th at it c an be cut out and inco rporated in the reader's own file ,

Keywo rd s. un less ca rryi ng an asterisk . are from the ' International Road Researc h Documen tati on [lRRD)
Thesau rus. 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 model/data base
ABSTRACT: The Handbook is the outcome 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
qu antity) planning principles including on-site stormwater retention/detention
a nd the 'major/minor' approach to drainage design. Flow estimation procedures
a re based on the Two-Value Rational Method introduced in the Handbook. The
hy drological 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 flood way 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 h a 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 accommodated by appropri ate
linking. The appendises of the Handbook include hydraulic data applicable to a
range of gutter/pavement 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

Although this report is believed to be correct at the time of its publication , 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.

Wholl y set uP. designed and printed at the Australian Road Resea rch Board . Vermont South. Victoria. 1986
 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 drai nage 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 (Blacktown Council, N .SW.), 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.SW.), DrG .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 (Plantec 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.
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 particular 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 , this material is
presented in step-by-step form wherever possible, and includes detai led 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 c;onsulting practices. Draft versions of the
Handbook 's main design procedures have been subject to extensive review and revis ion .
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 advocated 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 attempt 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.
Introduction
1.1 DRAINAGE PLANNING
When urban development takes place in a
fo rested or rural c atchment significant areas
of 1and and vegetat i on whi ch once absorbed
inc i dent rainfall and impeded its movement
through the catchment are replaced by
impervious surfaces interconnected by formal
networks of man - made surface and underground
drainage lines. These changes lead to
increased flood peak flows and 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 un -
prepared urban landscape, distress ranging
from inconvenience and financial loss to
serious injury, possibly death, is exper i enced
by members of the general public 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
deve 1opment of a basin cent re on the
preparation of a Master Drainage Plan which
sets out appropriate and envi romentally-
compati ble measures to confine these impacts
within acceptable l i mits. It identifies
existing problems and provides a framework
anticipating solutions to problems likely to
arise in the future. To these ends, the Plan
should ind i cate existing drainage systems,
areas sub j ect to development pressure, drain-
age channels subject to erosion, the location
and nature of receiving waters, areas of hi gh
recrea t ional value, unique natura l environ -
ments, significant heritage or cultural loca -
tions, installations of strategic importance
for the nation or the local community,
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 appropri ate (Envi ronment
Canada, 1980a).
The f ive action segments of the Master
Drainage Plan are:
1. Major/.inor drainage networks: storm
drainage systems for existing development
should be shown together with systems fo r
proposed or likely development, at least i n
outl ine. These networks should be based on
ARRB SR 34, 1986
the major/minor concept which recognises the
dual requirements of the drainage system to
provide convenience on a day-to-day basis and
protect i on for 1 i fe 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 net-
works and present or likely runoff character-
istics, both in quantity and quality;
3. Sto,..,ater retention/detention measures:
these should be identified for each land-use
and group of such areas and should take
account of 1 and-use, drainage networks,
terrain and soil characteristics. The reten-
t i on and detention measures adopted in each
basin sub-catchment should aim to retain,
wher e appropriate, as much incident storm
rainfall as possible;
4. Sedi.ent and erosion control measures:
these should be incorporated into the planning
and construction phases of an urban develop-
ment to minimise soil loss and ensure minimum
downstream environmental damage from water-
borne sedi ment;
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
bas in in the course of futu re deve 1 opment.
The purpose of the strategy is to ensure that
runof f entering the recelvlng water domain
from the basin meets acceptable water quality
criteri a •
Master Drainage Planning principles appear
to have been app 1i ed fi rst in the Denver Area
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
U.S.A., when an agglomeration of 29 munici-
palities sought to resolve their common
problems of urban storm runoff quantity
management (Wright-McLaughlin Engineers 1969).
Concern for the rapid degradati on of water
quality in the Great Lakes in the late 1960's,
early 1970's , caused the governments of the
U.S. and Canada to act on th i s problem and to
incorporate water quality aspects into
basin-wide major drainage planning. The
result is the comprehensive Master Drainage
Plan outlined above and well described in
Environment Canada (1980b).
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
1.2 SCOPE OF THIS HANDBOOK
Thi s Handbook concerns itself with the water
quant i ty aspects of mas ter drainage p1 anni ng
and considers the water quality aspect only to
offer the following list of selected
references:
(i) sediment and erosion control : Burton
et a1 (1976); Environment Canada
(1980b ): Guy and Jones (1972) : Hannam
and Hicks (1980): U.S. Environment
Protection Administration (1972): U.S.
Dept. of Transportation (1978): Weber
and Reed (1976): Whipple et a1 (1983):
Wolman and Schick (1967).
(ii) pollution control strategy: American
Soc i ety of Ci vi 1 Engi neers (1982): Be 11
et a1 (1979): B1i~s et a1 (1979): Bliss
et a 1 (1983): Cordery (1976a): Cordery
(1976b): Cordery (1977): Cullen et a1
(1978): Finlayson (1983) : Goyen and
McLaughlin (1978): Goyen et a1 (1985):
Gutteridge Haskins and Davey (1981):
Karr and Schlosser (1978): Moodie
(1979): Sator et a1 (1974): Walker
(1979): Wanie1ista (1979): Whipple et a1
(1983) •
The main emphasis of this document lies in
the direction of new networks for small
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 Rational Method rainfall/runoff catchment
model in which the runoff coefficient, C,
embodies an allowance for hydrograph attenua-
tion as a result of temporary storage routing.
This approach is satisfactory provided that
the drainage areas involved are not great and
thei r rai nfa11 /runoff response times are
relatively short i.e. less than 30 minutes. A
drainage IJnit upper limit of 20 ha which is
appropriate for most local government plann i ng
purposes has been set to meet thi s requi re-
ment. However, it is common for Rational
Method assumptions to be applied to areas much
greater than 20 ha (U.S. Dept. of Transport-
ation 1979; Wright-McLaughlin Engineers 1969:
City of Fort Worth 1967). Urban sub-di vi sions
and landscape areas greater than 20 ha are
readily 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 withi n the scope of these
procedu res.
1.3 THE GOALS OF URBAN DRAINAGE (QUANTITY)
MANAGEMENT
The independent goals of urban drainage
ma na gement are:
Goa 1 1: to ensu re that floodwater i nundat ion
of residential, commercial/industrial
and important pub1 ic buildings
2 ARRB SR 34,1986
located in f1 ood- prone 1andscapes
occurs on rare occasions only and
that in such events, velocity/depth
conditions in all readily accessible
open channels are below prescribed
limits. This goal is identified with
the major drai nage networks of the
Master Drainage Plan and is aimed at
achieving a sat i sfactory level of
safety and security in communities
faced wi th potential devastation in
the wake of major storms.
Goal 2 : to prov i de convenience and safety for
pedestrians and traffic in frequent
or nui sance stormwater fl ows by
controlling such flows within pres-
cribed limits. This relates to minor
drainage networks whose presence in
the urban landscape brings about a
reduction in minor accidents and
i nconveni ence whi ch wou1 d be other-
wise experi enced by members of the
general public on a day-to-day basis.
Goa 1 3: to reta in wi thi n each catchment as
much incident rai rifall and runoff as
is possible and appropriate given the
planned use of the catchment terrain
and its bi ot i c and engi neeri ng
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 los s of st ruc tu ra 1 i ntegri ty
in buildings constructed in areas of
expansive or unstable soil.
There is a strong interrelationship
between these goals. Goa 1 1 is ach i eved ina
particular case using a flood conveyance and
disposal system which embraces its Goal 2
network: it a 1 so benefi ts from the detent ion
measures which are employed to achieve Goal 3.
The extent and s i zi ng of components of the
network developed to meet the requi rements of
Goal 2 are strongly influenced by the type and
extent of retention/detention measures adopted
under Goal 3.
Goals such as these have been set and
achieved overseas since the early 1970's, have
been strongly advocated in Australian tech-
nical literature (Bonham 1974: Henkel 1981:
Thompson 1983) and have been put into practice
by various local authorities (Dandenong Valley
Authority 1980: National Capital Development
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 ability to carry
them through but, rather, a lack of clear
direction on the 'why' and 'how' of the task.
The aim of ARRB project 391 which has
resulted in this publication has been to
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
bridge this gap and provide a full and
systematic account of urban drainage flow
estimation, system design procedures and
stormwater management pract ice needed by
desi gn teams comp ri si ng ju ni or engi neers and
technical officers supervised by experienced
practitioners.
1.4 THE HArtlBOOK Artl GOALS I, 2 Artl 3
Goals 1 and 2: The Major and Minor Syste.s
The major / minor drainage system concept whi ch
is ex[)resserl in Goa l s 1 and 2 i s not new to
Australian practi c e . UrainaQe has heen
managed s in ce the lQ 50 's hy -many munici-
palities in 'primary/secondary' systems in
which 'secondary' corr esronds to major and
'primary' to minor. In these cases the design
of pr imarv (und e rground network) systems is
completed and si~ulated, larger-t~an-design
flows are applied to them to check their
performance in Qreat storm runoff events.
Adjustments are - made where necessary to
preclude the possibility of serious injury to
memhers of the publ ic or se riou s damage to
rroperty . State Road Authorities' m~nuals
endorse thi s approach and recommend use of a
rare des i gn fl ood event such as the 'once in
50-years flood' for checking purposes (Country
Roads Board Victoria 1982 ; Main Roads Depart-
ment, Queensland 1980) .
Despite apparent similarities between this
and the master drainage planning approach the
latter requires major flood routes through
urban landscapes to be defi ned ahead of thei r
subsidiary min or stormwater networks. This
confronts the designer with the problem: how
can a major drai nage system whi ch takes
account of its subsidiary minor network be
planned be fore detai 1 s of tha t netwo rk are
known?
This aspect of Goa l 1 is addressed in
Chapters 8 and 9 where a simpl e step-by-step
procedure is presented for planning major
flood drainage systems for small, isolated
urban catchments. The procedure is appl i ed to
a hypothetical residential sub-division in the
Adelaide foothills, South Austr alia. The
further probl em of major fl ood movement
through succesive, small, slope-aligned
catchments is reviewed and directions for
carrying out this task indicated.
Chapters 10 and 11 present a the experienced practitioner.
non-iterative, non-graphical, step - by-step
mi no r d rai na ge network des i gn proc edure 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 si zed to match the storm frequency
selected for design, i.e. 'once in 2-years',
'once in 5-years', etc. The procedure is
applied to a simple sub-area and to a 12ha
hypothetical residential catchment in the
Adelaide foothills.
ARRB SR 34,1986
Goal 3: Ston.water Retention/Detention
Measures
Goals 1 and 2 each have readily identifiable
targets against which the success or failure
of planned or designed d rainage 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 commercial amenity derived
from a particular land-use
b) the en vi ronmenta 1 amenity provi ded ina
development by the presence of indigenous
trees and shrubs
c) the conti nued structural integrity of
components of the built environment.
The balance which is sought in Goal 3 is
achieved i n 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 a r ea.
It is appa rent that Goa 1 3 cannot be
achieved by means of a step-by-step design
app roach of the type used in connection wi th
Goal s 1 and 2 . Its importance, however, must
not be unde r estima ted: decisions mad e
conce rnin g the retention/detention strategies
used in a development have a significant v
bearing on a ll aspects of the rainfall /runoff
processes wh i ch take place wi th in that
development. Chapter 3 of the Handbook
discusses this issue.
1.5 THIS HANDBOOK AND OTHER URBAN DRAINAGE
PUBLICA nONS
The full range of flood estimation analysis
and design methods used in Australia is
strongly influenced by the Institution 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
esti mation in urban catchments - small and
l arge the hydraulics of urban drainage
systems, performance standards, trunk d r ainage
including detention and retention basins,
reha bil i tat i on and ma i ntenance, envi ronmenta 1
and social factors. computer software. The
presentation is directed towards the needs of
The procedures described in later chapters
of this Handbook cover part only of the range
addressed in Chapter 14 of AR&R but do so in
greater detai 1. Users of the Handbook must
have access to the current edition of 'Austra-
lian Rainfall and Runoff' (I.E. Aust.. 1977 or
1987), in order to obtain rainfall intensity
frequency duration data required in the flow
estimation procedures.
The main aspects of the procedures pre-
sented in both the I.E. Aust. publication and
3
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

this Handbook for estimating flows in small
urban catchments and designing major/minor
systems to convey them are similar. Differ-
ences are listed in 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 appropri ate methods recommended
in Chapter 14 of AR&R.
Most State Road Authorit i es, some spec-
ialised construction authorities, e.g. N.S.W.
Housing Commission, as well as the works
departments of a number of councils and mun-
icipalities across Australia, have found need
in the past to produce thei r own manuals
giving details of de sign requirements, stand-
ard s , local rainfall data, hydrauli c perform-
ance data for approved units, etc. Publica-
tion 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 re-
source documents providing best available pro-
cedures 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.

4 ARRB SR 34,1986
Frequency and the major/minor
drainage system design concept
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The problems which stem from attempts to
control and/or mitigate the effects of storm
runoff movi ng out of control in the urban
environment have occupied the minds of
drainage designers since the earliest days of
civilisation (Va11entine 1967).
The first step which must be taken by all
who 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 avai 1ab1e for
thi s purpose. On the other hand, by careful
planning employing modern procedures, soundly
based data and proven pract ices, 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 residen-
tial, commercial/industrial and public
building zones of our cities and urban
landscapes.
Before applying these procedures, data and
practices to any practical drainage task, it
is es sent i a 1 that the des i gner possesses a
clear picture of the way in which his or her
scheme will re1 ate 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 funct i on within
the urban complex.
The following Sections are devoted to a
discussion of these issues.
2.2 FLOOD CLASSIFICATION
Average Recurrence Interval. ARI
If a long period flood record - say 100 years
- were available for a gauging station at the
site of a proposed control structure ina
dra i nage channel and an exami nat i on of that
record were conducted, it would reveal that a
few very 'large' floods and a great number of
'small' floods had occurred in the 100 years
peri od •
Considering the 50th ranked flood in the
set, having been equalled or exceeded 50 times
ARRB SR 34,1986
in the 100 years period, it could be described
as (approximately) the average 'once in 2
years' flood flow. By a simi 1ar 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
large flows.
If the flow control structure referred to
above had been i nsta 11 ed at the begi nni ng of
the 100 year period and if the drainage
channe 1 and st ructure had been des i gned to
(just) convey a flow equal to the average
2-year flood magnitude determined above, then
spillage from the drain and inundation of
adjacent 1and would have occurred on 49
occasions in the 100 years period, i.e. once
in every 2 years (approxi mate ly and on
average). Similar situations in terms of
drain conveyance and inundation could be
associated with the other flood frequencies
1 i sted •
Th e 1eve 1s of flood cont ro 1 and securi ty
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 import-
ance e.g. a hospital, might be located above
the 1eve 1 reached by the 'average once in 200
years' or even rarer flood. Simi 1 arly , a
communi ty res ource such as a sports fi e 1d 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
ill ustrat ions a re referred to in the 1 i tera-
ture of Engineering Hydrology as 'average
return periods' or 'Average Recurrence Inter-
vals', ARI, and are employed in Australian
practice to cover average recurrence periods
of 100-years or less. The terminology 'Annual
Exc eedance Probabi 1 ity', AEP. is app 1 i ed to
flood magnitudes which recur less frequently
than once in every 100 years (Rowbottom et a 1
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) minor stormwater flows
b) major floods
c) rare floods
d) extreme floods
A prop ert y, open space doma i n 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 leading to overflow
across property boundari es and footpaths and
into roadway traffi c lanes. The consequences
of minor stormwater flows moving out of
co ntrol in the urban landscape are, primarily,
inconve nien ce 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
and therefore infrequent occurrence which
wi 11, if out of control, inundate premi ses
used by members of the general public either
privately or corporately causing indoor damage
to residential dwellings, work premises and
buildings set aside for education, entertain-
ment, recreation and other community activi-
ties. The consequences of an uncontrolled
rare flood can be serious In]Ury, 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 cusL ur clean-up operations.
Reimbursement for these loses cannot,
normally, be recouped from insurance, as rare
floods are considered to be 'a cts of God'
which invalidate any claim. It is unfeasible
to control floods of rare magni tude but thei r
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.
A major flood is a flood whose magnitude
falls between the limits adopted for minor
stormwater flow control on the one hand and
rare fl ood mi ti gati on on the other. The
consequences of a major fl ood in a well-
planned and well-maintained urban drainage
scheme may therefore be some damage to outdoor
property and installations, some traffic
acc idents, short-term dis rupt i on of conmuni ty
activities and of some services and, possibly,
a sizeable 'clean-up' bill. There should be
no floor-level inundation of residential,
conmercial/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.
6 ARRB SR 34, 1986
An extrelle fl ood is a flood whose
magnitude exceeds the 1i mit adopted for
purposes of rare flood mitigation and, there-
fore, represents a potent i a 1 for seri ous
injury, mental trauma and death as well as
severe financial loss to wide sections of the
community. Such an event is, therefore, a
communi ty emergency call ing 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
conmunity 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 'flood' or 'floodwater' are employed,
generally, in the context of greater-than-
minor storm events.
Uesign Average Recurrence Interval
(Design ARI)
It is clear from these descriptions that the
limits which define the various flood Cl;I~~PC;
are arbitrary and fixed in a particular place
at a particular time by perceived conmunity
expectations, current 'good practice' National
or State legislation, local government regula-
tions or the requi rements of a funding
<\tIt hnri t.y.
Frequency limits or design average
recurrence inter va 1s (des i gn AR I' s) such as
those which p1 ace a cei 1 ing on minor storm-
water flows or define rare floods, are there-
fore flexible and may vary across land-use
categories even within flood classes. Table
2.1 il lustrates this for the case of a typical
urban communi ty wi th in whose bounda ri es 1and-
use 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 equal 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 planned 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):
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 2.1
A LAND-USE/FLOOD FREQUENCY HIERARCHY FOR AN URBAN COMMUNITY
Flood Design
Security Cl assificatio n Descri pt i on of Components Fl ood
Levels Frequency
Strategi c I Fl oo r leve l s of hospita l s , Civ il Defence HQ Design AEP
; 1 in 500
St rat eg i c II Fl oo r levels of police , ambulance and fire
A st ation s: wat e r and wa stewat er centres: e l ect ri c
power and ga s supply stations
Fl oor levels of conva l escent homes and community
bu ildings whi ch could operat e as dormitory cent r es Desig n AEP
in great flood events ; 1 in 200
()ormito ry 1 Floor l evels of high density resi de ntial
Dormitory 11 Floor l eve l s of l ow-med ium density r esidentia l
P/C II * I Floor l eve l s of esse ntia l f ood , pharmaceutical,
retai 1 and depa rtment stores: centres employ in g
1arge la bou r for ce : community admi ni strat i on and
B educat i on cent re s: cent res for sto r age of rare
artifacts: venues for ent ertainment , di ning or Des i gn ARI
popu lar indoo r sports ;
100 yea r s
PICII * II Floor l evels of facto r ies and outlets supply in g
non-essent ial items: premises of busi nesses and
institutions which involve small numbers of people : Desig n ARI
premises of spo rt or community act ivi ties in- ; 50 years
f reque nt l y used
Ope n space I Grounds of all units be l ong ing to priority A above: Design ARI
outdoo r areas wh ere r are artifac ts are displayed ; 5-10 years
or stored
C Open space II Grounds of a 11 units be l ong ing to priority B 3-5 yea r s
Ope n space III Other open space areas includ i ng ge neral pa rks and
outdoo r spo rt and re creation a rea s 1-3 years
--- -
* Public/Commercial / Industrial

Major drainage system: t he arrangement of It is clear from these representations and

pavements, roadway reserves, open space
floodway channels, detention basins, lagoons,
etc. planned to convey to disposal a design
rare fl ood of spec ifi ed frequency (see Goal 1,
Sect ion 1.3). The consequences of a fl ood of
magnitude equal to or less than the design
rare flood are identical to those qiven in the
major flood classification in Section 2.2.
Minor drainage system: the arrangement of
soakage we 11 s , kerbs, gutters, roads ide
channels, swales, sumps, inlets and under-
ground pipes and junction pits designed to
fu11y 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 1 evel s of bui ldi ngs in an
urban landscape is presented in Fig. 2.1 (a
'freeboard' of O.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
enCOOlpasses the cOOlponents whi ch are secure
from flooding in minor or nuisance stormwater
flow events and Level B, those prot e cted from
serious damage in major floods. Level A
represents an above-major standard of f1 ood
securi ty provi ded for components of strategi c
importance to the community in the event of
extreme or catastrophic flooding.
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,
incl uding consideration of tri a1 flood routes,
occupies much less computation time and effort
than does the preparation of even a 'first
approximation' minor system network.
For these reasons a ma j or-then-minor
design sequence is recommended and is
refl ected in the order and deta i 1 s of
procedure s set out in later chapters of this
Handbook. Only those aspects of major/minor
design concerned with benefits, costs and
design ARI's are addressed in the remaining
sect i ons of this chapter.
Design Rare Flood Stage
IMajor System)
Freeboard to
floor level
_ Unde rg round net work ca rrying
® - bUlk of design nu is ance
- stormwater flow IMinor System)
Fig. 2.1 - Major and minor drainage systems in the urban
landscape

ARRB SR 34, 1986 7

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

I I I .1\/i(1d~S\rial local custom or on partial socio - economi c

asses sments based on antici pated effects of
l ~~~mer( \i I. I surcharg i ng until further information is
~180 ~~( Curv e 1 - res \de ntia l - I----------c available'.
!.
~ 160 / -- --- A s i milar conclusion may be drawn from the
QI

'"
'"
~140
-p .--?"
,.c--
'---v-- ~

ranee
comprehensive i n vestigation of urban drainage
systems, both major and m i ~or, carried out by
bes t val ue for ~ spent Grigg et al (1976), who stress that the
'0 120 I I I benefit/cost outcome in a particular case is
V>
o but one of the many inputs requi red by the
u
100 0 8 10
decis i on-making process. Other inputs include
De sig n avera ge rec urrence in t erval (yea rs) - - unquantifia ble social and environmental
benefits, fund availability and political
Fig. 2. 2 - Cost/frequency re lationships for two categories of pressure.
urban development
One particularly f rustrating (for the
designer) social aspect of the problem is
2.4 TOWARDS DESIGN ARI: THE WATER RESO~CES
'community view' of the importance of flood
APPROACH control and mitigation works relative to other
services. This can be capricious and strongly
The conventiona 1 method used in the water influenced b'y events - or , perhaps, lack of
resources field to select design ARI's is events - of the recent past.
benefit/cost analysis (Linsley and Franzini
1979; I.E. Aust. 1977 and 1987) which Should it even be possible to complete all
requires, as part of its data base, a requ i red ana l'yses and su rveys and reach
compilation of likely benefits. These are concensus among the i nterested parties
1i sted for major systems and minor systems in community representatives, planners , environ-
Table 2.2. mentalists, politicians as well as engineers -
in one place at one time, it would be,
strictly, inappropriate to transl ate the
TABLE 2.2: C(JUtUNITY BENEFITS OF MAJOR OR resulting design ARI findings to what might
MUI1R SYSTEMS appear to be similar developments and systems
elsewhere.
MAJOR SYSTEM ONLY MI NOR SYSTEM ONL Y
On the other hand, it is quite impractical
I. ' Improved aestheti c s
In c rea s ed se ns e o f
sec uri ty
Improved ae stheti c s &
I'
Red uced mi nor traffic
ac ci dent s
I to p.xPp.ct this type of enquiry to be performed
as part of every urban drainage design
r ec rea t i onal benefits I. Reduced health ri sks programme. This is particularly so in the
I . Enhanc e d land value s 1 linked with poor drain- I case of small projects carried out in the
. Red uced injury & l os s 1 ag e ( mo s qu itoes. flie s, 1 smaller municipalities. The larger local
I of life etc .) 1 government authorities should therefore be
I. Reduc e d disr uption of Red uced inconvenience 1 encouraged to conduct such stud i es and
no rma l COfllffill nity in perf orminq day-to- I processes in typical classes of cipvp.lopment,
I activities day activities
at least occasionally, and publish their
Reduced los s of com- Reduce d roadway mai n- 1
mun i ty servi ces I t e nanc e 1
findings for the benefit of all.
(h e alth, wat er, power
an d gas, tr ansporta- I Despite these obstacles and the complex-
ti o n. communication s , I I ities of the question which has been addressed
etc ) • in this section, the urban drainage planner/
Red uced emergency ser-
vi c es and re lief costsl I
designer must at some stage in his or he r
Red uced damage an d I project adopt design ARI's for the system as a
1 iabi 1 ity cos ts I whol e or for indi vidual segments of it. Some
Red uced production 1 more positive suggestions as to how this may
time a nd sales losses I be done are offered in the following sections.
I. Reduced c lean-up costsl
I 1 1
2.5 DESIGN ARI - MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Polin and Cordery (1979) applied benefit/ Determination of design ARI's for major
cost analysis to determine design ARI for a systems following the water resourc e s approach
cul vert on a mi nor waterway. Those who have referred to in Section 2.4 has been generally
applied this approach to urban drainage avoided in developed nations by the i r adoption
problems of broader scope have been frustrat- - nat i ona ll y in some , regionally i n others -
ed, finally, by the high intangible benefits of a common level of flood security in the
content of thei r prob 1ems, 1 ead i ng to i ncon- face of great floods. Thi sis the AR I =
clusive and unsatisfactory outcomes in most 100-years flood, defined in the U.S. National
cases. O'Loughlin and Avery (1980) . reporting Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as ' . .. the minimum
a study of two Campbe 11 town, NSW, subu rban level of flooding to be used by a community in
minor systems, concluded that it is 'impract- its flood- plain management regulat i ons.'
ical to devise a methodology for determining
design average recurrence intervals from Federa 1 , Sta te and 1 oca 1 go vernment
economic and sociological factors such as that authorities in Australia might be described as
developed by Polin and Cordery for culvert moving slowly in the same direction with
design floods. Designers will have to rely on respect to 'mainstream' flooding (Victoria,

8 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
Flood Plain Management Act 1982; Australian
Water Resources Council 1985). However,
damage to premises as a result of uncontrolled
urban storm runoff is not included in thi s
category of flooding.
Some argue that the entry of mai 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. Thei r 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 pa rameter.
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 fl ood
routes which may become, in the aftermath of
major storm events, torrents of fast-movi ng,
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 ARI recommended for the
pl anning 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 recommendation of a full water
resources enquiry.
2.6 DESIGN ARI - MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Of the five benefits listed 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 than is
encountered with major drainage systems.
Unl i ke thei r major counterparts, however, .
flood security levels applicable to minor
systems are never likely to be the subject of
national or State legislative processes.
Neverthel ess, it is common for State Road
Authorities responsible for the oversight of
drainage cost-sharing schemes, as well as
local government bodies, to provide such
advice (MRD, Queensland 1980). Designers
should not be dismayed to discover apparent
inconsistencies and even conflict in design
AR I advi ce issued by different autho ri ti es as
it represents · the outcome, in each case, of
the complex techni ca 1, socia 1, envi ronmenta 1 ,
political and funding judgements made by those
authori ti es •
ARRB SR 34,1986
Engi neeri ng input is important, however,
and may take one or more of the following
forms:
Initial Cost and Design ARI
The procedure for designing minor systems
presented in Chapter 10 includes 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 10 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 1. Fig. 2.2
curve 2 represents the outcome for a typi ca 1
commercial/industrial development.
This type of representation is valuable
input to the decision-making process. It
indicates, in the case of curve I, 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
decision-maker would be one which converts
initial cost and ongoing maintenance into
'present worth of costs' format (Grigg et al
1976).
Initial Cost/Maintenance and Design ARI
A report into engineering standards used for a
range of residential land development
components, including stormwater drainage, was
prepared in 1984 for the Commonwealth Depart-
ment of Housing and Construction by Scott and
Furphy (1984). The genera 1 aim of the study
was ' ••• to present a case ••• for the intro-
duction of more cost appropriate alternatives
for engineering requirements based upon
performance standa rds that are rea 1 i st i c,
achievable and encourage innovation.' 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. Storm-
water was managed in a major/minor drainage
system whose base standard minor system used
swales designed for ARI = 1 year.
The report concludes that the potential
maintenance cost savings associated with high
engi neeri ng standards ' ••• are so mi nor in
relation to the heavy capital cost burden
incurred that cost effectiveness improves
consistently as the base standard regime is
approached.' 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 swales.'
9
 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 cost-
effective.
Inconvenience and Suggested Design ARI
The types of engi neeri ng ana lyses descri bed
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
i nconveni ence 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 thi s 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
inconvenienced our subject results
interact i on between three l11a i n pa rameters -
(i ) the magnitude of the stormburst which
caused the runoff,
(ii) the ARI adopted by the designer for the
street drainage system, and,
(i i i) the adopted desi gn maxi mum spread
cri terion.
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
a round.±. 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
gi ven categori es of development, whi ch also
range up to .± 10 per cent.
The process of selecting a design ARI
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 conveni ence
provided in this event would be regarded as
'very high' and its cost could be prodigious.
Under normal ci rcumstances it would a1 so 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-indulgence in the provision of
convenience and undersupp1y to the point where
quality of life in the urban landscape is
degraded? There is no c 1ea r-cut an swe r to
thi s quest i on.
Thp. chanQe in emphasis which has occurred
in urban drainage planning with the intro-
duction 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
1971). In what might appear to be a 'trade
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 whi ch reflect
thi s ph i 10sophy is presented in Table 2.3.
They are suggested for use in minor drainage
system components and networks ONLY where
has these are integrated within cor recLly
from planned/designed major systems.
TABLE 2.3
SIJG(';FSTFI1 MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN ARI
Category of Development Design ARI
Low-medium density residenta1
<15 residences per ha * 1-3 years
High density residential
>15 residences per ha * 3-5 years
Unit and townhouse deve lop-
ments 5 years
Commercial/industrial develop-
ments
city centres 10 years
suburban centres 5 years
Open space, recreational areas 1-2 years
*residentia1 density is based on allotment area
only, i.e. excludes roadway reserves, community
buildings, open space domains, etc.
ARRB SR 34, 1986
Retention, detention and retardation
measures in urban catchments
3.1 THE NATURAL CATCHMENT AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
In its wil d sta te, the na tura 1 ca tchment 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,
fragi 1 e for it can wi ths tand the ra vages of
bushfi res and fl oods and can - gi ven time -
regenerate i tsel f and restore its nat ural
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 we l l
matched to the rainfall/runoff processes
operating in that basin. Generally, less
than 20% of storm rainfall on a natural
catchment i s discharged from it as surface
runoff. This discharge causes a minimum
of scou r and eros i on and, con sequent 1y ,
carries a relatively low sediment load; it
is free of catchment-originating chemical
pollutants.
b) water retained by catchment The surface
i rregularit ies 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 ab so rbed 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
contraction) in reactive soils.
c) groundwater replenishllent and dry weather
flow That part of the rainfall input
which does not leave the catchment as
di rect surface runoff nor is evaporated
from it, passes to groundwater storage
and/or appears as dry weather flow in
streams. These processes provide ground-
water 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 fi rst impact of development upon such
a balanced system is usually the clearing of
land for agriculture. This leads to a change
in the type of vegetation cover, e.g. from
forest to grassland or crop, and sl ightly
increased flood peak flows with attendant
increased scour and erosion. Pollution loads
- ferti lisers, pesticides, etc. - originating
in the catchment and carried by streams may be
hig h 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 structures convert the bulk
of storm rainfall input to runoff which is
coll ected and which moves rapidly through and
beyond the catchment.
Where extensive urban development of a
valley has occurred without sound drainage
planning, riparian property owners in the
lower reaches of the valley are likely to
experience frequent inundation by fl oodwaters
carrying high silt loads and high concentra-
tions 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 corrmonly undertaken to compensate for low
soil moisture levels. The streams and
waterways of the valley are likely to dry up
compl etely duri ng the summer months and
members of the (stream) biotic communities
which requi re year-round fl ow for thei r
survival will vanish (Karr and Schlosser
1978) •
It is interesting to note that of the
three mai n envi ronmenta 1 damages whi ch 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 infil-
tration 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 surprl s 1 ng, therefore, that
urban drainage design practice of the past has
tended to concentrate on a percei ved need to
remove runoff as completely and as quickly as
possible. This ' need' manifested itself in
networks of slOOoth, interconnected collector
channels within developed catchments and in
large, lined channels downstream.
The tragic loss of life in the Woden
Valley (A.C.T.) flood of January 1971, when
se ven people were swept to their deaths in a
flooded stormwater drain, led to a questioning
of the 'remove runoff' phi losophy 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 st.orm runoff and delay its movement
from the catchment is explored in harmony with
acceptable levels of flood security (Poertner
1973: Tourbier and Westmacott 1980).
Th e broad ai ms of thi s approach as they
relate to an urban development are:
1. to retai n wi thi n the ca tchment as much
storm runoff as can be tolerated ha vi ng
regard for other communi ty needs such as
the structural integrity of building
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 whi ch the drainage designer
can employ to achieve these aims may be class-
ified broadly as retention, detention and
retardation systems (after Johnson and Putt
1977) :
Retention refers to procedures and schemes
whereby stonnwater is held for considerable
periods causing water to continue in the
hydrologic cycle via infiltration, perco-
lation, evapotranspiration and not via direct
di scharge to watercourses;
Detention refers to the holding of runoff for
sho rt time pe ri ods to reduc e pea k fl ow ra tes
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 drai nage
network passes along a channel of low
hydraulic efficiency. Retardation systems
which are most effective usually combine this
characteristic with those of retention and
detenti on.
3.2 TERMINAl RETENTION MEASURES
a) Porous paving British research has shown
that at least 30 per cent infiltration
12
' loss' can be e xpected wi th second grade
pavements (some residential streets, car
parks, etc.) constructed on porous soils
( Ma k in an d Ki dd 1979: Kidd und Lowing
19 79). Numerous materials and open space
surfa ce finishes are available which can
abstrac t upwards of 50 per cent of
rainfall applied to them (van Dam and van
de Ven 1984). These include open grade
bituminous concrete, interlocking paving
hlocks - 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 ,
suppl i ers recommend use of these pavi ng
types only on soils which are porous and
stable (Murphy et al 1981).
b) Soakage wells and sumps Where soils are
very porous and stabl e and the saturdLed
groundwater zone at least 2m below natural
surface, significant quantities of
stormwater runoff can be collected and
5 I owl y trans ferred to the wa ter tab 1e by
way of open soakage wells and sumps. The
technology leading to thi s approach has
reached an advanced stage in Long Island,
New York (Aranson and Prill 1977) and has
been successfully applied in Perth,
Western Austral ia, where much of the
terrain is sandy, similar to that of Long
Island.
'Soak wells' and 'sumps' are widely used
in Perth to store runoff from domesti c or
industrial roofs, carparks and sections of
main roads. installations vary in Lype and
size from pipe-walled pits (perforated pipes,
diameter 1 m) used in domestic situations to
open pi ts or 'sumps', e.g. 0.25 ha x 2 m 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. (For I
field measurement of hydrauliC conductivity,
K , see Jonasson 1984a.)
h
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
Austral 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 evapora-
tion - ignored by Brooks and Cocks - can also
be expected.
Where soakage wells and sumps are employed
to control minor 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 ARI equal to that adopted for the
genera I mi no r dra i nage system of whi ch 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 or seepage beds (see below). Roof
retained should be excluded from the defined stormwater, temporarily retained by these
catchment contributing to the general minor structures, is released slowly to
system network. groundwater or to maintain soil moisture.

Appropriate sp i ll provisions must be The following design constraints should be

incorporated into all sumps which receive observed in planning on-site retention/
runoff from multi- allotment catchments and overflow well s:
sub-divisions. Sump spillways can be expected
to operate in all major, rare and extreme (i ) site soil hydraulic conductivity, Kb ,
storm events in such catchments. not less than 3 x 10- 6 m/s. Thi s 1 imrt
corresponds to the Kh of very fine
The main disadvantages of the installa- sands.
tions described here are the area which must
be set aside for their use, their decreased (i i ) groundwater 1 evel { 1.0 m below bottom
performance as a result of clogging by fine of well
material, oil, plastic bags, etc. transported
in runoff and their role as breeding places (iii) well to be sited { 5 m from foundation
for mosqui toes. Those experi enced in the use of nearest building
of these installations stress the need for
regular, e.g. annual, maintenance. (iv) recol1111ended well volumes - Table 3.1

Attractive solutions to stormwater TABLE 3.1

management problems can resu 1t from the
diversion of runoff to naturally occurring or STORHWATER RETENTION/OVERFLOW WELLS:
man-made 'sumps' such as abandoned gravel pits
where aquifer recharge and evaporation VOllJ4E PER 100M 2 OF ROOF AREA DRAINED
processes operate to return stored runoff to
the hydrologic cycle. MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM
LOCATION DE SIGN AR I
3.3 NON-TERMINAL RETENTION MEASURES 10-years 5-years 2-years
. a) Retention/overflow wells Where soil s are Northern
less porous than the limit advised for Australia * 2.90 m 2.70 m 2.40 m
soakage wells and sumps in Section 3.2, Intermed i a te
retenti on/overfl ow well s of the type Australia see Section 5.3
illustrated in Fig. 3.1 may be used. Southern
These wells are sized (see Table 3.1) to Australia * 1.10 m 0.90 m 0.70 m.
retain a significant portion of roof
runoff before overflowing to the formal
minor drainage system or to Dutch drains * see Figure 5.2
stormwater drainage trom
roof or rainwater tank perforated concrete pipe, minimum diameter
overflow only ~ lO m with fitted cover, 100 mm above
natural surface

overflow to roadside
channel ,rear of allotment
drain , seepage trench etc,
I
gravel collar width - 300 mm.

internal gravel
bed 300 mm dee p

NOTES :
1. For well volume and site
see Section 3.3
2. Gravel- 20 mm nominal size

Fig . 3.1 - On-site retention / overflow well

ARRB SR 34, 1986 13

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Stormwater from roof or

Gutter grating
overflow from well or
seepage bed .

Rear Fence

' ,0 m

pipe ~rface wit h

stormwater drainage Flow
network
DUTCH DRAIN -Rear of Allotment Arrangement

carriageway

C : : :ater ::from
roo f or overflow deep
from well or seepage
bed.
Overflow pipe
Junction pit - - -
Dutch dra in - 400 mm. deep

DUTCH DRAIN - Roadside Swale Arrangement

Overflow to roads ide channe l

SEEPAGE BED or rear of "lIotment drain
NOTES , Geotextile fabric at all gravel/soil interfaces
2 Gravel - 20 mm. nominal size
3 Seepage bed volume - 3M volume from Table 3,'

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

b) Dutch (or French) drains and seepage beds
These operate along similar 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-terminal,
1 .e. they convey f1 ow as well as
promote its infiltration;
(ii) the excavated storage volume
back-filled with crushed rock
gravel. 20mm nominal size;
(iii) the drain or bed usually contains a
line of perforated pipe;
(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
is pervious and/or ground-level paved areas.
or
Because of the presence of hackfilling,
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 develop@Mnt (see Fig. 3.2).

14 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
The perforated pi pe 1 i ne usually inc 1uded
is not part of an associated underground
network: its role is, primarily, to ensure an
even distribution of stored stormwater along
the 1ength of the trench or bed. Neverthe-
less, these installations may properly be
regarded as extensions of the formal under-
ground collecti on 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 wi th soi 1 s
ranging from medium sands to loamy sands
(hydrau l ic conductivity, Kh.' range 5 x 10- 4
m/s to 5 x 10-6 m/s); rainfall is similar to
that experienced in Southern Austral i a (see
Fig. 5.2) . See Wanielista 1979; Ichikawa and
Yamamoto ' 1984; Jonasson _ 1984 (a and b);
Holmstrand 1984; Sieker 1984.
c) Off-streaM porous storages It is some-
times possible to exploit the advantages
of both retenti on and detent i on by
di verting 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
in porous bed material - cOl111lOn in such
situations - then floodwater disposal in
the manner descri bed for 'sumps' in the
previous section wi 11 follow. Its design
must incorporate prOV1Slon. for outflow
control , e.g. spillways, etc. These
characteri st i cs qua 1ify off-stream porous
storages for inclusion among retention/
detention systems (see Fig. 3.3). (
Embankmen t
Retention Basin
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 Austral ian experience. Main applica-
tion is with flat-roof commercial
buildings and multi-storey car parks
whi ch, norma lly, 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 achi eve
this ranges from about 70 mm in
Australia's most intense rainfall zones to
around 35 mm in the zones of least
intensi ty.
ARRB SR 34,1986
b) Rainwater tanks Although any available
storage in urban rainwater tanks causes a
reduction in the runoff passing to drain-
age networks from individual allotments,
the uncertainty which must necessarily be
associated with this reduct i on dis-
qualifies 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 di rectly to him
and reduces hi s dependence on water
transferred from catchments outside hi s
own.
c) 'Mi cropondi ng' The temporary pond i ng of
stormwater on individual ·allotments and
subdi visions - residential or commercial/
industrial - is a detention measure which
has, to date, found limited application in
Australia. Some excellent local contribu-
tions to this aspect of stormwater manage-
ment have, however, been made by Nicholas
and Cooper (1984), Boenisch (1984) and
Phillips (1985). It is an option which,
gi ven the ri ght soi 1 and topography,
should not be overlooked in the planning
of sub-divisions. The hydraulic princi-
ples upon which microponding 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 significantl'y less than that
required to carry upstream-generated flow.
By providing sufficient temporary off-line
storage to accol111lOdate 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 dupl ica-
t ion.
Required off-line 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 'Hydro-
Brake' - 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 cos ti ng 1ess than 50 per cent of
conventional remedies for overloaded systems
have been reported from the boroughs of York
and Scarborough in Metropol itan Toronto,
Canada.
e) 'Macroponding' The use of stormwater
detention basins to temporarily store
runoff from wide areas of urban or rural
1 andscapes is a tool well known to
15
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

p resent -day d rai nage planners. The In rai nfa 11 /runo f f even ts. s t o rm r unoff
typical fonn taken by such a basin where passes from the urban landscape into the
it is employed in an urban context is that ponding area and on through the culvert
of a small flood control dam. Its outlet. As inflow continues, exceeding the
embankment is normally located in the res tri cted fl ow capacity of the outlet,
flood pla i n of the main drainage path fl oodwater is stored beh i nd the embankment.
carrying stormwater from the urban In major storm events, the spillway operates.
development and it is usually provided
with an ungated cu 1 vert-type ou t 1et and The ponding effect of the basin, coupled
has a spillway (see Fig. 3.5). with the restriction imposed by the culvert,
combine to produce an outfl ow peak from the
basin whi ch is si gni ficantly 1 ess than the
peak of the hydrograph passing to it from the
upstream urbanised catchment. The relation-
ship of these two peak flows, for a typical
case, is shown in Fig. 3.6.

A deta i led account of th e hydrau 1 i cs of

detent i on bas in des i gn and ope rat i on and
review of case study examples are beyond the
scope of thlS Handbook. InformaLiulI UII these
topics may be obtained from the proceedings of
the Institution of Engineers, Australia
'Seminar on Retarding Basins' held in Sydney,
NS\aI, April 1983 (I.E. Aust. 1983) and from
other publ i cati ons which address thi s 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.
Fig . 3.4 - Detention storage in an overloaded storm drainage However, this category is conmonly understood
network to embrace only channels carrying surface
(after Environment Canada, 1980b)
flows to undergrollncl network entry points.

de si gn rare f lood stage

spill leve l - =;;.....;=---j6...,..,..,...,..,.,~

Temporary Storage

' wet ' storage ----=~~

(semi-perm a nent) \\ 'G:~:m~:'I'7.<~~~

low-leve l ou tlet sys tem

Fig . 3.5 - Main elements of typical urban detention basin

(after Robinson and O 'Loughlin, 1983)

INFL OW HYOROGRAPH
I ./ volu me of runoff held in te mp orary
~ storage at peak of outfl ow

OU TFL OW HYO ROGRAPH

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
wide use in Australian practice - swales, in urban deve 1opment as out 1 i ned above.
blade-cut earth channels and two types of Travel times are about 4-5 times those of
kerb-and-gutter channel s. These are 1 i sted concrete kerb-and-gutter channels, the
below, with comment, arranged in order upper time limit applying to swales which
according to thei r retardi ng effect on are interrupted by driveway crossing. [See
surface-moving flows: Fi g. 3.7 (a) J •
a) sWilles - poorly uinhined Urban use of d) blade-cut earth channels - well-maintained
swales is confined, mainly, to low density These are used in urban development as
residential situations (density eight or outlined above. Travel times are about
less residences per hal where carriageway 2-3 times those of concrete kerb-and-
crown levels are at or slightly above gutter channels, the upper limit applying
local natural surface levels. When poorly to channels which are interrupted by
maintained they become irregular in both driveway crossings. [See Fig. 3.7 (b)].
cross-section and longitudinal grade.
Travel times in these channels are about e) stone pitcher or cobble kerb-and-gutter
5-6 times longer than those of concrete channels These are found in many suburbs
kerb-and-gutter channels owing to inter- of our older cities. They are regular in
mittent grass, weeds, exposed tree roots, both cross-section and longitudinal grade,
driveway crossings, potholes, etc. rSee very rough and more pervious than concrete
Fig. 3.7 (aiJ. kerb-and-gutter channels. Travel times in
these channels are about twice those of
b) blade-cut earth channels - poorly main- concrete channels. [See Fig. 3.7 (c)].
tained These are channel s formed and
maintained by grader operators and tend to
be confined, also, to low density
residential sub-divisions. They are used,
ma in1y. 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 channe 1s. [See Fi g. 3.7
(b)].
lei stone pitcher or co bble kerb and gutter channel

width
/~
~'d'=8

l:1 / O'30-0 '38m '

Idl concrete kerb and gutter commonly used in
Victoria,Queensla nd, S.A . and NT

lal roadside gra ssed swale - with cr ossing

/' lei concrete kerb and gutter used widely in

N.S.W. and Tasmania

~TE: All kerbs, 150mm . high

Ib l blade-cut earth roads ide channel-with cr ossi ng

If I concrete kerb Ino gutter I used extensively in
Fig . 3.7 - Roadside channel forms used in Australian practice W.A ., North America and Europe

ARRB SR 34, 1986 17

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
f) concrete kerb-and-gutter channels
Roadside channels i ncluded in t his broad
ca t egory predominate in Australian urban
areas, old and new. [See Fi gs. 3.7
(d)-(f)]. Although forms differ , all are
equally effective in removing stormwate r
quickly with little loss to infiltration
and with little peak reduction as a
consequence of surface storage routing
(see 'Macroponding', Section 3.4). They
r e present the most obvious sign of the
, 'remove runoff' ph i losophy discussed in
Section 3.1 and as such should only be
used where necessary e.g. city streets and
high (traffic) volume streets in
industrial suburbs and residential
districts. Th eir wholesale deployment
throughout the urban 1 andscape should be
questioned.
3.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF RETENTION/DETENTION/
RETARDATION MEASURES IN THE URBAN
ENVIROflotENT
The various ponding and retardation measures
desc ri bed in thi s 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 di sturbance of such pl aces. To thi s
end, the natural drainage network with its
supporting forest environs should be preserved
as intact as possible and native vegetation
removed from developed allotments on I y whe re
absolutely necessary. Smoothing of the
landscape and removal of its natural features
produce not only ba r ren 1 i vi ng envi ronments
but are also prime causes of increased storm-
water flow, scour and blockage of downstream
drainage strllr.tllrp.s (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 psycho-
logically beneficial and safer for residents,
but is less costly compared with more conven-
tional patterns of urban development (Colman
1978; Land Commission, New South Wales 1984).
This type of development lends itself to
informal stor~ater 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
sati sfactory stormwater drai nage 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 parti-
cularly recommended for suitable locations:
a) swales in place of concrete kerb-and-
gutter roadside channel s in minor (access
roads) residential streets;
b) retention sumps and wells (Section 3.2)
where soil hydrauli~ conductivity, K , is
h
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).
Wi th 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 character-
istic does not lead to buildinq foundation
damage in areas where soils are highly
water-reactive. The design ob,iective should
always be to maintain uniform soil moisture
states below and around buildings on expansive
soi 1 s.
ARRB SR 34,1986
4
Rainfall/runoff mathematical models

4.1 BACKGROUND directly to and discharged from 0 [See Fig.

4.1 (a)l. If this cat c hme nt were subject to a
Two stormwater flow estimation methods or rai nstorm event of constant intensity, i mm/h
rainfall/runoff mathemati ca 1 model s are for long duration, then the resulting
reviewed in this chapter: r elationship between discharge, Q, and time
would take the form of the runoff hydrograph
a) conventional Rational Method, and, shown in Fig. 4 .1 (b). Note that the 'time of
ri se' of the hyd rograph is t mi nutes, the
b) the 'Two-Value Rational Method' catchment's time of concentrati8n.
The first of these is familiar to all The peak (steady-state) outflow which
students of Engineering Hydrology. It assumes occurs at 0, Q , must equal the rate at which
a relationship between the duration of precipitation °is being supplied to the
constant intensity rainfall required to catchment during the event since there are no
produce peak outflow from a catchment and the losses. Thus:
longest travel time 'time of concentration',
t , of the catchment. The relationship was =~Lls / (4.1 )
pFoposed fi rst by Mu1 vaney (1851) in hi s study 0.36
of Iri sh agri cu1 tura 1 catchments. The same
concept was applied by Kuich1ing (1889) in an
investigation of the rainfall/runoff behaviour
of urban catchments in Rochester, N.Y.,
U.S.A., and by Lloyd-Davies (1906) in his
para 11 e 1 study of developed 1 andscapes in
Birmingham, U.K.

The basis for method (b), above, is the

rainfall/runotf flow estimation proced ure
developed by Reid (1927), Riley (1932) and
Escritt (1965) in which catchment contributing
areas and their respective response times are
represented on a time - area graph. Rainfall
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 (a) Impervious Catchment Draining To 0
version of this method: it is the main
rainfall/runoff mathematical model which is
employed in the design procedures of this
Handbook. --------
00
Both methods rely on the relationship
between storm durati on and catchment travel
time assumed in the Rational Method. The
val idi ty of thi s re1ationshi pis explored in
t
0
the next section using typical rainfall ~

intensity-duration data applied to idealised :.

0
single and multiple land-use catchments. LL.

4.2 RATIONAL METHOD Time, t - - tc

Single land-use Catchments
Consider runoff from a 'plastic-coated' or
impervious catchment of plan area A ha, so
shaped that all surface runoff is conveyed
(b) Constant Intensity Storm
Runoff Hydrograph
Fig . 4.1 - Single land-use catchment and runoff hydrograph
in storm of constant intensity and long duration

ARRB SR 34,1986 19
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

P
This formula will be recogn ised as the
Rational Method formula with
coefficient, C, omitted or, more correctly,
runoff \
with runoff coefficient C = 1.00. This value
of C may therefore be applied to all similar
\ \
i mpervi ous catchments in whi ch there a re no
losses to
evaporation, etc.
infiltration, retention,
"- \ IMPERVIOUS

, \
CATCHMENT

Consider now runoff from Catchment I, a

~ \
AREA= 0·10ha
rectangul ar, impervious catchment of uni form
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
'" ,,\ o
regi on whose ra i nfa 11 average i ntes ity-
duration relationship for frequency ~RI
10-years is presented in Fig. 4.2 (b). (a) Catchment I "
If the following $tormburst cases
(intensity constant), all taken from the Fig.
4.2 (b) curve, are applied to Catchment I the ~ 60
resul ting runoff hydrographs at 0 take the It r\
forms set out in Fig. 4.3. 50
3'
2~ !'-.ARI=10 Years -
Example 1 : intensity i 10 25 rrm/h

-
.........
for duration 60 mi nutes
..........
(hyd rograph 1)
Example 2: i ntens i ty i 10 42 mm/h 1~
for duration 25 mi nutes
(hydrograph 2)
Exampl e 3: intensity i10 48 mm/h
for duration = 20 minutes
(hydrograph 3)
Example 4: i nten s i ty i 10 55 mm/h o 10 20 30 40 50 60
for duration 15 minutp<; Storm Duration (mins)---
(u) Rdinfall Inl"nsity-t ime
(hydrograph 4)
Relationship
In examples 1-3, peak flow rate Q is given by Fig . 4.2 - Catchment I - layout and rainfall intensity-
the Rational Method formul a:
o duration relationship for ARI 10 years =

(CA)i 10 15 r---,----r---.----.---,----r---.--~
- - - LIs (4.2 )
0.36

where C = runoff coefficient (=1.00 in each Note : tc = 20 mins

case)
A = catchment area (ha)
i~= rainfall intensity (mm/h)

~
o
Example 1: Q = (1.0 x 0.10) 25/0.36 6.9 L/s
o ~ 5~~~+_~--_+~4-~--4_--~~.4--~
(4.3 )

Example 2: Q = (1.0 x 0.10) 42/0.36 11.7 L/s

o
(4.4 )
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (mins)
Example 3: Q = (1.0 x 0.10) 48/0.36 13.3 L/s
o
Fig . 4.3 - Hydrographs for rainstorm bursts on catchment I
(4.5 )

As storm examples with shorter durations
and hence greater average rainfall intensities
are consi dered [represented by poi nts 1-3 in
Fig. 4.2 (b)], the resulting hydrographs show
progressively higher peaks. The hydrographs
are based on the assumpti on that the speed
with which runoff elements travel to discharge
poi nt 0, is steady i.e. constant at each
location in the catchment throughout each
runoff event.
In examples 1-3, the duration of storm
rainfall is long enough (duration ~ t ) to
ensure the arrival of runoff from all parts 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.Y 15/20 arises from 15 minutes storm
duration, 20 minutes time of concentration).

20 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DES IGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Hence: The following example illustrates

conventional application of the Rational
Example 4: 00 = [1.0 x (3/4 x 0.10)J 55/0.36 Method to a mu lt i 1and -use catchment, in thi s
case Catchment II :
= 11.5 LIs
(4.6) impervious area , A. 0 . 10 ha for which
C~ 1.00
The trend displayed in the Fi g. 4.3 1
hydrograph peaks is the usual outcome when pervious area , A 0.20 ha for which
Rational Method assumptions and r ai nf all
intensity-duration relationships ar e p cP 0.40
combined , as above, and it i s thus that travel t ime from poi nt P, t i 20 minut es
Mulvaney's 'hunch' of 1851 :
ston.s which produce peak outflows from a travel t i me from poi nt F, tc 60 mi nutes
catch.ent have durations equal to the
catchllent tillle of concentration, tc, or Hence:
longest travel tille
wei ghted runoff coefficient,
is justified for use in design.
(1.00 x 0.10) +(0.40 x 0.20 )
The application of a runoff coefficient, (0.10 + 0.20)
C, other than 1.00 to take account of losses 0.60 (4.8)
to infiltration, depression storage, etc. in
pervi ous ca tchments has 1 itt 1e i nfl uence on time of concentration must be the greater
the assumed relationship between critical of ti and tc
storm duration and tc stated above.
= 60 mi nutes (4.9)
Before leaving this exploration of the
hydrology of single land-use catchments it rainfall intensity [from Fig. 4.2(b)J
should be noted that the basic assumptions of 25 mm/h (4.10)
the Rational Method, in particular that
relating to the steadiness of runoff travel, Hence :
have long been criticised (McPherson 1969; (C A) i (0 . 60 x 0. 30) 25
w 10
Aitken 1975). However, it was not until the
advent of kinematic wave theory (Lighthill 0. 36 0. 36
and Whitham 1955 : Henderson 1966) that more
convincing though more complex response 12. 5 L/ s (4.11 )
model s could be proposed for catchments of
the type considered above. Such models show But this is less than the peak outflow
that critical storm duration can be signi- rate estimated at 0 for that part of Catchment
ficantly less than time of concentration in I I Previ ous ly cons i dered as Catchment I [see
single land-use catchments (Stephenson 1984). eqn (4.5) J.
This anomaly which often results when
Multi land-use Catchments Mul vaney' s 'hunch ' is app 1i ed to catchments
When flow estimates are required in a multi quite unlike those he studied , became a matter
land-use catchment of the type illustrated in of concern to many practitioners involved in
Fig. 4.4 - Catchment II - conventional use of urban drainage design in the 1920's. They
the Rational Method requires critical storm therefore sought a better rainfal l /runoff
duration to be still set equal to total response model , one which would expose the
catchment longest travel time even though presence of such anomalies should they be
overland flow speed in its various components present. Their deliberations resulted in
may be demonstrably different. Travel time time-area representation of catchment
from point F will therefore over-ride travel components and the various 'Tangent Check'
from poi nt P because runoff movement across procedures.
the pervious surface is much slower than
across the alternative impervious surface. p~--------~--------------------~F

The only concession made in the Rational \ /

I
Method for the composite nature of the I
catchment draining to 0 is in the adopted \ \ /
runoff coefficient. This takes a 'lumped' Imperv iou s Per vio us
value, C , weighted in proportion to the " Catchment I I Catchm ent
areas of rhe land-use components. /
" \
---
- -
Given a catchment containing three ,,\
different land use areas A1 , A2 , and A3 with
correspond i ng runoff coeffi c i ents C1 , C2 and
C3 the lumped or weighted runoff Area
o Area
coeffiCient, C , is: AL= 0· 10 ha. Ap =020 ha
w CL= 100 Cp =0 40

C (4.7) Fig . 4.4 - Catchment II - composite impervious/ pervious

w catchment

ARRB SR 34,1986 21
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

4.3 TIME-AREA REPRESENTATION P Time-Area

representation
A of area Aha.
The basic Rational Method assumption that
_impervious
' ••• the speed with which runoff elements
travel to discharge point, 0, is steady ••• '
stated in the previous section is capable of
11 11- catchm ent
total area
3A
~-- --- Aha.
much wider interpretation than eqn (4.2) might T
suggest, for it implies the existence of a
fixed relationship of proportionality between
catchment area and time. Fig. 4.5 illustrates
thi s for the case of a rectangular (approxi-
t \: J
w
E
1 fA 2
f-- :;: <{
mately) impervious catchment of uni form slope w
and plan area A draining to point O. Time of '"
<{
A
concentration for the catchment is tc minutes. \ \] f j 4"
travel time

t\-\- II
In this catchment, the speed of travel is --L from this
the same at all points at all times (Rational boundary =t
Method assumptions). It follows that runoff area
= 1;. 0 tc tc 3tc tc
from the lowest quarter of area A has either
passed through 0 at time t /4 mi nutes after
4 4zT
TIME -
the commencement of a consta~t intensity storm
0
on the catchment or .iust arrived there. The
area A/4 is described in this situation as the
Fig . 4.5 - Time-area graph fo r simple catchment of area A
'area contributing to runoff at 0 at time and time of concentration te
t /4.' Similarly for the area/time pairs A/2
a~d t /2, 3A/4 and 3t /4, A and t • These
pairs,c plotted in Fig~ 4.5(b), yfeld the
time-area relationship for the catchment.
0 20
Similar graphs can be constructed to
:-
describe the time-area responses of real-world <{
V
catchments which are irregular in shape, I..LI
/" C Ap'0 '40x 0·20
non-uniform in slope and which include a mix '"
<{ rtI
.s:;
,1008ha
Vl / /PE RV IOUS
of pervious and impervious components. :::>
o
Representation of such catchments on simple :; V CATCH MEN
~ 0·10 /
time-area plots requires the 'contributing
are",' of each component to be expressed in
Cl.
~ /
terms of equivalent impervious area i.e. the >--
z <{
II IMPERY lnJ 1<; Ci Ai =lOOxO'10
product of runoff coeffi c i ent and component I..LI U
=0·10ha
area, (CA). The time-area graph of Catchment
-'
;:'!: / CATCHMENT

II, presented in Fig. 4.6, illustrates this

process: basic data for the presentati on are
CI
I..LI V tL{20mins tc=60 mins

o 10 20 30 40 50 60
listed in Section 4.2 in the derivation of TIME (minsl-
eqns (4.8)-(~.11):

The time-area concept which provides the
theoretica 1 base for the ma .iority of present
day urban catchment ra i nfa 11 /runoff response
models was first presented in Austral ia by
Ross (1921) and Hawken (1921) and developed in
the papers of Reid (1927), Riley (1932) and
Escritt (1965).
4.4 WHY A 'NEW' RATIONAL METHOD?
A 1983 survey by Professor D.H. Pilgrim (UNSW)
revealed that use by Australian practitioners
of the Rational Method to estimate urban storm
runoff flows far outweighs use of all other
methods. The su rvey a 1 so showed tha t tabu 1a r
or 'hand' 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.
It seems appropri ate therefore to bri efly
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
time.
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
Ku i ch 1 i ng presents ra i nfa 11 and runoff data
for four developed catchment in Rochester,
N. Y., and postul ates that peak ~ l ow will be
observed at any point in a s wer)~hetwork 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 Birming-
ham, 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
domain only. In a reworking of Kuichling's
Rochester data, included in his paper,

22 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Lloyd-Davies assigns new, shorter concentra- drainage unit directly-connected *

tion times intending to r pmove, presumably, impervious or paved area, ha
what he considered to be Kuichling's un-
necessary allowance for pervious area travel drainage unit pervious area
time from the extremity of the 'enti re
tributary area'. (A Ai)' ha
Thus arose the duality of urban drainage where A drainage unit total area, ha
time of concentration interpretations which
persist to this day with neither leading to c) rainfall intensity, i = average intensity,
wholly satisfactory outcomes in every case. duration t , obta i ned from catchment
British practice has tended to follow rainfall i<;'tensity-duration chart for
Lloyd-Davies' interpretation (National Water selected ARlo
Council and U.K. Dept. of Environment 1981;
Hall 1984) while urban drainage designers in The flows calculated by this approach
North America have inclined more towards [using eqn (4.2)J are referred to as
Kuichling's view (ULI/ASCE/NAHB 1979; U.S. 'full-area' flow estimates.
Dept. of Transportation 1979; Environment
Canada 1980b). Practice in Australia has
generally adopted Kuichling's interpretation Part-area Flow Esti.ate
(I. E. Aust., 1977) but a standard 10 mi nutes
time of entry to the first gutter inlet, Peak runoff flows are also determined for the
reflecting the Lloyd-Davies ' approach, is used same catchment units using:
widely in Queensland.
a) critical design storm duration =t., travel
The Two-Value Rational Method flow time from the outer extremity of \he most
estimation procedure described in the next remote, directly-connected paved area
section is uncommitted to either inter-
pretation , an outcome which is achieved by the b) 'part' equivalent impervious area
simple expedient of computing flows 'both
ways' in every case. The decision to adopt
one or other of the alternative estimates (4.12)
which result in a given situation is left in
the hands of the designer.
c) rainfall intensity, i = average intensity,
4.5 THE TWO-VALUE RATIONAL METHOD duration ti ' obta i ned from ca tchment
rainfall intensity-duration chart for
Thi s method combi nes a number of Rational selected ARI
Method and t i me-a rea propert i es 1ead i ng to a
design flow estimation procedure that is The flows calculated by this approach
non-graphical and can be carried out 'by hand' [using eqn (4.2)J are referred to as
(i .e. tabular) or using spread sheet tech- 'part-area' flow estimates.
nology or by computer. It produces two
possible critical design storm outflows The theoretical basis for eqn (4.12)
(constant intensity storms) at the di scharge follows from time-area representation (see
point of each drainage unit. The two design Section 4.3) of the lumped paved and
out flows ari se from 'fu 11 -a rea' and separately lumped pervious components present
'part-area' considerations. in a multi land-use catchment. This is given
in Fig. 4.7, the main elements of which are
repeated from Fig. 4.6.
Full-area Flow Estimate
Strict time-area representation of the
Peak runoff flows are determined for single or paved and pervious components of real-worl d
multiple land-use drainage units in the manner catchments, differs from the simple model
described in Section 4.2 using conventional presented in Fig. 4.7. Justification for its
Rational Method procedures : use is therefore claimed on the grounds of
simpl icity and adequacy. It is simple because
a) critical design storm duration = t , it transl ates into an easi ly-understood
travel time from the outer extremity 8f tabular flow estimation procedure, and
the most remote pervious area

b) 'full' equivalent impervious area,

(CA)full = (CwA) * 'Directly-connected impervious or paved
area', A., is impervious area which contri-
where butes rlmoff di rectly to the drai nage
collection network. Such runoff may be
CiAi + CpAp con veyed by pi pe , channel or i nforma lly across
(see eqn (4.7)) paved surfaces before reaching the formal
Ai + Ap collection system e.g. roadside channels of
various types (see Section 3.5). Impervious
impervious or paved area runoff or paved area whose runoff is not
coefficient 'directly-connected' to the formal collection
system is included with pervious area, Ap (see
Cp pervious area runoff coefficient Table 5.3).

ARRB SR 34, 1986 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 0·20
time-consuming methods (see Chapter 12). tt, x(p p
F
<l: ! ...V
Exa~le of Two-Value Rational Method ~! ( /
V
Cp Ap =O'OB ha.-
Consider the peak flow estimates (design ARI = 5 "<::
V') '"
\ ~
,,/' Pervi pus
Compo ent
10- years)
'full-area',
which may be derived from the
F, and 'part-area', P, condi ti ons
:>
a:
~ 0·10
:,.../ Xi
which arise in Catchment II, represented in
Fig. 4 . 7. / (CA full

Full-area estimate:
/t
1St.
tICAl
pa r t
(CAl part =

~ Cl , l = 0·10 ha Cl AL{t - Cp Ap]

<.J
= (CwA)
equivalent impervious area
b
= 0.18 ha I tl 20" t, 60"
o ro m ~ ~ ~ W
storm duration (equal to t c ) = 60 minuLe~ 11M!: (mmsl

hence i,o 25 mm/h Fig . 4.7 - T ime-area representation of multi land-use

[from Fig. 4.2 (b)] drainage unit (catchment II) with derivation of
part-area (CA) algori thm

Hence, full-area peak flow estimate,

storm duration (equal to til = 20 minutes
(0 . 18) 25
Qf = 12.5 Lis (4.13) hence i,o 48 mm/ h
0.36
[from Fig. 4.2 (b)]

Part-area estimate: Hence , part-area peak flow estimate,

equ i valent impervious area
(0.13 )48
C.A. +
1 1
ti
[ c·
x CA
p
J
P
0 . 36
17.3 Lis (4.14)

1
20
(1.0 x 0: 10) + -- x (0 . 4 x 0 . 20) RecofTlllendation: outlet works for point 0 in
60 Catchment II should carry a design flow (ARI =
- 0.127 ha 10 years) of 17.3 Lis.

24 ARRB SR 34, 1986

5
Hydrological data base

The hydrological data base comprises six main Sub-divisions are frequently developed without
topics: provision for rear-of-a110tment runoff
collection making the required travel time
a) Ultimate development assessment difficult if not impossible to estimate.

b) Storm rainfa11-frequency-duration data In its 'ultimate' state, such a sub-

division will have evolved. almost certainly,
c) Australian climatic zones - urban drainage an internal drainage network extending that
originally provided. While the peripheral
d) Selection of design average recurrence components of the long-term development, e.g.
intervals rea r-of -a 11 otment dra i nage channels, etc. may
be omitted in the first-stage building
e) Travel time determination programme, it is the c 1ea r respons i bi11ty of
the designer to ensure that the principal
f) Runoff coefficients for developed in-ground components of the required ultimate
catchments dra i nage support system - underground pi pes,
gutter inlets, junction pits, etc. - are there
5.1 ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT and are matched to the stormwater load which
the system will in time be called upon to
Before the task of designing a major/minor carry. The completed drainage network must,
stonnwater drainage scheme for a deve10pi ng of course, be assumed in the design and
urban catchment can be commenced, the designer selection of these components.
must obtain or compile a plan for its ultimate
development. Little firm guidance can be
offered for this task. 5.2 STORM RAINFALL INTENSITY-FREQUENCY-
DURATION DATA
Urban zones can remain remarkably static
for long peri ods, e.g. some rura 1 vi 11 age The storm drainage design procedures described
residential blocks as well as areas which have in this Handbook are 'peak flow' methods which
reached a high level of commercial/industrial employ average stonn rainfall intensities
development. Others - in particular, the low only. Storm temporal patterns are not
and medium density residential suburbs of our appl ied.
cities - frequently experience rapid growth
and change. This may follow land value Designers must therefore consult Chapter 2
increases and consequent rate esc a 1at ions or of the current edition of 'Australian Rainfall
the enactment of by-laws aimed at reducing and Runoff' (I.E. Aust., 1977 or 1987) to
urban sprawl, e.g. Amendment 367 of the obtain required storm rainfall data.
Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme.
A typical rainfall inten sity-frequency-
Des igners faced with dr awing up their own duration chart (I-F-D graph) for an Adelaide
predictions are advised to study local region foothills, South Australia, location is
10ngtenn planning predicitions and development presented in Fig. 5.1. Only data required to
trends taking place in the areas of concern deSign drainage systems for small urban
and in similar areas and derive their ultimate catchments in the regi on are presented i.e.
deve10plllent predictions by extrapolation and storm duration range 5 minutes to 60 minutes.
engineeri ng judgement. The time hori zon for
such deve10ptllent prediciton should be 30-50
years.
5.3 AUSTRALIAN CLIMATIC ZONES URBAN
There is one aspect of drainage design DRAINAGE
uncertainty which can be significantly reduced
by 'ultimate development' considerations. The Australian continent experiences a wide
This relates to the estimation of travel time range of climates which affect significantly
to the first (downstream) gutter inlet of the rainfall/runoff responses of her urban
runoff from the most remote allotment of a catchments. The most obvi ous indicator of
sub-division, where this property is climatic difference is rainfall (see Table
down-slope from its fronting roadside channel. 5.1) •

ARRB SR 34,1986 25
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 5.1
110 1\
\ ADELAIDE FOOTHILLS
Average rainfall intensitie s f or c---
MONTHLY AND ANNUAL RAINFALL (11lT1) -
1\ \ storm s of short durat ion AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL CITIES
100
\ 1\ CITY JAN FEB MAR APL MA Y JNE JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
90
\ \
1\ 1\ Adel a ide 20 21 24 45 69 72 67 62 51 45 30 27 533

80 \ \ \ Br i sbane 167 166 151 BB 69 72 57 47 48 76 95 128 1164

\
1\ Ca nbe r ra 59 55 53 49 52 39 37 43 50 69 63 60 629

70 1\\ 1\ \ \ Oarw i n 398 325 265 97 15 3 1 2 13 54 123 244 1540

\
.c
"-
E
\ 1\ . c--- Hobart 48 41 4 7 55 49 59 53 49 52 64 56 58 63 1
E
60
\\ \ \ \ Melbourne 48 50 53 59 57 50 49 50 59 68 60 58 661
.;:-
.;;;
\ 1\ \ '\.I'\. Perth 8 11 20 46 124 185 174 137 81 55 21 14 876
c: \ \ \ \. ~
'"
""
'"c: SO Sydney 102 114 129 131 123 131 106 81 71 81 78 79 1226
1\ 1 \ \. ~ ""-.... '" .zzc
1
~
c: 40
,,'\
\ \ " I" '-... ~ ~~ ~ So urce : CUII DII UII W~dllh Del-'L. ur
Burea u of Meteorol ogy
~L i e n(e -

.~

~ ~o r---.
0:

"" '"'"
I'.........
I"'--- ~
y,
y;:r-z.-r--.
'" '"
'"~
'"
30
"-.... ~ :;sI-- r- In the sect i on s wh i ch follow , zone-
~

20
..........
r--.........

I'-......
~
~
...:....t..!. ~
-- r- dependent hydrological data are presented for
the Northern Austral i a and Southern Austral i a
zones only: data for Intermediate Austral i a
I-- locations are to be determi ned by interpola-
tion. The recommend ed procedure for inter-
10
polating a value for parameter P at station X
is:
10 20 30 40 SO 60 1. Det e rmi ne Northern Austral i a and Southern
Sto r m Duration (mi nutes ) Australia values for the parameter of
intere st - Pn and Ps , respectively;
Fig. 5.1 - Rai nfall intensity-frequency-duration chart for
Ad elaide Foot hills, Sout h Australia: storms 01 short durati on 2. Determine the 10-year, I-hour average
rainfall inte nsity ilt location X, i.e,.
The main determinant of storm rainfall/ \;
runoff res ponse ina deve loped ca tchme nt is
not mon t hl y rain f all but t he intensity and 3. Compu t e the requ i red value for parameter
du r ation of rainfall experienced during sto r m P: -
bursts. In all centres listed i n Table 5.1, i 25
except Perth , storm bursts occurri ng duri ng x
SUlllllle r' pr od uce highest intensities : this is P (P - P )
x n s
in sharp contrast with monthly rainfall whi ch 70 - 25
may yiel d highest gaugings , as in Adelaide , in
Wi nter. (5.1 )
The need to divi de the Australian
continent into climatic zones whose urban NORTH ERN AUSTRALI A
catchment s respond ins i mi 1a r ways has been 10 yea rs, 1 hour avera ge ra infall
i nte nsi ty , L,0.,:;.70 mm / h £:7)
explored by the AR&R review team led by
Professor D.H. Pilgrim (UNSW). Three zones
have be en de fined on t he basis of average
rain fa 11 i ntens i ty observed in stonn bursts of
design ARI = 10-years an d durat i on I-hour.
The zon es are :
Northern Australia zone
10-year , 60 mi nute avera ge intensity
~ 70 l1lT1/h

Intermediate Austral i a zone

10-year, 60 minute average intensity:
Pert h
range 25-70 mm/h • Sydney

Canber r a
Southern Australia zone 10 ye ars, 1 hour average rainla II
inten sity , L,0,,';;25 mm / h
10-year, 60 minute average intensity
~ 25 mm/h
~Hobart
Approximate boundaries for the three zones are
shown in Figure 5.2 Fig . 5.2 - Austral ian cl imatic zones - urban drainage

26 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Example: In the Adelaide illustration referred to

above. the 100-years ARI fl ood could only be
Find the runoff coefficient for pervious areas successfully conveyed by the dual above-ground
(design ARI = 10-years) i.e. [ClOJ pervious' and underground systems. each des i gned to AR I
for Penrith. N.S.W. = 5 years (approximately) standard. if the
underground system remained unblocked. This
STEP 1: [C,o Jpervi ous for Northern Austral i a raises the practical issue of blockage which
= 0.70 is a necessary ingredient in the definition of
'gap flow':
[C,o J pervious for Southern Austral ia
0.10 Gap flow. Ogap. is the difference between the
design rare flood peak flow estimate at a
(from Table 5.3) particular location in a drainage system
and the peak flow estimated for the under-
STEP 2: the 10-year. 1-hour average rainfall ground network at that location assumed
intensity at Penrith:- unblocked or partly-blocked by the de-
signer. The entire gap flow is carried
44 mm/h in the surface drainage lines of the
Penrith major system.
STEP 3: [c'0 J pervious for Penrith Where major system design is based on
= 0.1 + 0.022 (44 - 25) (0.70 - 0.10) fully operating underground networks. i.e.
unblocked, then gap flow is. simply. the
= 0.35 (5.2) difference between major system desi gn fl ow
and minor system flow.
Taking Y = 100-years and Y = N-years as
the rare and nuisance design frequencies re-
5.4 DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL - spectively in a given case (see Sections 2.5,
2.6) :
MAJOR/MINOR SYSTEMS
FIOO · ilOO(CA)lO
0'00 Lis (5.3)
The two-ti ered nature of the major/mi nor 0.36 .
concept for managing storm runoff in the urban
landscape is described in Chapter 2 and the
F
n i n(CAh a
consequent need for a pair of design ARI's in Lis (5.4)
On
each total system explained in Sections 2.5 0.36
and 2.6. and

0gap 01 00 - On (5.5)
Design ARI recommended for major drainage (CAho
systems is 100-years; design ARI's suggested [FIO O.ilOO - F.i ] - - - Lis
for mi nor drai nage systems 'nested' withi n n n 0.36
major systems are listed in Table 2.3.
which can be restated as :
Fm . im(CAh a
It is clear that in a design rare flood.
say AR I = 100-yea rs. in an urban catchment Lis (5.6)
which incorporates conjuncti ve1y-acti ng 0.36
above-ground and unde r ground drainage net- The frequency conversion factors F '
works. a significant portion of generated IOO
runoff wi 11 be conveyed by the underground t/
Fn and Fm are found from Table 5.5. The fre-
system. It follows that the requi red capaci ty quency M [eqn (5.6)J is found by tria1-and-
of surface channels can be significantly less error ina gi ven situati on and is 1 inked to
than would be required if they alone conveyed the value assigned to N. N-M pairs for
the entire rare storm flow. In the case of catchments in Northern and Southern Australia
short-durat ion s to rms (10 mi nutes-30 mi nutes ) are given in Tables 5.2A and 5.2B (minor
in Adelaide. South Australia. 5-years ARI system, zero blockage).
average rainfall intensities are about half of
those observed in co r responding 100-year In cases where partial blockage is considered
storms. Thus. 100-years ARI floods can . li kely an arbitrary '50 per cent blockage'
theoretically. be conveyed through Adelaide assumption is suggested. This leads to appro-
urban catchments by a combinati on of surface priate modification of the expression for gap
and underground drainage paths. each designed flow. Ogap. given in eqn (5.5):
to carry storm runoff of approximately 5-years
ARI flood magnitude. 0100 - ~n
(CAho
Adoption of an appropriate design ARI for FIOO · i l OO - 0.5F n .;n
- - L/s(S.7)
a catchment minor system therefore opens the 0.36
way to not only its design but also the design This affects the value of M which arises
of the ma jor system which complements it. The in a particular case from the general
latter design procedure employs the 'surface expression, eqn (5.6). Values for Northern
flow' approach described in Chapters 8 and 9. and Southern Austral ia (minor system, 50 per
Frequency aspects, only. of this approach are cent blocked) are also listed in Tables 5.2A
exp 1ored here. and 5.2B.

ARRB SR 34, 1986 27

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 5.2A c) other cases

kerb-and-gutter channels
GAP FLOW (Qgap) underground stormwater drains
DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL allotment drains (surface or
underground)
(M-years) FOR URBAN CATCIt4ENTS IN NORTHERN easement drains (surface or
AUSTRALIA underground)
grassed swa 1es
Minor s yst em under- blade-cut earth roadside channels
ground networ k - 2-yrs 3-yrs 5-yrs 10 -yrs natural channels
des i gn ARI :
N-years ,= Overland Flow
The kinematic wave formulation for runoff
Gap flow moving in overland travel time t developed by Ragan and
surface channels 6-yrs 5-yrs 2 -yrs l-y r Duru (1972) is reconfmended. Appropriate
only : design ARI
with minor system
values for the parameter Manning's 'n' enable
unbloc ked, travel times to be computed for paved surfaces
M- years= and for two categories of grassed surfaces:
( 1n) 0.,6
Gap flow moving in tc = 6.94 minutes (5.8)
surface channels 30 yrs 25 yrs 20 yrs 15 yrs i 0.'+ S0.3
only: design ARI
with minor system
50% blocked, where t overland travel time (minutes)
M-years = lC travel distance (metres)
n 0.015 for paved surfaces
n 0.25 for lawn surfaces
n 0.50 for thickly grassed surfaces
TABLE 5.2B i rainfall intensity (mm/h)
S surface slope (m/m)
GAP FLOW (Qgap)
Correct use of eqn (5.8) normally requires
DESIGN AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL two or three iterations. However, by applying
the following limitations:
(M-years) FOR URBAN CATCHMENTS IN SOUTHERN
AUSTRALIA s torm d~ration: 15 minutes-3D minutes
desi gn average recurrence interval
Minor system under- lO-years
ground network - 2 -yrs 3-yrs 5-yrs 10-yrs
des ign ARI: it 1s possible to construct a simple nomograph
N-years = which gives approximate overland travel times
directly. Because the computation of t
Gap flow moving in
involves storm intensity, a differen£
surface channels nomograph is required for each climatic zone
only: design ARI 20-yrs 15-yrs 10-yrs 5-yrs (see Section 5.3). Nomographs for the
with minor system Northern and Southern Australia zones are
unblocked, presented in Fig. 5.3. The minimum overland
M-years = flow time which should be used for any
catchment element is 2 minutes, e.g. travel
Gap flow moving in time from crown to gutter ina narrow
surface channels ca rri ageway.
only : desi gn ARI 50-yrs 45-yrs 40-y rs 30-yrs
with minor sys tem The time adopted for travel in a large
50% blocked, pervi ous area such as a major park or urban
M-years = forest must recognise the limits of the
overl and fl ow phenomenon. It is a matter of
field observation that 'sheet' flow rarely
5.5 TRAVEL TIME DETERMINATION progresses more than 200 m before entering a
(!, runnel or ri 11 with travel in the latter mode
Introduction falling into the 'natural channel' category
(see section below). Fig. 5.3 includes a
The following categories of flow travel time boundary (X-X) which f i xes appropriate limits
in developed catchments are recognised : for sheet flow travel in grassed catchments of
various slopes.
a) overland or 'sheet' travel
Because of the uncertainty which must
grassed surfaces surround assessment of overland (pervious
paved surfaces area) travel time to gutter or rear-of-
allotment d ra i nage channel (see Secti on 5.1)
b) roof-to-gutter travel in the most remote allotment of a residential
residential roofs catchment component, a standard 15 minutes is
commercial/industrial roofs suggested for this overland travel element.

28 ARRB SR 34, 1986

»
:0
:0
III
U)
:0
x
W NORTHERN AUSTRALIA SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA grassed and paved surfaces
-~
I /'
{ ~-9~ ~
,()''-'
L
~~
;--';t'-.
~ ~4'l: Atv~<?" ~I'- /'/ ./A C/)
{
~~,,~< J'U%~t--... \.o~~ //' ./'/ V -l
o
l:~~"~
y/c: t'... ~J'
At('~~
l"-."-
~c,
,;§
r...1>~
./ " , / / ~V
/' :0
s:
1-~~~ 1>~~ c,;.t:I~'1./' ,/ V/ L</'V/ o
""~"
./
/' :0
-1J'J'~~ ~ ~/)) 1>"'~~ / ,<::iKG/V V /"'L V »
h V <. z
"~ ~ 'O/))~
./ / / ~ V
V ./
~
' / ~i<-~'
,;§ - -
»
G')
'" ~' ::::~ "- V . / / ./.L / ' ~ V ~~o;;,'"
V m
'/v ~1> o
~ ~ ':~ ~ V
V , /V / / ' ~ V m
C/)
,,~
t---.. ~ ~ ~ V ./V , / .// / V G')
Z
~ ~ f~ ~ ..:>. / ./v , / "/ l
Z
~ f7,~ ~
,/
°0 V /' ././ C/)
"./)) /))~/))' V ./ s:
-1 /' »
r
60 50 40 30 20 15 1098 7 6 5 4 3 2 60 50 40 30 20 15 109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 4050 100 200 300 r
C
TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFA(E, tc (min) TIME OF TRAVEL OVER SURFACE, tc (min) LENGTH OF OVERLAND FLOW, I (metres) :0
III
»
Z
NOMOGRAPH BASED ON : EXAMPLES : NOTE : (')
(In )06
Length of overland flow : 1= 100 m
»
-l
- tc = 6'94 LO'4S0'3 The boundary X X defines the limit for sheet flow
(')
Average slope of surface : 0, 010 path length ( ll i m) on grass or unpaved surfaces, I
- Equation 5,8
Description : sports field, Southern Australia e,g, ll im for 0,20 grassed slopes = 50 m s:
Ragan and Duru (1972) m
(use Residential Lawn) llim for 0' 05 grassed slopes" 120m Z
- L (Northern Aust, ) = 125 mml h -l
C/)
Hence, time of travel , tc = 38 min s, etc
- L(Southern AusU = 50 mm/h
For same field case in Northern Australia Pervious surface flow travel exceeding these l imits
tc = 27 mins, should be treated as "natural channel" flow
Hen { e, sa me case in Penrith ,NSW, (see exa mple (see Figure 5,4)
Section 5,3) tc=38+0,022(44-25)(27-38) =33 mins

I\)
CD Fig , 5,3 - Overland flow travel time (shallow sheet flow only) for Australian urban catchments

l ( ~ 1
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Roof-to-gutter Flow roof-to-drain element only. Allotment drain

travel time should be treated as a separate
Considerable uncertainty must also surround element.
roof -to-gutter flow tra ve 1 time. Two va 1 ues
are recommended: In situations where terminal on-site wells
and sumps are used. components contributing
r e sidential roofs : 5 minutes
runoff to these installations should be
commercial/industrial roofs: 10 minutes excluded from the catchments of associated
minor drainage system networks (see Section
In cases where residential roof water is 3.2) •
conveyed directly to a r ear -of-allotment
drainage channel, the 5 minutes va lue should Non-termina 1 stormwater management
be used for travel time to this collector measures e.g. on-site retention/overflow wells
a 1so. and seepage beds. i ntroduce del ay into
roof-to-gutter runoff travel times . Where
Where commercial/industrial roof water is these measures are employed (see Section 3.3),
discharged to an allotment drain feeding 10 minutes extra travel time should be added
stormwat e r to a fronting gutter or underground to the times listed above. (No other altera-
network pipe. the 10 minutes travel time tions to catchment parameters. e.g. runoff co-
recorrmended above app 1 i es to the d i rec t effiCient, are required.)

30·0 ,--------.----.---,-y-r--r--,--r-r--.-rr~rT"1___r--".----,.____,>rT",_,'V'I

250 t -- ----+- --+- -f\-- t -t---t++-t----t1'-t---f-Ht---T-fI---t-n'j-f-iTfl

200 f--- --l-- --+-++--f---I---t4-+-tf+--I''---If--1-f!---+-+H+f1'--f1'¥J

15 0 f-----l-----+,I~+-+--,i--+--v:-l-+f +t41+IhH-f-Hr--H-~

10 0 f------t-~'---t-___t-it----+ -fl--+.A--tf---1f---+--+-1hH-I-I'-I-lI-H+hH

VI
5·0
~
w
E
40
-'
u.J
z: JO
z
«
OJ:
LJ

u.. 20
<:)

-'
-'
1-5
~

10

0·4 f--1--hr--I--+-I--It--Htf--Ir--f+l~f--fb'-H,-I--If--1f--ftf+---+---H

FLOW DI STANCE (metres)

NOTES :
Ref : Country Roads Board ,
1. Flo w travel time (ap proxi mate) ma y be ob ta i ned direct ly fr om this chart for : Vi ctoria , 1982.
- ker b- and - gutter chann el s
- und erground stormwater channels
-a llotm en t channel s of all types ( su rface and underground)
-drainage easement channels ( surface and underground)
2. A mul tiplier, t. ,s hould be applie d to value s obtai ned di rec t ly fro m the ch ar t in t he
f ollowin g ca ses :
-gra ssed swales, well maintained and without dr iv eway crossin gs t. =4
- blade-cut earth road si de channel s, well main ta ine d and wi thout drivewa y cro ssi ng s t. = 2
- natural channel s t. = 3

Fig . 5.4 - Fl ow travel time in channels

30 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

General Channel Flows 2. second grade paved areas These incl ude
car-park, drive-in cinema and block-paved
All other travel time cases can be found with areas which are, compared with typical
the aid of Fig. 5.4. This chart i s reproduced fi rst grade pa ved areas . re 1ati ve ly
from Chapter 6 of 'Road Design Manual' porous. Runoff from these areas may pass
(Country Roads Board , Victoria 1982). The directly to the formal collection system
chart NY be used directly to determine or to terminal or non-terminal stormwater
approxilllate travel tiMes in a range of rigid management installations;
ch annel types and , with the applicatio n of
multiplier ~, a range of loose-boundary 3. unconnected paved area This category
ch annel forms. includes all paved areas whose runoff
passes to the pervious domain before
reaching the formal collection network.
Mini~ (Total) Flow Travel Ti.e
4. pervious areas This category includes all
Although travel time from elements of networks non- paved areas and areas of similar
may be as short as 2 minutes (see above), nature e.g. lattice-block reinforced
total nominal flow travel time from any grass. Runoff from these areas normally
component to its point of entry into the passes to the collection network by way of
unde rground dra i nage collect i on network must informal paths and drainage lines.
be not less than 5 minutes.
Basic runoff coefficient values for the
All carriageway components up to 200 m in four surfaces are listed in Table 5.3 for
length, regardless of slope, fall withi n this Northern Australia and Southern Australia
provision. Time of entry for these can zones. Values for the Intermediate Australia
therefore be assessed 'by inspection' as 5 zone may be obtained by interpolation (see
minutes. Section 5.3). Good design practice requires
that values such as those listed be applied to
components of the ultimately developed
catchment.
5.6 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR DEVELOPED Wei ghted runoff coeffi c i ents, C , can be
CATCtKNTS determined for mixed development cat~hments by
inserting appropriate values from Table 5.3
Basic Values for Cl0 into eqn (4.7).
The task of adopt i ng runoff coeffi ci ents for
use in the design of drainage works for urban TABLE 5.3
catchments is made difficult for the designer
by: BASIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (C l0 ) FOR VARIOUS
a) poor or non-existent data base from which DEVELOPED CATCHMENT SURFACES
satisfactory runoff coefficient values can
be derived;
Surface Classification Nort hern Southern
Aust. zone Aust. zone
b) uncerta i nty about the u 1t i mate extent and
type of development likely to occur in a First grade connected paved
catchment during its lifetime; and arpas:
- roadways ) C
l0
= 0.90 C
l0
= 0.90
cl distribution of various area types (roofs, - roofs )
general paved, previous, etc.) in a Second grade connected
catchment. paved areas, e.g.
- sealed carparks, ) IC = 0.75 C
l0
= 0.75
10
Study of aerial photographs of sample dr iveways, paved)
developments can provide useful design outdoor areas, )
information on item (c) above. Such etc. )
measurements, however, overlook the fact that Unconnected paved areas )
runoff f rom po rt ions of many roofs and from and )
some paved areas is diverted to the pervious Pervious areas: )
domain and should therefore be subtracted from - mi xed with paved areas) C = 0.70 C10 = O.~O
as i n residential land) 10
the cont ri but i ng paved a rea (A 11 ey and
Veenhuis 19831. The subtracted element should use )
be added to the contributing pervious area. - ma jo r urban open space)
areas, parks, etc. )

Four di fferent contri but i ng catchment

surface types are recognised:
ClO Values for Specified land Uses
1. fi rst grade paved areas These are hi gh
quality carriageway and roof areas which Study of aerial photographs, referred to
have a low capacity for absorbing water. above, reveals considerable variation in the
They may be connected di rectly to the paved/pervious distribution in such categories
formal runoff collection system or to as industrial, commercial and certain types of
terminal or non-terminal stormwater residential accommodation, e.g. town house and
management installations. strata-title developments.

ARRB SR 34,1986 31
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
/

TABLE 5.4
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (~o) FOR VARIOUS DEVELOPED CATCHMENT LAND USES

Land Use Description Nort he rn Australia Southern Au strali a

zone zone

I NDUSTR IAL
. heavy industry 0. 80 -0.90 0.80-0.90
light industry 0 .70-0.90 0 .60-0 . 80

COMMEI{C IAL
. city shopping complexes 0.90 0.90
suburban shopping complexes 0.80-0 . 90 0.70 -0.80
city office blocks 0 .90 0 .90
suburban office blocks 0.80-0.90 0 . 75-0.85

RESIDENTIAL * full-area II part-area ful 1- and part-area

20 residences/ha 0.80 I 0.55 0.45
15 residences/ha 0.78 I 0.50 0.35
10 residences/ha 0 .75 I 0 .43 0.25
5 residences/ha 0.72 I 0.35 0 .1 5
town house developments 0.60-0 .90 0.50-0 . 80

* includes allotment area only, i.e. excludes roadway

reserves, community buildings and open space domains.

Some consistenc'y is apparent, however, in divisions yields the 'P' and 'F' conditions
the general categor'y of Australian fami1'y indicated in Fig. 4.7. Where pervious area
residential accommodation. Measured samples contrihution is low, as in Southern Australia:
from nine Adelaide residential suburbs taken
with the findings of Heeps (1977) and of (CA )fu11 (CA)part
Aitken (1975) 'yield the following (5.10 )
relationship:
and a single ClO suffices. In Northern and
per cent impervious in allotment area
Intermediate Austral ia the pervious ar ea
runoff cont ribution is frequently comparable
3.0 RU - 5.0 to that of its associated paved area and,
(5.9 )
hence, the eqn (5.10) appruxillidtion cannot be
where RD residential densit.Y in justified. Two runoff coefficients
residences per ha of allotment area, i.e. correspondi ng to the fu ll-area and part-area
exc1 udes roadwa'y reserve, nature stri ps, conditions must therefore be entered.
etc.

Eqn (5.9) is satisfactor'y as a per cent Frequency Conversion Factor, F

y
impervious approximation for RD < 20
residences per hectare, but should be applied Derived runoff coefficients such as those
with caution above this limit. Specifically, 1 isted in Table 5.4 should be multiplied by a
it should not be applied to town house or frequency conversion factor, F , where design
strata-title unit t'ypes of development. a ve rage recu rrence i nterva 1, .Y y , other than
10-.yea rs is requ ired. Recommended va 1ues for
Table 5.4 lists runoff coefficients (C,o) Fy are listed in Table 5.5. Application of
for va ri ous 1 and-uses in the Northern these ma.y give C values, in certain
Australia and Southern Australia zones. y
Values listed for the residential categories ci rcumstances, greater than 1.00. A 1 imit
are based on impervious percentages gi ven by va 1ue 0 f Cy = 1 .00 shou1 d be adopted in such
eqn (5.9) reduced b'y one quarter (transferred cases.
to the pervious domain). This follows Alley
and Veenhuis' (1983) finding that significant
segments of residential land-use paved area is TABLE 5.5
'unconnected'.
FREQUENCY CONVERSION FACTOR F
Li sti ng of two C,o values for residential Y
drainage units in Northern Australia compared
with one for Southern Austral ia zone cases ARI (years) 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 100
deserves explanation.
Conversion 0.8 0 .85 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.1 3 1.17 1.19 1.20
Strict adherence to the Two-Value Rational factor, Fy
Method · (Section 4.5) in residential sub-

32 ARRB SR 34,1986
6
Hydraulic data base

The hydraulic data base for Handbook design o Manning's formula -

procedures includes eight main sections : -
a) 5tormwater conveyance in open channel (6.1)
drains
b) Gutter inlet hyd raul i cs
c) Guidelines for the management of surface- o Izzard's (1946) triangular flow forfllJla
movi ng f1 ows (modified) -
d) Underground networks: an overview
e) Gui de 1i nes for the management of under-
ground-moving flows
f) Minimum Grade analysis hydraulic data
g) Hydraulic Grade Line analysis hydraulic
data where Vave = channel flow average velocity
h) Tests for pit overflow and pipe obvert (m/s)
depth. n = Manning's 'n'
R hyd raul i c radi us, i.e. flow
area divided by flow boundary
6.1 OPEN CHANNEL STORHWATER DRAINS 1ength (m)
So channel bed slope (m/m)
Three broad categories of formed open channels Ot trian9ular channel total
used to convey stormwater through and beyond flow (Lis)
small urban catchments fall within the scope a shape correction factor
of this section. These are:- l reciprocal of channel cross-
slope
a) roadside unlined table drains and swales d triangular channel flow
[see Figs 3.7{a) and (b)] depth (m)
b) roads i de gutters with kerbi ng [see Fi gs
3.7{c) to (f)] The shape correction factor which
c) drainage easement channels of various should be used in the case of simple
types. triangular channels is a = 0.9
(Clarke et a1 1981).
Information on travel times and, hence,
flow velocities in these classes of channels A special form of Izzard's formula is
are given with Fig. 5.4. This infonnation is, used for composite kerb-and-gutter channel s
generally, satisfactory for flow est i mation whi ch have gutter cross-s lope and roughness
purposes but is inappropriate for use in the different from those of the carriageway pave-
hydraulic design of such channels. Two formu- ment. This formula is:-
lae are offered for these purposes : -

f--- - - spread, W - - -- ----4

. 1. Qfr ( Q t - Q f r) where la, na , d a , lb, nb and db are as de-
fined in Fig. 6.1. In this case the shape
correction factor, a, which should be used
takes a value not greater than 0.8 (Clarke
et a 1 1981).
Manning s n"= nbU

In general , Manning ' s formula is recom-

Fig . 6.1 - Definition of terms for composite
(i.e. ke rb-and-gutter) roadside channels
mended for channels of broadly rectangular
shape including steep-sided trapezoidal chan-
nels and pipes flowing partfu11. The modified
Izzard's formula should be applied in triangu-
lar channel cases including swales (side slo-
pes 1 in 3 and f1 atter) and kerb-and-gutter

ARRB SR 34, 1986 33

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

composite section channels (see Fig.3.7 for 8 0. 8; Za = 8-10 ; Zb = 25 - 40;

examples). (6.6)
gutter width 0.300 - 0.375 m
Values for Manning's 'n' compiled from
various sources are listed in Table 6.1. concrete, na 0.012; flush seal'l
(6.7}
It is convenient when dealing with compo- nb = 0.01 8; hotmix, nb = 0.014;
site channels to regard the total flow, Ot, as (see Table 6.1)
the sum of two component flows: Ofr or 'fron-
tal flow' moving within the gutter and (Ot - Substitution of values Za = 8; Zb = 30;
Ofr) moving on the pavement (see Fig. 6.1):-
gutter width 0.375 m; nb = 0.014
3758[j~:} dbB/3)Js~/2
B3
0fr (d a / - L/s into eqn (6.3) leads to:-
(6.4)

(6.5)
(6.8)
By assigning a particular value to da and
Eqns (6.3) - (6.5) are used to determine:- hence db (see Fig. 6.1) eqn (6.8) reduces to
the form -
1. fl ow spread, w, in selected channe 1s con-
veying nominated flows; (6.9)
2. flow rate for certain depth and velocity
criteria conditions which form part of for the selected value of da • This relation-
Handbook design procedures; ship may be presented on a graph with values
3. estimates of flows captured by various of da coveri ng the full range of interest.
types of gutter inlets. Graphs representing two of the gutter/pavement
profiles included in eqns (6.6) and (6.7) are
Values for the parameters 8, Za, na , etc . presented in Fi g. 6.2. Note that any roadside
which apply to composite channels of the types channel type (rectangular, triangular , compo-
widely used in residential streets in site, etc.) can be described by a single curve
Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory, on the depth versus Ot (= K~ plane of Fig.
QllPpnsland and A.C.T. are:- 6.2.

0 0·01 0·02 0·03

Gutter
0·04
Longitudinal
O'OS 0·06
Slope, So ( m/m )
0·07 0·08
-0·09 0·10

0·200
--Criterion 1
A

E
I 0·180
da 1> a·200m cases

Zb = 30 or 40
3
_ _--+--_-=---j-_ ",- 0
rorn
ClJ
L
a.
Vl N
II
Ll

d
D S'Om
..c.- 0·160 3-7Sm
.....a.
o
~
ClJ

0·140
B -- 3-Sm 4'Sm

4'Om
LL 3'Om
ClJ
3-Sm
'" 0·120
Vi
I
Ll
L 3'Om
ClJ da = 0-200m W= 2·5m c. da= 0'118m
~
A {
50 = 0'015m C{ so= 0·020
111
0·1 00 ~---I'-I--++----+-- Ut = 5585 S~I= 684 Lis Ut= 1040 So = 147 LIs 2'Sm

I
, B
{ da =0'150 m
50 = 0'057m T o{
w= 1'Om c. da= 0'06Bm
50 = 0·020 1'Sm
I 2'Om

~I----++----+-h-B- ,:',,~ u,
0t = 170 5~11= 24 L1s
0·080 0,,2300 0 '.Om ;:::

0 ' 060~~--~--~~~~----~~~~--~~~~~----~~~~----~~--~~
o 2000 Sti/2 4000 Sel l2 6000 Sd /2 8000 Sel l2 10000 Sel l2
Half-Carriageway Flow Relationship (Qt=Ks3/ 2)

Fig. 6.2 - Depth versus flow relationship (KSo""l for two gutter/ pavement channel profiles

34 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Subsidiary axes indicating flow spread, Two criteria are recommended -

w, are also included in Fig. 6.2: terminal
values on these axes correspond to half-car-
riageway 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 in-
formation from this domain. The depth versus
Ot relationships are therefore e xtended to
cover flow depths likely during major flood
occupancy of roadway reserves. The need for
criteria limiting this use is clearly indica-
ted.
TABLE 6.1
MANNING'S 'n' ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT
FIXED BOUNDARY DRAINS
Concrete pipes (flowing part-full):
new condition 0.011
normal condition 0.013
poor condition 0.016
FRC pipes (flowing part-full):
new condition 0.009
normal condition 0.011
poor condition 0.014
Criteri on 1: fl ow depth in roadway reserves
should be not greater than 50 mm
above top-of-kerb. This criter-
ion may be interpreted in terms
of kerb-side flow depth:
(d a ) > 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 1 imi ts the potentia 1 for
i nju ry to pedest ri ans and damage to vehi c1es
resulting from the effects of deep, fast-mov-
i ng fl ood waters (Gordon and Stone 1973)
this criterion follows National Capital Deve-
lopment Commission practice (N.C.D.C. 1981).
Graphi cal representati ons of these cri-
teria have been added to Fig. 6.2. They show,
for the gutter/ pavement profiles featured,
that -
(i) Criterion 1 overrides Criterion 2 in
roadways of flat longitudinal grade (So
< 0.02).

Concrete surfaces: (ii) Criterion 2 overrides Criterion 1 in

steel trowel finish 0.012 roadways of mOderate-steep longitudinal
wood float finish 0.014 grade (So > 0.02).
broom finish 0.016
Th e genera 1 hyd raul i c i nformat i on con-
Corrugated metal : tained in Fig. 6.2 may be applied to a partic-
new condition 0.021 ul ar gutter/pavement profi 1e of interest to
normal condition 0.024 produce a graph of (half) roadway flow, Ot,
poor condition 0.030 versus longitudinal slope, So. The charac-
teristic double-cusp curve which results (see
Rough texture surfaces : Fig. 6.3) reflects the controlling effects of
stone pitchers or cobbles 0.020 - 0.025 Criteria 1 and 2. The derivations of points
A and B on the curve for a 7.5 m carriageway
Pavement: with pavement cross-slope 1 in 30 (Fig. 6.3)
hotmix - highway standard 0.013 are to be found in Fig. 6.2.
hotmix - residential streets 0.014
20 mm flush seal 0.018
Two other items of hydraul i c i nformat-
LOOSE BOUNDARY DRAINS AND SWALES ion, important in the design of minor drainage
systems, have been added to Fig. 6.3. These
Blade-cut earth roadside channels: relate to the Ot versus So relationships for
well maintained maximum allowable spread. Two cases are
(no driveway crossings) 0.025 shown : spread = 2.5 m and spread = 1.00 m.
poorly maintained The derivations of points C and D are also
(no driveway crossings) 0.035 found in Fig. 6.2. The significance of these
data is explained in Section 6.3.
Grassed swales :
well maintained Data similar to those presented in Figs
(no driveway crossings) 0.050 6.2 and 6.3 but determined for other widely
poorly maintained used gutter/pavement profiles are included in
(no driveway crossings) 0.060 Appendix A. The flow derivations reviewed
above have employed Izzard's triangular flow
Natural channels with medium vegetation: formula (modified) and, correctly, apply to
earth bed, normal meander 0.040 half -carriageway channels only. Where the
rock bed, normal meander 0.045 longitudinal slope of a roadway is, general-
coarse gravel bed, normal meander 0. 050 ly, 'down-slope', i.e. crossing contours at
near right angles, it will take a dual-channel
Main references used to prepare this table form making its total capacity double that
are: U.S. Dept. of Transportation (1979) ; indicated in Figs 6.2 or 6.3. Not all road-
Wanielista ( 1979) ; Dowd et al (1980) ways take this dual-channel form.

ARRB SR 34, 1986 35

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

1000 \ Ho t mix pavement

900

Gutter IPavement Prof ile

800

1 700 Zb =40
~ / carriageway half-width
.:=!
/ =50m
0 600
~-
0
Zb =30
u: 500 ~-+-f+----!--+-----l---1----L--=:>'I.....:c--L-./ carri ageway ha If - widt
>-
ro
~
WO =3 ·75m
OJ ENLARGED SCALE
~400
L
L
ro
LJ
300
-;;;
I

200

0J .
~
50
W=1 ·0m Ib= 30 D
100
Zb=40
w~ 1·0m
00 --- .005 010 015 020 025
°0 01 02 ·03 04 05 ·06 ·07
Gutter Longitudinal Slope . So (m / m)
·08
..
·09 ·10 ·11 12

Fig. 6.3 - Hydraulic capacity. Qt. data for two carriageway profiles: Zb = 30 and 40

Lateral streets, i.e. roadways running Much experimental work - the most rel i-
generally parallel to contours, are frequent- able using full-size rigs - has been carried
ly constructed with dual-channel carriageways out on grated inlets of many different types
provided that the terrain cross-slope is not (Department of Main Roads, N.S.W. 1979; Earley
great. A single-channel form is however, 1979; Public Works Department, N.S.W. 1985;
often adopted for residential and/or minor Burgi and Gober 1977). The main finding of
access streets in steep terrain. The critic- this work is that a grated inlet of any type
a 1 slope at whi ch the change inform takes will capture the entire 'frontal flow', Qfr
pl ace appears to be around 3 per cent as shown [Fig. 6.1, eqn (6.4)], presented to it pro-
in Fig. 6.4. vided -

dual-channel carriageway form

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
single channel carriageway form used for
lateral streets in steep terrain 3. bars are longitudinal OR, if bars trans-
verse, gutter longitudinal slope, So, is
not greater than 0.05.
slope usually steeper than 3 %
Two additional but subsidiary conclus-
Fig . 6.4 - Dual-channel and single-channel lateral street
carriageways
ions may be drawn from the referenced studies:
these concern gutter 1 ongitudi nal slope and
'side capture'.
6.2 GUTTER AND SAG INlETS Except for those conditions which lead
to flow 'skip' across the tops of transverse
St ormtlater i s normally call ected and bars and hence decreased performance (So >
conveyed in open channel drains of the types 0.05), gutter longitudinal slope increase
reviewed in Section 6.1 until diverted into leads to slightly improved capture. Also,
associated underground drainage pipelines. flow entering a flat grade grating (So < 0.01)
The structures which 'capture' this flow and along its outer edge i.e. 'side capture', can
transfer it from the surface to the under- be as much as 25 per cent of tota 1 captu red
ground domain may be divided into two broad flow. Thus, flow captured by a grated inlet
categories:- normally exceeds frontal flow, Qfr, the margin
of excess depending on the amount by which the
a) grated inlets length and area limits listed above are ex-
b) side-entry inlets ceeded.

36 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
These 1atter characteri st i cs of gutter
grates are part ly, at 1east, offset by thei r
potential for blocking, the two effects tend-
ing to cancel each other.
It is therefore recommended that design-
ers adopt performance rel ationships based on
frontal fl ow, 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. (1979) study
reveals a sl ight performance advantage for
depressed grated i nl ets, compared with unde-
pressed inlets.
Two 'per cent capture' levels are em-
ployed in the design procedures presented
later in the Handbook - 95 per cent and 80
per cent. Gutter longitudinal flows whose
frontal fl ows correspond to these percent-
ages of total flow are listed, for the Sec-
tion 6.1 carriageway illustrations (lb = 30
or 40) in Table 6.2. Additional data of
similar type are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.2
CAPTIilE BY 375 _ GRATED INLETS
(Gutter la = 8 ; pavement lb = 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
(t ransverse bars)
o 1ength « 0.75 m
o grating open area « 60% of total area
I 0 gutter longitudinal grade, So ~ 0.05.
Pavement cross-slope, represented by the
variable lb, has a significant influence on
the depth and spread of fl ow approachi ng a
gutter inlet. Over the range of design in-
terest (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 cal cul ations whi ch incorporate cross-
slopes that differ from design cross-section
profiles by not more than half of one per
cent.
The comprehensive report by the Storm
Drai nage Research Committee (1956) of Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A., pro-
vides a wealth of design information on side-
ent ry inlets with and without defl ectors. 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 repor-
ted in Henderson et a1 (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
side-entry inlets, with and without deflect-
ors, opening lengths Lis = 1.0 m and 2.0 m,
has been carried out in connection with the
preparation of this Handbook : results are pre-
sented 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) inlet length, Lis, is the most import-
ant determinant of capture performance;
(ii) 'depression' of inlet lip below gutter
alignment level (typically 50 - 60 mm)
leads to significantly improved capture
compared with the performance of an un-
depressed inlet;
(iii) a side-entry inlet with opening length
Lis > 1.5 m and depressed 50 - 60 mm
for full inlet length captures signif-
icantly more than approach frontal
fl ow, Ofr;
(i v) use of deflectors leads to further im-
provements in performance particularly
in medium-steep longitudinal grade
channels, that is, So > 0.03;
(v) little difference in performance re-
sults from the use of different types
of deflectors (square, saw-tooth,
corrugated,etc.);
(vi) inlets whose trays extend beyond the
gutter/ pavement ali gnment perform no
better than those with trays equal to
gutter width (otherwise same geometry,
depreSSion, etc.).
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 pro-
vided 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
uncertai nty inherent in ri g results in the
capture range 97 to 100 per cent : capture/by-
pass flow division at the 95 per cent level
is, by comparison, well defined.
Data for the lower standard - 80 per
cent capture - are provided to encourage the
use of systems which employ other than 'full
capture' units. Such systems can requi re
less underground pipe than systems using
'full capture' units. Systems which incor-
porate 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' in-
let obeys the laws of weir flow. U.S. Dept.
of Transportation (1979) offers the following
general formula:-
0i = 1.66 Li di 1 • S (6.12)
where Oi = sag inlet flow (m 3 /s)
37
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Li g length of grating perimeter (m) Figs 6.2, 6.3), sag inlet capacity flows for
excluding side closest to kerb, maximum spread of 2.5 m are:-
or
Lis length of clear opening (m) in 2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed),
the case of side-entry inlets 0i = 69 L/s
di depth of water above inlet lip
(m) 2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm),
Qi = 11 8 L/s
Depth di may be computed from carriageway
geometry, allowable flow spread and depress- (6.13)
ion of inlet lip. In the case of grated (un-
depressed) and side-entry (50 mm depressed) Simi 1 ar data for other gutter/pavement
inlets associated with carriageways of the sag inlet geometries are presented in Appen-
type used to illustrate Section 6.1 (see di x A.

110

100
--...-,
. 1·375mm" 1
Gutter Inlet-
with deflectors
150m~~F""" · ''''''-'''''''''''''''\\'
. o~.. Za= 8 · Zb = 33 '
90 Test Gutter / Pavement
Capture I Profile
r-~\---+---~--~--~~r-~---+---r--'---'-~

I
~
::::!
80 1 Curves ba sed on full size rig tests
conducted at South Australi an
Institute of Technology
2 All inlets depressed 50mm for full
0"'"' 70
inlet length
I- 3 Inlet t ray width equal to gutter width 1375mm )
UJ
--' 4 Test gutter/pavement profile as shown
Z
95% Capture
0 I I
I-
60 Capture
:r
LJ
I---I

, , t- 8~
« Legend
0
a: 2m inl et with deflectors
"-
"-
«
3
50
H--- 2m inlet without deflectors

~
0
--' 1m inlet with deflector s
<L-

40
a:
UJ
l-
I-
@ 1m inlet without deflectors
:::>
'"
30
95 % Capture
-f---j---+- --1

20 I-+-- j - --P.:-:::-'"-:-- t -

1 0 I -- - j ->"-- j - - t - -l-_-+":::::::~"""", -I-_ _

-t._-l--===1~=~9:.:5:....:% Capture
1--t_-If-...;8~0~% Capt ure

1----jr-_+-_+-_+-_+-~9:..:5:...;% Capture
o 0·02 0·04 0·04 0·08 0·10 0·12
GUTTER LONGITUDINAL SLOPE So (m/m) - - - -

Fig. 6.5 - Capture pertormance of 1.0 m and 2.0 m side entry inlets

38 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
6.3 GUIDELIIES FOR THE MNAGEMfJIT OF
SlilFACE-MOVIt«i FLOWS IN MIfC)R SYSTEMS
The task of managing surface-moving flows
within an urban minor stormwater drainage
system involves design interaction among the
various criteria which govern roadside chan-
nel fl ow spread, kerb-side depth etc. and
gutter inlet capture. The designer must
formulate or be provided with a set of guide-
lines similar to those listed in Table 6.3.
These guidelines should not be regarded as
mandatory for use throughout Austra l ian prac-
tice.
Th e tenn 'f avou red gutter/ in 1et' used in
Guidelines 1 and 3 of Table 6.3 deserves ex-
planation.
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/
environmental conditions, custom, availabil-
ity, 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 design-
er and for which at least adequate perfonn-
ance data are available.
Application of the Guidelines set out in
Table 6.3 is illustrated in Chapters 10 and
11 of the Handbook using infonnation 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
technical information pertaining to the main
criteria listed in Guidelines 1 - 3 into a
single graph of total flow, Qt, versus long-
itudinal slope, So. This brings together the
spread relationship 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
ab 1e to rapi dly select and locate gutter
inlets in the drainage lines of minor stonn-
water drainage systems. Similar information
on other roadside channel, gutter/pavement
and gutter inlet combinations drawn from
practice across Australia is presented in
Appendix A.
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
long dependi ng on the geometry of the catch-
ment and the nature of its contributing sub-
areas.
Design of a drainage system which is
economical and which successfully integrates
ARRB SR 34,1986
fl ows in these paths is complex. It is
therefore recorrmended 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 re-
qui rements, etc.
The manner in which these tasks are exe-
cuted brings to light two areas of controversy
among practitioners:-
a) should the calculation/design procedure
commence at the catchment stormwater di s-
posal point and progress up the network,
or should it proceed in the opposite
di recti on?
b) should 'Minimum Grade' or 'Hydraulic Grade
Line' analysis be used? Minimum Grade de-
sign considers pipes to be 'flowing full
but not under pressure' and ignores energy
losses at junction pits. Hydraulic Grade
Li ne des i gn cons i ders stormwater fl ow in
underground pipes as conduit pressure flow
and takes account of junct i on pit energy
losses.
These issued have been considered and the
following practices are recommended:-
Procedure direction: approximate network
deSign (Task 1, above) sho,uld be executed in
two stages. In the fi rst stage, junction pit
water levels are set along all lateral pipe-
lines 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
di rection. 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 up-
stream. This computation leads, normally, to
changes in some previously nominated pipe
sizes to ensure against pit overflow in design
stonns and junction pits which are unaccept-
ably deep. The outcome of this computation is
the 'approximate network design'.
Minimum Grade and Hydraulic Grade Line
ana lyses: as i ndi cated above, both ana ly ses
are emp 1oyed - Mi ni mum Grade to fi x fi rst-
round pit water levels and pipe sizes, Hyd-
raulic Grade Line analysis to arrive at app-
roximate network design pipe sizes and junc-
tion pit water levels that are in harmony
with adopted overflow and pipe depth con-
straints.
It is clear from this review that design
of an underground network for a minor storm-
water drai nage system requi res 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 e xamples ' of the guidelines are presented in Fig. 6.6

Guideline 1 Flow at 'sag' or tenninal inlets and in roadside channels

near intersections where bypass will cause cro s sflow
which i s unacceptable , must be : -

o not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerb-

line) of 2 .50 m*, and,

o not greater than the 95 per cent capture approach flow

of the favoured gutter/i nlet.

Guideline 2 Flow in roadside channels at pedestrian crossings must

be not greater than that giving a flow spread, from
kerb-line, of 1.0m.

Guideline 3 Roadside channel flow along surface drainage lines

generally and at non-tenninal inlets must be:-

o not greater than that giving a flow spread (from kerb-

1i ne) of 2.50 m, and,

o not greater than the 80 per cent capture approach flow

of the favoured gutter/inlet.

Guideline 4 A cOncentrated flow may be accepted into the roadside

surface drainage line provided that : -

o it is not greater than 20 lis and,

o the accumulated channel flow at the concentrated flow

outlet meets Guideline 3 above.

Guideline 5 Where a concentrated flow does not meet Guideline 4

above, it must be passed to a junction pit.

* see Secti on 2.6 where the relationship between flow spread and design
AKI 1S discussed.

Guideline 3,case where flow governs :

Q:I> 80% capture approach flow of
"favoured inlet,"
bypass 20%

Guideline 3,case where

spread governs: CROSSFlOW
Dual channel --t---l+..J W:I> 2·5m. - Crossflow permitted at
carr iageway intersections A and C.
(major road) Guideline 4, case where - Cross flow unacceptable
concentrated flow entry at intesection B.
channel
would cause spread> 2·5m.
carriageway
Insert junction pit (G ' line 5)
(minor road)
with gutter inlet loptional ).
Guideline 3, case where
flow governs : Q:> 80%
capture approach flow
of "favoured inlet :'
Bypass 20% Guideline 3, case where
spread governs : W » 2·5m .
Guideline 1, "sag "
provisions ,case where
Guideline 1, two cases where flow
spread governs :
W)2 ·5m governs : Q » 95% capture approach
flow of "favoured inlet:'

Case where flow Guideline 1, case

governs :(~.QR):> where spread
capture of sag governs: W l> 2·5m
inlet.

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

1. set of design guidelines covering items Information and data relating to these
such as pipe locations relative to car- items are presented in the following sections.
riageways, junction pit water levels rel-
ative to gutter levels, inspection pit
minimum spacing, minimum permissible pipe
size, anti-sedimentation provisions, cover 6.5 GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
requirements, etc. UNDERGROUND -MOVIr«i FLOWS
2. Minimum Grade analysis pipe flow charts
for vari ous types of pi pes normally em- The task of managing underground-moving flows
ployed in underground networks. within an urban minor stormwater drainage
system involves design of a network whose pipe
3. hydraulic data on pipe friction and junc- sizes and locations are governed by various
tion pit headlosses required for refin- practical and geometrical constraints and
ement of the pipe diameter selection pro- whose junction pit water levels are fixed by
cess and for computation of junction pit associ ated gutter and roadway fi ni shed 1ev-
water levels (Hydraulic Grade Line analy- els. The designer must formulate or be pro -
sis) • vided with a set of guidelines similar to
4. test algorithm for pit overflow. those listed in Table 6.4. These guidelines
shoul d not be regarded as mandatory for use
5. test algorithm for depth of pipe obvert. throughout Australian practice.

110 -
_\11 I Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Data
t- - - + - Capture performance of 1·0m and 2'Om side-entry
inlets with and without deflectors (see figure 6·5)

~ \vii "••-t'~"'«"""'""«""«" "" "

~ "j,7~, . . z~; " 1 ,::;':f.:::i::::;:""'~
". r - :

90 T",

'1 I" ". ~oo % i cap.tiure a~ "sa~" In~

LIS}
1 1/ \ l'...

-Ri ,,
80. 1-'- 1'.0 m Inlets 59 spread
[I [ "" I 2 0 m Inlets 118 LIs w= 2·5m

~ 70 t - .; ::i ~ I I !
I -
u.J
<;: N~
:.
"'" 95% Capture

: 60 r- I-
1\
---+--+--"<-+---1--+--' "~ 0% Capture

; \1\ ' , i'V

~ ~ "r, ! I~~~gure 6.5 - t --. f - -

~ 50 '" -- '-~w
~'\:I:>~
3 \ '" I "" ~'~I:>~~--+--r--t
...
~ 9B
0
...J

a:
u.J
l-
40 .\
I-++--+-'<-\ ~D~
N---- / /x:~~--~~
I-
::>
I!)

1\ ~Li Y~r-~~
30
1\ /[:xV
_---.;If---+_-+-_+-_+---+__ .:= BO% Capture

95 % Capture

20 1l+++~21A:-bL:-+-----+~
------h;:-+--t-- 1----+-----+--+--1
V~ "r--- "'" i'--. I ~
II
/ / 1I\ \ I~......... ~
~ -- mr-. '--
1'-'--' I --, ~ ~5% Capture

10 " !'-hl I~ --t--t----r-_t--I-_-1BO % Capture

~ I 1 --1 ~5 % capture

o 0·02 0·04 0·06 O'OB 0·10 0·12

GUTTER LONGITUDINAL SLOPE So (m/m)

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

ARRB SR 34,1986 41
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

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

DEFINITION OF TERMS (see Fig. 6.8)

Main drain pipeline (or '..ainline') conveys flow between sub-a re a nod e pits of
network
lateral pipeline conveys flow co ll ected from, normally. more than one inlet. to
junction pit located on main drain pipeline
Cross-connection pipe co nveys flow from, normally, a singl e inlet to junction
pit located on main drain or latera l pipeline. Cross -connectio n pipes are
usually sho rter t han 10 m.
PART 1

Guideline Main drain o r lateral pipelines should be aligned as follows :

minor roads (carriageways l ess than 10 m): they should connec t
succeeding gutter inlet pits (both side-e ntry and grated in-
let types) located along the drainage path. The alignment
should favour the ca rri ageway 'high side ' in dual-channel
road s and st reets. 'Low side ' inlet s on dual-channel minor
road s shou ld be connected to the pipeline by either inter-
inlet cross-connections or by de viating the alignment if
necessa ry. The alignment should be just within the carriageway
wh er e inlet s are grated and jus t ou tsi de where side-entry
in let s are used.

The al i gnment i n single-channel minor roads shou l d be on the

'lo w side' of the street .
ma j or roads (carriage ways 10 m or gr eate r) : main drai n or
late r al pipelines should be located within carriageways be-
tween 1.5 m and 2 .5 m from the 'high side ' kerb. Gutter inlet
pits should be cr oss -connected t o on-l ine junctions.
The alignment i n si ngl e-chann el maj or r oads shoul d be on the
'l ow side' of the street.
Gu i de lin e 2 Eve ry effo rt shoul d be mad e , including the use of angled
cros s -con nections where other wise unavoidable. to space
on-lin e junction pits as far apart as possibl e.
Gu i de lin e 3 Inspection pits spaceG at intervals of not more than 120 m
shOuld be included in all long. uninterrupted pipelines o r
diarrete r 1050 mm and sma ll er.
Gu i deli ne 4 In all gutter and 'sag' inl et pits and j un ctlo n pit s, design
water l evels assigned to pits should be not hi ghe r than :
(gutter invert level - 0.15 m)
where 'gutter invert le ve l' means the undepre ssed gutter in-
vert l eve l at the roadway section containing the pit. or where
inve r t levels differ, the lower of the t wo .
Guideline 5 Regardle ss of the provi s ions of Guideline 4, design wat er
levels assigned to co~secut iv e pairs of pits on main drain or
lateral pipeli nes shou l d differ by not l ess tha n 0.10 m in
the direction of flow.
Gui de line 6 A 3-poi nt pr iority sequen ce shou ld be followed in assigning
pit design wa ter l evels in accordance wi th Guidelines 4 and 5:
priority 1 : junction pits along lat eral pipelines including
the pits wh ere t hese pipelines join with main
drain pipelines
priority 2: junction pits al ong main pipeline branches. where
the se are present
pr io ri ty 3: junction pit s along the main pipeline trun k
In each priority, ass ignment of pit design water levels
sho uld commence at the upstream extremity in priorities 1 and
2 and at the downstream extremity in priority 3 .
Guideline A minimum pipe size of lJ ; 300 mm should be used in th e de si gn 0/
Guideline 8 As a practical design rule, pipe sizes (diameters) should not
decrease in the direction of flow. v'

42 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

IGUide 1i ne 9 I In order to redu ce the likel i hood of blockage as a result of

sedi mentat io n , flow velocities in pi pes operating under design
conditions should be not less than 0 .5 m/s . Flows which lead
to violations of thi s limit shoul d normally be excluded from
the unde rgr ound network.
Gui de lin e 10 Th e diameter of a cross-connection may be selected from either
th e table below or may be set equal to the diameter of the
pipe con veyi ng flow from the connected mainline or lateral
pipelin e junction pit, 0 , whichever is smaller. In cases
where the tabulated diamgter, 0t' exceed s 0 b'y more than one
increme nt , diameter 00 may be uSed in the c?oss-connection
prov ided pit headloss and water level co nditions at e ither end
are investigated for satisfactory performance.

Flow in nomi na 1 pi pe Flow in nom i nal pipe

cross- diameter, Dt cross - diameter, Dt
connection om connection mm
LIs L/s

< 55 300 180 - 220 675

55 - 80 375 220 - 270 750
80 - 110 450 270 - 320 825
110 - 140 525 320 - 370 900
140 - 180 600 370 - 500 1050

TABLE 6.4 - PART 2

Guidel ine 11 Except for cases where Dt exceeds 0 by more than one pipe
increment (Guideline 10), pit f lo orolevels i n cross-connected
inlet/junction pits should be set at or below -
(gutter invert level - 0.45 m - D ).
Pit floor level should coincide with thg 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 carry-
ing discharge from a junction.
Guideline 13 Und er ground stormwater network components should be specified
by class in accordance with the techni cal information avail-
able from manufacturers and the provisions of Australian
Standard CA33-1962 'Concrete Pipe Laying Design'.

3m. minimum clearance 1.5 - 2.5 m. from kerbline

LEGENO
Pipes 600mm~ and under
may be placed in footpa Junction pi t IJ .P. I shown , - 0 -
provided that clear space
of 3m . is maintained from
pr operty boundary and
footpath is not requ ired
for elect ri city suppl y
II
'"
Gutter inlets ,-
side entry inlet/J.P ~
grated inlet I J.P.

~I
poles .

cr oss co nnection pIpe

main drain pipeline or -mainline'

'sag' point
pipe lirie

/,
Y./ / --M I~ ROA-O--
/,, ;Z.drainage reserve
/ "
'/ N 5 W Housing Commission 'Road Manual' drawing 9.1 {19761

Fig . 6.8 - Alignment on mderground 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 appro x-
imate network desig n. Where a cost/frequency
analysis of a proposed scheme is required, a
set of approximate minor system designs which
incorporate such network desi gns shoul d be
prepared and costed for a range of design
average recurrence intervals (see Section
2.6).
Part 2 of Table 6.4 lists gui deline s and
information which are only applied at the
final network design stage.
The guidelines have been prepared foll-
owing discussion with a wide range of pract-
itioners and study of the hydraulics of under-
ground systems. They are not all applicable
to all situations, nor are they 'ironclad'.
The minimum pipe size specified in Guideline
7, for example, is likely to be changed in
Northern Austral i 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 add-
ressed in two guidelines, 9 and 12. The
former appl ies a minimum velocity constraint
to the design of the main components of
'approximate' networks. Guideline 12 is em-
ployed at final design stage and applies a
minimum slope constraint to cross-connection
pipes only . A more appropriate, though more
comple x guideline on anti-sedimentation re-
quirements for underground storm-water pipe-
lines, could be devised using incipient mot-
ion sediment transport theory (Novak anrl
Na II uri 1984).
The pipe class and/or cover which needs
to be specified for each component of an
underground network, as part of the f i nal
design process, is the subject of Guideline
13. In addition to the requi rements of thi s
guideline, designers are advised to also con-
sult manufacturers' handbooks, in parti cuI ar
'Concrete Pipe Guide' published by the Con-
crete Pipe Association of Australia (1985),
and 'Textbook of Pi pe line Des i gn ' (James Har-
die Pty. Ltd. 1985).
6.6 MINIMUM GRADE ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC DATA
Minimum Grade analysis is employed in the
minor drainage system design procedure to fix
'first-round' pipe sizes for all mainline and
lateral pipeline components of the under-
ground network. Two pai rs of charts (after
I.E. Au st. 1977), Fi g. 6.9 (a and b) and Fi g.
6.10 (a and b) for concrete and fi bre-rein-
forced 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.
The pipe selection charts are based on
the Colebrook-White formula which covers cases
in the transition zone between smooth turbu-
lent flow and rough turbulent flow:-
1
- 2 log10 (6.14)
IT
44
f Darcy-Weisba ch fri ction fact or
k pipe boundary roughnes s (m)
Do pipe diameter (m )
Reynolds Number =
v
pipe average velocity (m/s)
kinematic viscosity (water)
1.14 x 10~ m2 /s @ 15°C.
Fi gs 6.9(a) and 6.9(b) employ, re s pect-
i vely, boundary roughness values -
k 0.3 mm (concrete pipe - normal condition)
k 0.6 mm (concrete pipe - poor condition)
Figs 6.10(a) and 6.10(b) boundary rough-
ness values are, respectively, -
k 0.06 mm (FRC pipe - normal condition)
k 0.15 mm (FRC pipe - poor condition)
These val ues of boundary roughness are
offered in preference to 'new pipe' values on
the ground that deteri orati on of pipel i nes
during service life, which may be 30 - 50
years, should be anticipated in network de-
sign.
6.7 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC
DATA
Application of Hydraulic Grade Line analysis
in the design procedure of Chapters 10 and 11
(m i nor dr'dindye sysLellls) , ,'e4uin!s d ~iL-Lu ­
pit headloss formulation which is simple and
yet of sufficient accuracy to enable satis-
factory approximate network designs to be
produced. Total pit-to-pit headloss has two
components:-
a) pipe friction headloss, hf
b) junction pit headloss (water level),
2
Vo
Kw( -) (6.15)
2g
where Kw = headloss coefficient which gives
pit water level.
The two headloss components are indicat-
ed in Fig. 6.11.
Approximate friction headloss between
pits may be computed using fixed values for
friction factor, f , in the Darcy-Weisbach
formula:
l
(_0)
hf = fL
- (6.16)
Do 2g
Values of 'f' corresponding to the values
of 'k ' listed above are : -
f 0.019 (concrete pipe -normal condition)
f 0.022 (concrete pipe - poor condition)
f 0.015 (FRC pipe normal condition)
f 0.017 (FRC pipe poor cond it ion)
ARRB SR 34, 1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

pipe diameter (mm) pipe diameter (mm) :5

o·100 n-r"r'rTT1r----r-rll"""T-nTrrT-"":;;'-r-r.;:""",.;:.r..;... 0·100 ".,

0·050 0·050

~
.§
o
VI 0

UJ
- VI

Q. W
Q.
o 0
-' -'
VI
VI
-' -'
«
z «
z
Cl O' 010 1----t-+-+--+--+-+-I'f-f+l'-J4-+-f-l Cl 0·010
::> ::>
to- to-
I.:) I.:)
Z Z
o 0
-' -'
0·005 0005

50 50
(Lis) PIPE

(a) roughness k = 0·3 mm.- normal condition pipe (b) roughness k = 0'6mm -poor condition pipe

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

pipe diameter(mm) c::::

~ ~:5::::~ pipe diameter (mm) :::: ~ ~ :5::::~
0·100 """-"'-'-rT"'---r-r-rir-nfT)ri-rr-r~~"'T"T'O"'OnT"Tl'nrTT1
;:;;: ,.." -..::I- U'"') \0 'Or--...
0·100 r-r-rrrn-rr----.--oorr-r<rnrr-rr-rT7T...,-"rm

0·050 0050
E
E "-
E
"-
.§ '"
.'2-
Cl.fl) 0
'"
.'2-
Cl.fl)
0 VI
VI v:'::: v:':::
Q:fl)
W ..... .::: UJ-
.........
Q:[!!
Q.
0
.... '"
",:::J
Q.
0
-'
.... V)
",:::J
",,,( "'''(
-' VI
0>
VI E:!'c:
..!P '- :o . ~
-'
-' "t> « ;::-"t>
«
z ....
~3
'" z
(3
.f:~
Cl 0·010 ::> 0010
::> t-
t-
I.:)
I.:)
Z z:
0 0
-' -'
0005 0·005

50 10 2
50 10 2 500 10 3 5000 10 4
PIPE PIPE DISCHARGE (L i s)

(a) roughness k =0 ' 06mm -normal condition pipe (b) roughness k =0·15mm- poor condition pipe

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

Junction pit head10ss (water level) is

estimated using values for the coefficient Kw
taken from Tables 6.5 and 6.6. Values listed pi -~t-'rr
: ----_._---- v'
~ .
Gutter
in Table 6.5 are based on the research of water leVeT ' I hw=K w(1g) inVert
-
Sangster et a1 (1958), known widely as the
'Missouri Charts', and of de Groot and Boyd IiGT - fh f- _
(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 head-
loss at junction pits in which the alignment
of pipes was other than concurrent or at right
angles. Fig . 6.11 - Friction and pit head losses - definitive sketch

ARRB SR 34,1986 45
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.5

APPROXIMATE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENT K

PIPES CONCURRENT OR AT RIGHT ANGLES w

1. INTRODUCTION 2. JUNCTION PITS WITHOUT GUTTER FLOW

Figure (a) represents a general, Simple

junction pit layout with upstream, lateral and CODE OESCR IPTION Qu "" Ql "" Qg Kw=
grating inflows, Qu' Q and Qg respecti vely.
l
By assigning val ues to these parameters all J-1 Ju nction pit on through Qo - - 0.2
possible simple junction pit configurations pipeline, i.e. Qu = Qo
can be described. Figure (b) is an elevation
sect i on through the pit taken along the Junction pit on through
alignment of its discharge pipe, diameter [) • pipe with lateral(s)
The K values listed are based on the findin~s
of SaWngster et al (1958 ) known as 'Mi ssouri J-2A • Qu » Ql Qo some - 0.5
Cha rt s " de Groot and Boyd (1983), Bl ack and J- 2B Qu 1.0
Pi ggott (1 YH3) • "" Ql Qo /2 Qo/2 -
J-2C • Qu « Ql some Qo - 2.0

J-3 Junct i on pi t on 'L' pipe - Qo - 2.0

H--"T'~--t!:1 2 ju nct ion, i .e. Qu = 0
' (~ )
• 2g
Junction pit on 'T' pipe
•fiG1~ j unction, i. e . Qu = 0

;: o.a~ J-3A • opposed l ate ral s - Qo - 2.5

Figure (a) "--"---lh::E~f=.tr.: Va J-3B • offset laterals - Qo - 2.0
Figure (b)

4. PART-FULL OUTFLOW FROM JUNCTION PITS

3. INLET/JUNCTION PITS WITH GUTTER FLOW

CODE DESCRIPTION Qu"" Ql "" Qg "" "w=

1-1 Inlet pit with single - - Qo 4.0
pipe outflow
Part-full outflow from a junction pit.
Inlet on through pipeline
- Situations frequently arise, particularly in
I-2A · Qu Q Qo /2 Qo / 2 2.0
"" 9 upper-basin catchments of moderate/steep
I~2B Qo Qo - some 0 .5 grade, where pi pes operate part-full. Water
• Qu "" level bui ld-up in pits supplying these pipes,
is, typically above obvert level (see sketch).
Inlet on through pipe Bannigan and r-tlrgan (1981) have suggested for
with lateral (s)
such situations that the hydraulic grade line
I-3A • Qu » Ql Qo some some 0 .5 be set at (discharge) pipe obvert level and
the hei ght, h , fi xed in the same manner as
I-3B • Qu > Ql Q/2 some Qo/2 1.5 other cases co~sidered in Tables 6.5 and 6.6.
The value of V required in the calculation of
I-3C • Qu Ql Qo/2 Qo / 2 some 1.5
= Q /A where A is
"" h is given °by V
dfscharge pipe full ~rea. 0 0 0
I-3D • Qu « Ql some Qo some 2.0
I-3E • Qu < Ql some Qo/2 Qo/2 2.5 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
1-4 Inlet on 'L' pipe junction significantly greater than K (V 2/2g). It is
i.e. Qu = 0 I - Qo some 2.5 0
therefore recommended that 'he Bann i gan and
. . . I Morgan approach be ad opted wi th h fi xed by:

1.5K [V~]
Inlet on 'T ' p' pe J unc t , on -
i.e. Qu = 0
w
I-SA • opposed laterals - Qo some 3.0 w 29
I-5B • offset laterals - Qo some 2.5 The results of current research will in
time yield a more accurate relationship.

46 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 6.6

APPROXIMATE VALUES FOR COEFFICIENT 'w:

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 considered above.
single entry/exit pits with pipes neither
concurrent nor meeti ng at 90 degrees, shows Internal shaping 'Benching' of pits to
that the pit water level headloss coefficient, provide a curved channel D /2 deep between
. K , which should be applied to the hydraulic ent ry and exit pi pes (see slPetch) can reduce
g~ade line at these structures is dependent on Kw· values obtained in ~ > 45° situations from
two main factors: 2.5 to about 1.5 (Archer et al 1978). It
appears to make no significant improvement in
(i) the location of the entry pipe centreline ~ < 45° situations. Similar findings are
(produced) intersection with pit walls; reported in Dick and Marsalek (1985).
and

(ii) the magnitude of gutter flow, Qg.

For deviation angle, ~ < 45°:

Examples:

exit face

.~OfPit~
Q .
. :::--0"': Benching in a Benching in a
. . e<45· rectangular ci rcul ar
intersection junction pit junction pit
point. Plan View.

2. DROP JUNCTION PITS

For deviation angle, ~ > 45°: It is often necessary in steep terrain or when
an existing service (water main. electricity
Exaqlles: cable, etc.) must be avoided to construct
.i unct i on pit ent ry and exit pi pes at s i gni-
ficantly different levels. Unpublished
research by Black and Piggot (QIl) and Logan
City Council (1983) suggests the following
values for the pit water level headloss
coeffici ent Kw:

intersection ~ < 45° situations:

point. Plan View.
Kw values recommended are :
~ < 45° : KW = 0.5 for Q = 0
quantity; g
2.5 (with or without gutter
flow)
Research suggests that hydraulic shaping
of pits to assi st the passage of fl ow from
entry to exit can be effective.
Pit diEnsions 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
rectangular pits, Kw 2.0;
circular pits, Kw 1.5
~ > 45° situations:
rectangular pits, K 2.5;
or small W
circular pits, K 2.0
w
Use of these values of K is restricted to
installations in which b~h pipe obverts
(ent ry and exit) are submerged under des i gn
flow conditions At{) 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 vertical
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
headl os s thus introduced, although un known.
must be less than that occurring at a drop
pi t. Des i gners fo 11 owi ng thi s practice are
entitled to use slightly reduced values for
Kw·

ARRB SR 34, 1986 47

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

3. MULTI-PIPE JUNCTION PITS installations tested und e r design

The bulk of practical situations for which pit
headloss values are required can be found from
Tabl e 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 thei r respecti ve
discharge pipes. The multitude of pipe/pit
geometri es met in practi ce 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 offered to
designers who face th i s problem :
(i) ins ituat ions where the ri s k of property
inundation is highly sensitive to
uncertainty in pit headloss estimates,
values for K should be obtained from
hydraulic wmodels of pipe/pit
conditions (see Bates et al 1984), and,
(ii) ina 11 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 Liverpool
N.S.W., 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 fonnulae show close agree-
ment with results obtained 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.

Watts (1983) has establ i shed a set of b) The pipe obvert depth test involves com-
formulae which approximate the results of parison of the quantity (hf + 1.5 Do)
Sangster et al and of Hare. against allowable head difference and is
illustrated in Fig. 6.12(b). This test
By the time Tables 6.5 and 6.6 are used incorporates an arbitrary invert depth
in the des i gn of a typi ca 1 mi nor storlTlHa ter limit of 2.5 Do below AWL. (The 2.5 Do
drainage system, considerabl"e information has value derives from the test conditions
been compiled by the designer concerning flows under which much of the information con-
in all component pipes of the underground tained in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 has been
network as well as gutter capture flows diver- obtained, i.e. pit water level 2.5 Do
ted to the underground system at inlets. The above invert.)
quantities Ou, 01, Og and 00 defined in Table
6.5 are therefore known and its inequalities _-y-_ _ _ Te st fo r ove r flow of upstre am pit - TES T 1
readily assessable.
AWL. ~~~
1
V
Values of Kw selected from Tables 6.5 Ass iqned ~ ~Kwh~ )
and 6.6 and applied in the Hydraul ic Grade water ----'---
Line method, give satisfactory underground le vel ----- ~1-:=::::--_I__"'B.!.!W-L"-
pipe sizes and water levels in mainline and
- Bottom
lateral pipeline junction pits. The resul-
water
ting network designs are acceptably close to leve l
those gi ven by more t i me-consumi ng methods
whi ch use preci se values extracted from the
'Missouri Charts' and Moody (pipe friction)
Chart. This point is revisited in Chapter 12
v1
- Concluding Discussion. (a) U/s pi t overfl ow t est : hf +Kw(2~ )~ (AW L -BWl) Eq.6·17

Te st f or depth of ups t r eam obvert - TE ST 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 2·500
Section 6.4.

a) The first involves the comparison of cal-

culated 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 over- (b) U/s obv er t dep t h te st : hf + l5 Do? (AWL - BWl) Eq.6·18
flow, illustrated in Fig. 6.12 (a). 'Al-
lowable' head difference is based on the
recommendations contained in Guidelines 4 Fig . 6.12 - Definition of terms - pit overflow and obvert
and 5 of Table 6.4. depth tests

48 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 (de-
sign) 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 upstream-
moving calculation sequence permits this.
Ei ther or both tests can be violated in
a given situation without an unmanageable
design necessarily resulting. It will be
found that the requi rements of the overfl ow
test [eqn {6.17)J can, generally, be met by
appropriate choice of pipe diameter, Do, and
this should be the first action of the de-
signer.
Sat i sfaction of eqn (6.17), i.e. TEST 1
i n a particular case implies that full-barrel
flow in the discharge pipe, diameter Do, 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 thi s behaviour, and whether the re-
quired depth is acceptable : this is the role
of eqn (6.1 8), 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 Do, may
be set above (AWL-2.5 Do) without
losing the full-barrel condition.
This elevation is limited by eqn
(6.19):-
pipe invert level ~ BWL + hf - Do (6.19)
(upstream) (downstream)
In this case water level in the
upstream pit is given by eqn
(6.20) :-
2
V carry high flows requiring special design
BWL BWL + hf + Kw{~) (6.20)
(upstream) (downstream) 2g
Outcome 2 : If eqn (6.18) fails, it follows
that full-barrel flow in the dis-
charge pipe, diameter Do, is only
ARRB SR 34, 1986
pos s ible if it s upstream invert
is set lower than (AWL - 2.5 Do),
a conditi on which is undesirable.
The alternative is to design for
part-full outflow from the up-
stream pit (s ee Ta ble 6.5). This
option leads to pipe invert set
by eqn (6.21):-
2
Vo
pipe invert level ~ AWL - 1.5 Kw(-) - Do
(upstream) (upstream) 2g
( 6.21)
and upstream pit water level
(BWL) is the same as that assign-
ed (AWL) during the 'first-round'
design stage, i.e. BWL (upstream)
= AWL.
Outcome l/Outcome 2 situations : normal-
ly, the upstream pipe invert level gi ven 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-
t ions wh i ch 1ead to such reversa 1 are those
where large flows must be passed through
mUlti-pipe junction pits or where large flows
are subject to severe di rect i on changes at
pits. In cases where upstream i nvert level
given by eqn (6.19) is higher than that given
byeqn (6.21), the former level should be
adopted and BWL (upstream) cOfT1luted by eqn
(6.20), i.e. treat as Outcome 1 design situa-
t ion.
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 in-
vert and hence junction pit floor levels are,
generally, above (AWL - 2.5 Do). The re-
sulting main network is satisfactory for
'approximate' design purposes and may be ex-
tended to include the sizes of cross-connec-
ted pipes by applying Guideline 10 (Table
6.4). This guideline recognises the small
minority of cases in which cross-connections
attention.
Final design detailing involves applica-
tion of Guidelines 11 - 13 together with site
constraints, underground service avoidance,
etc.
49
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

50 ARRB SR 34. 1986

 7
Urban drainage systems:
structure

7.1 INTRODUCTION Imagine the entire landscape upstream of

When urban development ta kes place ina
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 channels, inlets ' and underground
pi pes. Though outwardly different from the
natural catchment drainage network, the formal
paths of the developed 1andscape displ ay a
structure which is similar to that of the
drainage system they have replaced.
an identified runoff disposal point, X, having
its vegetation cleared and its surface coated
with impervious material i.e. 'plastic-
coated'. A unique boundary called the
watershed can be identified, enclosing all
surfaces yielding runoff to X. The path t aken
by each runoff element travelling from its
poi nt of origin in the catchment to X is along
the point-to-point locus of steepest topo-
graphic grade. These items are illustrated
for a typical rural basin in Fig. 7.1.

This observed similarity is exploited here

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

Detai led 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 - the channel flow

section through which all runoff origin-
ating in a catchment passes immediately
prior to disposal to a receiving domain
such as a river, stream, temporary
storage pond, estuary etc.;

c) catchment boundary or 'watershed';

d) in terna 1 node poi nts 1ocat i on s of

interest where flood magnitude may be
assessed and interpreted as flood level
or stage height;
e) drainage network - the network of surface
channel s which collects and conveys to
disposal all runoff originating in a
catchment;
f) catchment sub-areas - internal drainage
areas from which runoff passes to each
node point.
The natural drainage direction [item (a)J
and run 0 ff ' dis po sal poi n t [ item (b) J 0 f a
catchment are determined by inspection and
interpretation of the contour plan containing
the catchment. Identi fication of these items
must precede the fixing of the catchment
boundary [item (c)].
Fig . 7.1 - Run off element travel path and watershed of a rural
catchment
In rural catchments, node points [item
(d)] are located, typically, at points on the
basin drai nage network [item (e)J 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)J
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 shown in Fig. 7.2.

ARRB SR 34, 1986 51

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

~) ~p)/ "b-"" boO',,,i,,

( \ /~'a j~
\ / / /\ // ')
350 ) I . l { /
( I f\(/ ./'
,,-__1/ t~~7/
{ \ ., \,' internal node poi nt s
"- \ \ , shown : - - _
Cat chment drainage ne~ork ~
show n :
.-/'----r- "
------ -~
X
r-

Catchment main dra in age

Catchment flood network shown : er-----______ -~
disposal poi nt
Fig. 7.2 - Components of a rural catchment drainage stru ct ure

7.2 GENERAL PROPERTIES OF SMALL URBAN points using, primarily, the roadway reserves
CATCtMENTS of its pri nci pa 1 down-s lope st reets • As in
rural catchments, individual drainage areas
A structure similar to that de scribe d above contributi ng runoff to identi fied node points
for rural catchments can also be observed in are termed 'sub-areas'.
urban catchments of any si ze. Di fferences
arise primarily where man-made components of Small urban catchments may be divided into
the built environment interrupt the movement two broad classes sim~e and complex.
of runoff over the natural terrai n forci ng Simple urban catchments are, typically, less
runoff elements to follow point-to-point loci than 20 ha in area and may be analysed as
other than those of steepest topographic single arainagc units. Complex urban
grade. This occurs, typically, where roadways catchments represent collections of drainage
and roadside channel s intersect overland units or sub-catchments each of area less than
drainage paths and where storm drainage is 20 ha: a complex urban catchment may, thus,
carried in underground pipes. enclose a total area considerably greater than
20 ha.
In larqe, totally urbanised landscapes
th i s interference has vi rtua lly no effect on The two classes ur sma 11 deve loped
identified natural drainage directions and catchments are discussed sepa rate ly in the
runoff disposal points and only a marginal following sections.
effect, if any, on boundaries. The watersheds
of large urban developments may therefore be
fixed in the same manner outlined above for
rural catchments. 7.3 SIMPLE URBAN CATCHMENTS
When the detailed drainage design of a An example of a developed landscape which
segment of such a 1andscape is undertaken, presents each of the catchment items reviewed
however, the interference of man-made in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 for a sub-division
components is found to greatly affect its comprising four simple catchments is shown in
boundary and in the matter of runoff disposal, Fig. 7.3(a}. The following items may be
it is not unusual fo r surface -mavi ng and recognised in this example:
underground-moving runoff to be channelled or
piped, respectively, to significantly a) natural drainage direction
different points. Identified natural drainage
d i recti on on the ot her hand is unaltered by b) ca tchment flood and s to rmwa t er d i sposa 1
development. points, L.O, M.O, N.O and P.D

Node points in urban catchments are c) catchment boundaries

usually assigned to principal down-slope
street intersections where (down-slope) d} node poi nts
cross-flow cannot be tolerated, to 'sag'
points and to points where the main drainage e) drainage networks
path changes direction sharply. They may also
be assigned to locations where large runoff f} sub-areas
contributions join main drainage paths from
major sub-divisions or from commercial/ The descri ptors 'flood' and 'stormwater'
industria 1 estates. Drainage network main used in (b) above carry the . same meanings
paths of a catchment 1 ink the assi gned node ascribed to them in Section 2.2. The disposal

52 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

points of the two runoff components from
IMjor/rare st 0 rills and from minor storms
normally coincide in a simple urban catchment
e.g. Catchments L, M, Nand P in Fig. 7.3, but
differ in the case of the complex urban
catchments reviewed in Section 7.4.
The structure of the .ajor drainage system
for the illustrated sub-division or any
catchment withi n it can be readi ly 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 simpl e catchment are
coded sequentially up the drainage network
conmencing from its flood and stormwater
disposal point. Indi vidual catchments are
identified by a letter prefix, hence, M.O,
M.l, M.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
disposal points shown ' @
Catchment boundaries
shown ,
Node points shown , ......
,y.,?
Drainage network
shown , '. . . •
"ftt.,? 11.
Open space floodways ·3
shown , ======::.=
Contours shown , ----- 112

Scale
100 200
metres

Figure 7.3 (a): 40 ha. sub-division - co tchments L, M, Nand P.

park - -
LEGEND
M.3
-----r'------
I Sub-area boundaries
node I
I shown :
sectn. +-= I ...
C I C
QI I QI
"C I "C Primary drainage area
·in I 00; boundaries shown : ______ _

--
QI I QI
'- I '-
I
I Node pi ts shown :
M.2
_---of M.3
node Main drainage pipeline
sectn. +'
C shown : "M.] "H.3
:I: QI
l:l "C (coincides with primary drainage
'Vi
:I: QI area or sub-area boundaries)
'-

M.1 IQ:~~::! Gu tter inlets shown : 0

M.1 M.4 (IN.P M.4

(T.N.S.) node node pit
sectn.

sub-area boundaries
shown: _ - _ - - - __
- Note: Each terminal gutter
inlet is assumed to receive,
initially. the entire runoff
from its associated primary
drainage area .

flood escape network

shown : I • I
Figure 7.3 (c) : Catchment M
, Figure 7.3 (b) : Catchment M-
structure of major system. 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 immediately downstream from
the node point!. of Fig. 7.3(a). Each
receives the entire flood flow generated
in its upstream catchment. The lowest
node section (M.1 in this case) is
refer red to as the Ca tchment 'termi na 1
node section' (T.N.S.). Its entire
collected flow is transferred without
addition to the catchment flood disposal
poi nt, M. O. The termi na 1 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
gi ven in Fig. 7 .3(a);
drainage sub-areas are identified.
The .inor drainage syst~ 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 stormwater flows
through and from the catchment. Catchments
less complex than those illustrated in Fig.
7.3 have no underground 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
pit s. 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 terminal node
pit and stormwater di sposa 1 poi nt of a
si mple urban catchment frequently
coi nci de;
drainage sub-areas are almost identical
to those of the major system. Compare
Fig. 7.3(b) and 7.3(c);
The mi nor system network, a 1though based
on the drainage network of Fig. 7.3(a) is
more complex than it. All runoff is
considered to move in the initial stages
of the network analysis/design procedure
descri bed in Chapters 10 and 11 by way of
surface drainage paths to individual
tenlli na 1 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 pri .. ry draduge areas and thei r
flow paths pr1_ry drainage lines in the
Handbook procedures. Gutter i n1 et pits
at the ends of these drainage lines 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 a
collection of priMary drai nage 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 9 are devoted to
the procedures involved in major system
planning/design; Chapters 10 and 11 are
concerned wi th the desi gn of mi nor systems.
Catchment M of the Fig. 7.3 development is
used as a case study illustration of these
procedures.
7.4 C<»4PlEX lIlBAN lAJI)SCAPES
Developed urban landscapes are often more
complex than the sub-division illustrated in
Fi g. 7.3. They may consi st 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). drai nage network, node
points, etc. [see Fig. 7.4(a)].
In complex landscapes major and minor
system drainage is directed, frequently. to
different disposal points, a consequence of
the significantly different flow magnitudes
which ilre involved in each 5Y5tcm.
The 1arge, free-surface fl ows which
consti tute the bulk of the major flood
discharges generated in an urban sub-catchment
cannot be eas ily di verted acros s natura 1
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
outfl ows i rrespecti ve of catchment or
municipal boundaries which may lie in their
paths. Fig. 7.4(b) illustrates, schemati-
cally, 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
tot hat show n i n 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 sub-
ca tchment to sub-catchment down the deve loped
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 termi na 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.
ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CATCHMENT P
sub -catchments PA & PB

CATCHMENT N
su b- catch ments
NA ,NB& NC Detention basi n
with pipe outlet

CATCHMENT S
L& M

Reserve
catchment or sub-catchment runoff disposal ~v
","- linear park floodways shown ...... =====
node points shown
points shown ..... a
• M·3
prin cipal 5treet floodways shown . ~==:.
main road flood ways shown .
dra in age network shown . •
L-2 •
l ·1 Fig 7.4!b): Integrated major system
Fig 7.4la) : Catchments, main roads & drainage paths
pri ncipal streets

Fig. 7.4 - Schematic representation of storm drainage

networks in a complex urban landscape

The drainage structures sketched in Fig.

7.4 are typical of those used in urban
deve10Plllents and, 1 ike those of the Fig. 7.3
catchments, include above-ground and under-
.ground components in their minor systems.
A1 though flow in an underground pi pe is
subject to the same gravity laws which govern
free-surface flow, the path it may take from a
gi ven poi nt is far 1ess dependent on topo-
graphical 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 acros s the na tura 1 drai nage
direction by underground pipe to its catchment
stormwater disposal point (N.O, P.O, etc.).

A singl .e down-slope trunk main linking

these disposal points carries the bulk of the
deve 1opment mi no r sys tern load to fi na 1
di sposal. The only mi nor stormwater excluded
from thi s system is that generated in
catchments which have their own disposal
points, i.e. the lowest slope-aligned catch-
ments in each 'string'. The advantages of
this approach to managing nuisance stormwater
fl ows in the urban envi ronment are consider- node pits shown .......... .
able. Design of the resulting system is, underground network shown ---1.1--.....
-_.-

however, more complex than that of their major

system counterparts.

ARRB SR 34,1986 55
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

56 ARRB SR 34, 1986

8
The major drainage system
design procedure outline
8.1 I NTRODUCTIC*
The general storm runoff management des i gn
practice proposed in this Handbook is based
on the major/minor drainage concept introduc-
ed in Section 2.3. Major drai nage systems
use the roadway reserve, drainage easement
and open space or 'green belt' areas of a
developed urban 1andscape to carryall major
runoff flows and a specified level of rare
f1 oodi ng.
The primary aim of this Chapter is to
describe a procedure for the planning of major
systems for small, isolated urban catchments
: the procedure draws on guidelines and hyd-
ro10gi ca1/hydrau1 ic information presented in
earlier chapters. The procedure is applied
to a case study sub-division in Chapter 9.
Isolated and Non-isolated Catchments
The major/m inor drainage system designed for
a specific portion of an urban landscape
forms part of the Master Drainage Plan for
the ent ire drai nage bas in withi n whi ch the
particular urban unit is located. During
storm events, runoff is collected and con-
veyed along the identified drainage networks
of each unit. Interaction between slope-
aligned 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
belt' natural drainage lines. The Fig. 7.3
sub-division is an example of this type of
development.
b) non-isolated urban catctlnents : developed
areas, planned or existing, which receive
stormwater input from upstream, slope-
aligned developed catchments or which dis-
Flow
charge drainage to downstream, slope-
aligned developed catchments or both. The
Fig. 7.4 urban landscape is an example of
this type of development.
The procedure described in Chapters 8 and
9 for planning major stormwater drainage sys-
tems is 1imited to isolated catchments and
yields for eacn:-
ARRB SR 34, 1986
-
1. a feasible flood escape network, and
2. a peak outflow (design extreme storm)
di scharge rate.
In real world situations, the magnitude
of thi s di scharge rate determi nes, in each
case, the design of channelling or the hyd-
raulic structure through which major flows
pass before entering a natural drainage line
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.l). Where two such
hyd rographs interact, as in the case of the
direct linking suggested above, it is almost
inevitable that the peak discharge rate for
the combi ned hydrograph wi 11 exceed the i n-
di vi dua 1 peak rates of the cOl1'4>onent hyd ro-
graphs 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 con-
s i stent 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.
hydrogra ph of lower /' - '" combined hydrograph
drainage unit // \ in lower dra inage unit
\
\ hydrograph of upper
drainage unit passing
\ to lower unit
\
\
\
\
~
Time
Fig . 8.1 - Hydrographs for slope-al igned urban drainage units
57
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
More frequently however, designers are
forced to reduce the impact of upstream-orig-
i nating storm run off by means such as those
described in Chapter 3.
Scope of a Major Drai ..age Systetl
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 parti ally inoperable 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 inun-
dation of the grounds of buildings, but no
indoor damage other than to buildings of
secondary importance.
While the above advantage may be thought
of as primari 1y associ ated with schemes for
new developments, major/minor systems have an
important hindsight role to play in urban
runoff management. Th i s comes about in the
following way:-
For a variety of reasons - the impossi-
bi1ity of accurately predicting future deve-
lopment 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 characteris-
tic of an overtaxed system is its inability
to contain flows of a given design frequency.
For example a scheme which was designed orig-
inally to overflow in flows greater than
those generated ina 5-yea rs AR I storm is
found, after 20 years of servi ce, to exceed
capacity every two or three years.
Such a scheme may have much to gain from
a reapprai sa 1 based on the maj or/mi nor 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 providing open-channel f100dpaths
for major storm runoff flows (see Water Re-
search 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 devel-
opments thi s quant i ty must be adopted : in
rehabilitation work of the type briefly dis-
cussed here, it en j oys the status of an
'observation' •
A1 though the cost of 1and and property
acquisition for drainage easements is likely
to constitute a major outlay, the total prog-
ramme may well be not only attractive in the
financial short run but may also involve
minimum public and business i nconvenience in
its execution. It is also likely to offer a
higher level of flood security than was pro-
vided under the original scheme.
It must be recogni sed by the drai nage
designer that sound storm runoff management
practice - important though it is - repres-
ents but one of many competing and at times
conflicting objectives of the urban plan. In
58
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 pur-
pose rarely becomes apparent, frequently rank
well down in the priorities of urban plann ing.
For this reason drainage designers can-
not expect urban landscape plans to be always
developed around 'most desirable' flood es -
cape 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.
8.2 MJOR SYSTEM P~IIIi PlOCEDlaE
There are ei ght steps whi ch must be taken to
p1 an or design a major drai nage system for a
typical isolated development. They are:-
STEP 1: Catchment definition
STEP 2: Fi xi ng of roadway reserve capacity
flows
STEP 3: 'Gap flow' design storm selection
STEP 4: System planning table
STEP 5: Netwo rk revi ew
STEP 6: System evaluation
STEP 7: Sub-area detailing
STEP 8: Final design detailing.
STEP 1: CatcMent de11"1 t1 on
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 development boundary and boundary
constraints consistent with the Master
Drainage Plan (see Chapter 1)
d) identify pattern of internal roads, rele-
vant traffic management information
e) identify roads and streets as dual-channel
or potential Single-channel flow paths and
their hydraulic characteristics (see Sec-
tion 6.1)
f) identify major (common) 1and use areas
g) identify N-years design ARI for underground
network; is partial blockage likely?
h) fix 'natural dra i nage direction'
i) nominate flood disposal points see
j) define internal isolated )
catchments and node points )Chapter
k) define flood escape networks, nOdej
sections and drainage sub-areas of 7
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 aided -
and 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 infor-
mat i on has an important beari ng 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 move-
ment of runoff is likely to be obstructed,
e.g. roundabouts, street closures, raised
median strips, etc.
Ident ifi cat i on of the f1 ood escape net-
work and node sect ions 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 drai nage sub-
area definition both apply two assumptions
relating to the way major floodwater moves
through an urban landscape:-
1. 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 road-
way intersection is along the roadway
path of steepest grade.
It is not difficult to ensure, by appro-
priate shaping of gutter and roadway profiles,
that b<;>th of these assumed behavi ours do in
fact occu r in urban catchment runoff events
of small magnitude. It is almost impossible,
on the other hand, to guarantee similar per-
formance in major storms.
A satisfactory level of conformity to the
assumed behaviours can be achieved, however,
by mak i ng the bu 1k of roadway fl ood escape
paths dual-channel (see Section 6.1). This
has two consequences:-
(i) it maximises available flood escape
channel capacity; and
(ii) it provides, by the presence of the
roadway crown, a modest degree of flood-
proofing 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 l-channe 1 carri ageway. 'The greate r flow
holds to the high side kerb where it can be
tolerated - while the lesser flow passes
along the low side kerb where fronting pro-
perties 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, typic-
ally, well below the carrying capacities of
dual-channel carriageways.
STEP Z: Fixing of roadway reserye capacity .
flows
This step involves two hydraulic calculation
tasks:-
ARRB SR 34,1986
a) calculate roadway reserve capacity flows,
Oc, for each type of carriageway likely
to be used in the catchment
b) apply a storage correction to these capa-
ci ty flows, hence Osc for each type of
carriageway.
The fi rst of these tasks employs the
procedures and criteria discussed in Section
6.1 for calculating capacity flows in dual-
channel and single-channel roadways. Two
criteria operate to limit the resulting capa-
city fl ows:-
Criterion 1: maximum flow level 50 mm above
top-of-kerb [see eqn (6.10)J
Criterion 2: maximum value of the product
da·V ave = 0.4 m2/s [see eqn (6.11)J
where Vave = flow mean velocity
d a = kerb-side flow depth
Capacity flows, Oc, corresponding to
each carriageway type likely to be used in
the development are calculated 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 deten-
tion storage of runoff in the surface channels
and underground pipes of an urban stormwater
drainage system depresses the peak flow dis-
charge which emerges from the system in much
the same way a f1 ood control dam reduces the
peak of an i ncomi ng fl ood wa vee In the case
of a major/ minor system which includes under-
ground pipes, the reduction is about 10 per
cent; where gutter/pavement storage only is
available, the reduction is about 5 per cent
(Tholin and Keifer 1959; Earley 1979).
An upwards correct i on 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 open-
channel drains only are used.
The outcome of STEP 2 is a table of
storage-corrected capacity flows, Osc, one
for each carriageway type and longitudinal
slope occurring in the catchnent.
STEP 3: 'Gap Flow' desigll sto,.. selection
The planning of a major drainage system for
an urban development is based on su rvi va 1 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) select appropri ate design ARI for the
storm
b) select appropriate gap flow, Ogap' design
ARI (M-years)
c) select appropriate design storm duration
d) determi ne average intensity for design
storm
59
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
The question of design ARI recol1lllended
for major systems, and the i nterpretat i on of
this in terms of the conjunctive use of sur-
face channels and the pipes of the underground
network, 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
f1 ow', Qgap, whi ch is movi ng in the surface
channels only of the flood escape network.
The designer I1lJst adopt a 1 ikely blockage
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 fi rst approxima-
tion duration is needed to initiate the cal-
culations. Critical storm duration should be
selected according to the guidance given in
Table 8.1.
TABLE 8.1
DESIGN STORM DURATIONS* FOR SMALL URBAN
CATCtMENTS
evelopment)
~
type\ReSidential commercial/I
roadside ... Sub- Industri al
channel divisions develop-
\ type ~ ments
kerb-and-gutter 10 - 15 15 - 20
roadside channels minutes minutes
throughout
grassed swale or
blade-cut road- N.A.
I ents.
~sl~·d~e~c~h~a~n~ne~l~s~__~________~__________
* these storm durations correspond to catch-
ment impervious area travel times: they in-
corporate roof-to-gutter travel time of 5
minutes or 10 minutes for residential or
commercial/industrial developments respec-
tively.
The last task in STEP 3 requires consul-
tation of the current edition of 'Australian
Rainfall and Runoff' (I.E. Aust. 1977 or 19-
87) to determine the design average rainfall
intensity which should be used in the STEP 4
calculations. Design ARI and storm duration
come from selections made in the first three
tasks above.
STEP 4: Syst.. ,1Anning tAble
The table produced in STEP 4 is the central
feature of the procedure, for it enables the
designer to evaluate and modify, where neces-
sary, his trial major drainage system.
Knowing the storage-corrected capacity
flows, Qsc, which can be carried in the range
of flood escape paths available in a catch-
ment (STEP 2) and knowing design storm aver-
age intensity selected inSTEP 3, it is
60
poss i b 1e to determi ne for each f1 ood 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 storage-
corrected capacity flow, Qsc, of that
path.
The table 1 isting values of TAi for the
full range of flood escape paths available in
a development constitutes its System Planning
Table.
The table is used inSTEP 5 - Network
Revi ew. The only data whi ch must be brought
by the designer to make use of the table
are:-
a) flood escape path carriageway width; and,
b) carriageway longitudinal slope.
STEP 5: Network rev; ew
Of all the data and component information
contained in the catchment definition (STEP
I
1), those relating to basic road form
carriageway widths, roadway reserve cross-
sections, pavement types, etc., - are the
most amenable to change. Th e netwo rk revi ew
procedure devolves upon this fact, for it
enables a tri al urban pl an 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-
With the Sy stem Pl anni ng Tab 1e for the
particular roadways and longitudinal ~lopc$
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' calcu-
1at ions, and thereby assess the performance
of the flood excape networks defined in STEP
1.
This review which is amenable to tabu-
lation is executed in STEP 5.
The test procedure involves comparing
the equivalent impervious area, (CA), compu-
ted at successive node sections (see Chapter
7), along each drainage path, with the value
of TAi 1 i sted for the dra i nage path defi ned
in terms of its width (carriagway) and longi-
tudinal slope in the System Planning Table
(STEP 4). At those sections where (CA) is
less than TAi, it follows that the flood
escape path wi 11 sati sfactorily convey flood
runoff in the design storm selected in STEP
3; where it is greater, then alternative
f1 ood management options mu st 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: Syst_ evaluation
The first approximation major drainage system
determined in STEP 5 must be evaluated to en-
sure that the assumptions made in the course
of its derivation - in particular, the assum-
ed design storm duration (STEP 3) - are val-
id. This involves estimating a corrected or
'new' flow travel time in each catchment of
the development and cOl11>aring it with that
adopted from Table 8.1.
Where they differ significantly, i.e.
'adopted' versus 'new' in a particular catch-
ment, 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 whi ch 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 1: Sub-area detailing
Completion of the major drainage system plan-
ni ng procedu re i nvo 1ves one further step -
the detailed review of flow movement within
each sub-area. This calls for careful appli-
cation of the principles of hydrology and
ARRB SR 34, 1986
1aws of open channel hyd raul i cs to ensure
that storm runoff finding its way to the
roadway reserves and d ra i nage easement s of
the flood escape network, moves through and
from each sub-area without surchargi ng 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 con-
vey a flow exceeding its single-channel capa-
city. 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 completely overlooks
such sub-area internal hydraulic detailing.
This must be carried out in STEP 7 but only
after a broadly sat i sfactory 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
ca rri ageways, roadway reserves, f1 ood-proof-
ing, drainage easements, roadway hydraulic
geometries, etc., - which will convey runoff
from major system design storms through and
beyond each catchment wi thout 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 ARRB SR 34,1986
9
The major drainage system -
case study applications

9.1 INTRODUCTION traffic d i stributor. All other residential

roads a nd streets wi ll have 'access road'
The step-by-step procedure for planning a status. No ro undabouts or street closures are
ma .ior stormwate r drai nage system for an anticipated during the life of the
isolated urban catchment , desc r ibed in Chapter sub-di vi s ion.
8, is now applied to a 38 ha hypothetical
residential sub-division in the Adela i de Data and information relating to STEPS 1-8
foothills, South Australia. inclus i ve for the t wo cases are presented
below.
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 t opography slopes 9.2 CASE 1 AND CASE 2 DEVELOPMENTS: STEPS 1-8
generally to the south ma king this the natural
STEP 1: Catc~nt Definition
drainage direction.

Housing density in the sub-d i vision will The follow i ng data and information relating to
catchment definition are ava i lable. Most
be. init i ally, 16 residences per ha of dedi-
items are included in Figs. 9.1(a ) and 9.1(b):
cated area i.e. excluding roadway reserves
etc. Ultimate development (see Sect i on 5.1) (a) catchment location: Adelaide foothills
during the life of the drainage system is lone, Fig. 5.2);
(Southern Australia
est imated to be equ i va 1ent to 20 residences
rainfall . Fig. 5.1
per ha. Some open space park areas are
located within the sub-division. (b) contour map - Fig. 9.1
Two a lternat i ve road 1ayouts are (c) sub-division catchment boundary - Fig. 9.1
considered. The first, Case 1. uses a road
pattern of the conventional grid type; the (d) pattern of internal roads and streets -
second. Case 2, employs a contemporary layout Fig. 9.1
of crescents. cul-de-sacs. etc. and is based
on a plan developed by a leading Canadian (e) dual-channel and potential single-channel
engineer-planner, P.E. Theil (1977). All streets - Fig. 9.1
roads will have sealed pavement carriageways
with concrete kerb-and-gut ter borders. It is (f) major (common) land use areas - Fig. 9.1
anticipated that underground pipes will be
used in the catchment minor drainage ~ystem. (g) an underground network will be
Partial blockage (50 per cent blockage) of incorporated, design ARI = 2-.years; 50
these pipes in major runoff events is con- per cent blockage to be assumed
sidered likely.
(h) natural drainage direction - Fig. 9.1
The Case 1 and Case 2 sub-di vi si ons are
ill ustrated in Fiqs. 9.1(a) and 9.1(b) (i) flood disposal points - Fig. 9.1
respectively. Some aspects of the Case 1
exampl e are discussed in Chapter 7 (see Fig. (j) sub-division internal isolated catchment
7.3). It · is assumed, for purposes of boundaries and node points - Figs. 9.2 and
illustration. that runoff from individual 9.3
residences in the ultimately developed
catchment will be di rectly-channelled to the (k) flood escape networks. node sections and
surface stormwater drainage system. Drainage sub-areas - Figs. 9.2 and 9.3
from positive grade allotments (see Fig. 9.1)
will be conveyed d i r e ct l y to fronting roadways Concerning 'catchment boundary and
and drainage from adverse grade allotments to boundary contraints' [see item (c). STEP 1.
rear-of-allotment channel s or rear access Section 8.2]. there is no inflow to the roads
lanes. and streets of the subdivision from outside
its boundary. The passi ng of stor", runoff to
It may be further assumed that High Street side boundary flood paths (Eastern Highway and
(bot h ca ses) will have the status of 1 oca 1 West Street) should be MiniMised. It is

ARRB SR 34,1986 63
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

positive grade
HIGH
~ l~ ~TREET
TO
allotment

----t:==r----1 ---......
' -96
a dverse grad e
allotmen t

All adverse grade allotments

are provided with rear- of-
allotment drainage .

Fig . 9.1 (a) - Adelaid e fo othills residential subdivision - Case 1

flood disposal
points shown . . .. . . ®
rear of allotment
drains shown . . . . . .
floodways shown ..
dual- channe l r oad-
ways shown .. . . . . . -=i;","_--

p'otential single-
channel roads
shown ...... .
contours shown . . Toe ______
sub-division
boundary .. . .. . .. . . _ _ _

SCALE
, i
100 200
me tres

Fig . 9.1 (b ) - Adelai de fo oth ills residentia l subd ivision - Case 2

assumed that these floo d paths convey sizeable STEP 2: Roadway reserve capacity flows
f1 ows from remote ca tchments and tha t addi-
tional floodwater input in the vicinity of the
recelvlng domain should only occur if The particular roadway forms to be used in the
unavoidable. development have 7.5 m and 10.0 m carriageways
within 16.0 m amd 20.0 m, respectively.
The prelimi nary road hierarchy information roadway reserves. Roadway reserves: kerb-and-
available for the sub-division(s) is gutter 0.375 m profi le and pavement cross-
suf fi c i ent to force a change in one item of slopes (Z = 30 and 40 for the 7.5 m and 10.0
catcn.ent definition data relating to High m carriag~ways, respectively) are the same as
Street in both cases. Its status as a local those used for illustrative purposes in
traffic distributor requires its cross-section Section 6.1 of the text. The 7.5 m
to be changed from potential single - channel carriageway is used for access roads, the 10.0
(north@rn segMent) to dual-channel throughout. m carriageway for local d i stributors.

64 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

Flow capacities of these carriageways Taking design ARI 50-years for the
(half-carriageway flows) are presented in Fig. surface system only and storm duration of 10
6.3 and are 1i sted. for the range of 1ongi - minutes, design storm average instensity, from
tudinal slopes present in the sub-division. in Fig. 5.1 is 90 mm/h.
Table 9.1A. The storage-corrected capacities
of these carriageways are listed in Table STEP 4: SysteM Planning Table
9.1B: a 10 per cent correction has been
applied for reasons explained in STEP 2. By bringing together data from STEP 2 and STEP
Sect ion 8.2. 3, it is possible to determine the tributary
(impervious) area, TA., which will yield,
STEP 3: Design ston. selection under design storm conditions, a peak runoff
flow matching the storage-corrected capacity
The recommendation that major drainage systems of any roadway flood escape path likely to be
should be designed generally for ARI used in the Fig. 9.1 developments. The TA .
100-years (see Section 2.5) is adopted and va 1ue requi red in each roadway case can b~
parti a1 blockage (50 per cent) of the found from substitution into the Rational
associated underground network assumed. Since Method formula [eqn (4.2)).
the minor drainage system will be designed
subsequently for ARI = 2-years. it follows (TA;) ;50
Lis (9.1)
that gap flow, Qgap ' design ARI M = 50-years 0.36
should be used (from Table S.2B). where Qsc storage-corrected capacity flow
in flood escape path (from Table
Design storm duration for the particular 9.1B)
conditions which are anticipated for the average rainfall intensity for
ultimately developed catchment (see Section storm of design ARI = 50-years
9.1) may be found from Table 8.1: storm and duration equal to that
duration equal to 10 minutes is adopted. adopted in STEP 3

TABLE 9.tA
CAPACITY FLOMS. Qc ' FOR 7.5 • AID 10.0 • CARRIAGEWAYS

FLOW CAPACITIES, Qc' IN LIs

Longitud i na 1
Slope
So 7.5 m carri agewa.Ys: ~ = 30 10.0 m carriagewa'ys: Zb = 40

single-channel dua 1-cha nne 1 single-channel dual-channel

0.005 3<ll 780 500 1000

0.010 560 1120 700 1400
0.020 780 1560 990 1980
0.030 700 1400 915 1830
0.040 635 1270 830 1660
0.050 580 1160 760 1520
0.060 535 1070 700 1400

TABLE 9.18
STORAGE-CORRECTED CAPACITY FlOMS. Qsc '
FOR 7.5 • All) 10.0 • CARRIAGEWAYS

FLOW CAPACTTTFS, Qsc' TN LIs

Longi tud ina 1
Slope
So 7.5 m carriageways: Zb = 30 10.0 m carriageways: Zb = 40

single-channel dual-channel single-channel dual-channel

0.005 430 860 550 1100

0.010 615 1230 770 1540
0.020 860 1720 1090 2180
0.030 770 1540 1005 2010
0.040 700 1400 915 1830
0.050 640 1280 835 1670
0.060 590 1180 770 1540

ARRB SR 34, 1986 65

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

tributary (imper vious) area i n Roadway r e serves compris e a bout 50 per

ha cent carriagewa'y a rea , 15-30 pe r c ent footpath
and dri veways and the r emainder nat ure st r ips .
From Fi g. 5 .1, i~ = 90 mm / h in 10 min ute Use of a lumped , a r bitrar'y factor, 0. 75 to
storms: con vert roadway r eserve area to equivalent
0.36 Qsc Qsc pa ved area is recol1l!lended. The runoff
= - ha (9.2 ) coefficient wh i ch should be applied to the
90 250 conve r ted area is :
Applying eqn {9.2} to the data in Table
9.1B gi ves a set of tributar'y (impervious) C50 1.15 x 0.90 which exceeds 1.00
areas which can, for design storm conditions , {see Section 5.6}
be serviced within the adopted criteria {see
STEP 2, Section 8.2} by the 7.5 m and 10.0 m hence, use:
roads and streets of the Fig. 9.1 develop-
ments. The values are listed in Table 9.2. 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
One final item of information is needed before C50 values which may be applied to each
the network revi ew can be commenced. Thi sis sub-area of the development to determ i ne thei r
the set of runoff coefficients which must be ind i vidual {CA}5o values [see eqn {4 ; 7)J.
applied to convert catchment component . area s
into equi va 1ent impervi ous areas, (CA). Great accuracy is not warranted in
Appropriate factors are to be found in Tables performing this task and the following values,
5.3 to 5.5 inclusive. based on the above, are considered
sat i sfactory:
Three land uses only are included in the
Fig. 9.1 sub-division(s}: residential sub-areas (including
surrounding roads):
(a) residential, 20 residences per ha
{excluding roads, etc.} 0.58 (9.6)
(b) park areas park sub-areas (including surround i ng
roads) :
(c) roadway reserves - 16 m and 20 widths

In the case of residential segments,

C50 = 0.28 (9.7)
C10 = 0.45 (from Table 5.4) and the frequency These coeffi c i ents are incorporated into
conversion factor F = 1.15 (f r om Table 5.5 ) the Network Rev i ew Tabl es (Tabl es 9.3 and
are employed: Y 9.4 ) . The network review follows.
Hence, for residential areas,
C50 - 1.15 x 0.45 Considcr Catchment M in the Casc 1
development (see Fig. 9.2 and Table 9.3). At
= 0.52 node section M.3 the High Street carriageway
(9.3) is of dual-channel type and although likely to
In the case of park areas, take the 10.0 m form in the final urban plan,
C10 = 0.10 and is investigated here as a 7.5 m trial roadway.
hence C50 = 0.12 The longitudinal slope, S , of High Street
(9.4 ) at node section M.3 is appctoximately 0.01.

TABLE 9.2
MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM PLANNING TABLE

TRIBUTARY ( IMP ER VI OUS) AREA TA; WH IC H CAN BE SER VI CED BY

Long ; tud; na 1 ROADWAY FLOOD ESCAPE PATH I N DESIGN STORM
Sl ope
So
7. 5 m car r ;ageways : Zb = 30 10.0 m ca rr;ageways: ~ = 40

s; ng l e- cha nn el dual-c hann el sing l e -channel dua l-chan nel

0. 005 1.72 ha 3.44 ha 2. 20 ha 4 . 40 ha

0. 010 2 .46 ha 4 . 92 ha 3.08 ha 6 . 16 ha
0.020 3. 44 ha 6. 88 ha 4 . 36 ha 8 .72 ha
0.030 3. 08 ha 6.1 6 ha 4. 02 ha 8 . 04 ha
0.040 2. 80 ha 5. 60 ha 3. 66 ha 7. 32 ha
0.050 2 . 56 ha 5. 12 ha 3. 34 ha 6.68 ha
0.060 2.36 ha 4. 72 ha 3 .08 ha 6 . 16 ha

66 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
Reference to Table 9.2 (carriageway 7.5 m, S
= 0.01) reveals that it can convey a capacit9
flow matching the peak generated in 4.92 ha of
tributary (impervious) area, TA . . This
information is surrmarised in Table' 9.3 under
the heading 'flood escape path detail'
(col umns 2-5).
The sub-area which contributes runoff to
node section M.3 is, mainly, a park (total
sub-area 2.36 hal for which Cso = 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 head i ng 'adjacent contri buti ng
sub-area'. The 'cumulative upstream (CA) "' 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, TA , which could be serviced, under
i
design storm 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 form 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 arms join.
The tria 1 road form 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 du'a1-channe1
carriageway. In this case, the cumulative
ups tream (CA) is the sum of the equi va 1 ent
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 a 1 so.
It is concluded from this analysis that
the total runoff generated in Catchment M in a
design storm of ARI = 100-years approximately
can be contained within the 7.5 m carriageways
of its f1 ood escape network acti ng conjunc-
tively with its associated underground
network, assumed to be 50 per cent blocked.
The likely decision to assign a 10.0 m
carri ageway .to Hi gh St reet for rea sons 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 until
node section L.2 is investigated. Here, the
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
ARRB 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 fl ows. The
designer is forced to explore a range of
alternati ves:
(i) remove roadway L.1-L.2 from the urban
plan and extend the f100dway north to
L.2 ;
(ii) change gutter/pavement profile in roadway
L.1-L.2 to one gi ving greater capacity /"
within the limits of Criteria 1 and 2 /
[eqns (6.10) and (6.11), see Appendix AJ.
(i i i )retai n roadway L.1-L.2 as a 7.5 m
dual-channel carriageway carrying flows
which exceed the 'kerb-p1us-50 mm'
capacity criterion [see eqn (6.10)J and
apply local floodproofing measures, e.g.
rai sed footpaths, rai sed floor level s,
etc.
/
(iv) adopt design ARI = 10-years for minor
system pi pe 1 i ne L.O-L .1-L.2, hence 'gap
flow', Qgap' design ARI = 30-years (see
Tab 1e 5. 2B) for surface-movi ng flow
L.2.-L.1-L.O.
Detailed design relating to these options
need not, of course, be undertaken until 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
fo 11 owed f or each of the fou r catchments of
the Case 1 and Case 2 developments and the
results tabulated in Tables 9.3 and 9.4
respect i ve 1y. The ei ght i so 1ated catchment s
cover, between them, many of the common major
network situations met in contemporary urban
drainage practice.
STEP 6: Syste. evaluation
Completion of the above network review
provides the designer with what should be
regarded as a 'first approximation' major
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 will be observed that travel time of 10
67
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

rHIGH ST REET

2· 32
ha
0·84

f
ha
flood escape
network . 2·27
ha

I N'l- •
M·4

N'O-
MO-
single-channel street sho .... n: =~~=
dual- channel street sho .... n: --===--

Fig . 9.2 - Catchments L, M , Nand P of Adelaide fo othills sUb-division

.
HIGH STREET

/ 1·26 ha

flood escape
network

single-channel street shown

dual - channel street sho .... n

Fig. 9.3 - Catchments L, M , Nand P of Ad elaide foothills sub-division

mi nutes adopted inSTEPS 4 and 5, is, in some The situation in Catchment L at node
catchments, short. A travel time of 15 section L.2 in both the Case 1 and Case 2
minutes for some Case 1 and Case 2 catchments developments, warrants further attention.
might be more appropriate.
Fifteen-minute ARI = 50-years storm bursts
The network review (STEP 5) has shown that in the Adelaide foothills show an average
the flood escape paths of Catchments M and P intensity of 78 mm/h (see Fig. 5.1). Applying
(both Cases) can accommodate the runoff this value into eqn (9.2) yields a new
generated in a 10-minute design storm. relationship for tributary (impervious) area,
Further review of these using a catchment namely:
travel time and, hence, storm duration of 15 0.36 Qsc Qsc
minutes will reach the same conclusion making =- ha (9.8 )
it a redundant exercise. 78 217

68 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TABLE 9.3
NETWORK REVIEW FOR CATCHMENTS, L, M, N AN> P - CASE 1
fl ood escape path detai l adjacent contributing
sub-area clll1ul ative
esca e ath t ri butary weighted upst ream TEST REMARKS
node path 1ongi tud i na 1 (imperv. ) area runoff (CA)50 (CA) 50
section description slope, So a rea, TAi coeff.
(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11
L L.4 dual-channe l , 7. 5 m 0.03 6.1 6 1.14 0. 28 0.32 0. 32 0. 32 < 6.16 O. K.
L.3 dual-channel, 7.5 m\ 0.02 6. 88 2. 15 0. 58 1.25 1.57 11.57 < 6. 88 O. K.
L.6 dual-cha nnel, 7.5 m\ 0.03 6.16 2.47 0. 58 1.43 1.43 1.43 < 6.16 O.K.
L.5 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0. 005 3.4 4 2. 25 0.58 1.31 2. 74 12.74 < 3. 44 O.K. )
I I L.2 dual-channel, 7.5 m' 0. 01 4. 92 2.15 0. 58 1. 25 5.56 5.56 ( 4. 92 ) N. G.r econsider

~:!~ ,
dual-channel,10.0 m, 0.01 5. 56 15.56 < 6. 16\ O.K .
L.1 floodway, 10. 0 m
,
(roadway) ,
0. 005
2.20 0.58 I 1.28 I
I I 6. 84
\ , , 6.84 , ,
from Table 9.1A fl oodway deiig n flow at L.1 approximately (-- -- ) x 1000 Lis = 1554 Lis, floodway design flow
4.40

M M.3 du a l-channe 1, 7.5 m,1 0. 01 4. 92 2. 36 0.2 8 0. 66 0.66 0. 66 < 4.92 O.K.

M.2 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0. 04 5. 60 2.13 0. 58 1.24 1.90 1. 90 < 5. 60 O. K.
,
M.5
M.4
dual - chann el, 7.5 m/
dual-chan nel, 7. 5 m
0.03
0.005
6.1 6
3.44
2.32
2. 27
0. 58
0.58 I
1.35
1.32 , 1.35
2. 67
1. 35 < 6.16
2.6 7 < 3. 44
O.K .
O. K.
M.I dua l-channel , 7.5 ml 0.02 6.88 2.09 0.28 0. 59 , 5.16 I
5.16 < 6.88 O.K .
Note : These calcul ations demonstrate that a 7. 5 m car riageway in High St. could convey satisfactorily the design
I
rare storm flood f l ow . However, the road hierarchy re uires it to be of width 10. 0 m, therefore O. K.
N N.1 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.1 6 0. 63 1.00 0 . 60 0.60 0. 60 < 6.16 O.K.
P P.5 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0. 03 6.1 6 1.16 0. 58 0. 67 0.67 0.67 < 6.16 O.K.
P.4 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0.0 3 6.1 6 1.89 0. 58 1.09 1.76 1.76 < 6.16 O. K.
P.3 dual-c hannel , 7.5 m 0.04 5.60 1. 73 0.58 1.00 2.76 2.7 6 < 5.60 O.K.
P.2 dual-channel, 7. 5 m 0.0 3 6.1 6 1.63 0. 58 0.95 3.71 3.71 < 6.16 O.K.
P.1 fl oodway, 7.5 m 0.04 2.33 0. 58 1.35 5. 06
(ro~~~y)
from Ta Ie 9.1A floodway de ign flow at .1 approxi at ely (~~Q~)
5. 60
x 12 o Lis = 1148 Lis, fl odway design flow.

TABLE 9.4
NETWORK REVIEW FOR CATCHMENTS, L, M. N Aft) P - CASE 2
I flood escape path detail , adjacent contrlbuting ,

I nod e I sub-area
------r'------7es~c~a~p7e~a~t~h----------~'~t~r~lb~u't~a~ry~'------~'~
~l~gh~t~e~d~'------
cumul ative I upstream
II,
TEST REMARKS
:------::p"'="at;'ih?-"""--'::"::"::':':"'l"o=-=n:-:gTit"'u""'d"i""n-:T
a1 , (i mp e r v. ) a rea run 0ff ( CA) 50 (CA) 50
section description slope, So area, TAi coeff .
(ha) (ha ) (ha) (ha)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

I ~::: 3~'4g:~: I ~::l I

L L.5 single-channel,7.5m 0. 01 2.4 6 1.62 1.62 < 2. 46 O. K.
L.4 floodway, 7.5 m 0.02 6. 88 3. 64
, (roadway) ,
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow at L 4 appro ximately (-- -- ) x 1560 L Is 825 Li s, fl oodway desi gn flow
L. 3
L.2
dual - channel, 7. 5
dua l - cha nnel, 7. 5
dual-ch annel,10.0
m
m
m ~~~~ . ~~~!"I ~::~ 6'1,88 ~:;~ ~:~~'II II'
4. 45
5. 30
'4 . 45 < 4. 92 O.K .
5. 30 ( 4.92 N. G.reconsider
5.30 < 6. 16 O. K.
L.l floodway, 10.0 m 0.01 6.1 6 2.1 3 0.58 1.24 6.54
(roadway)
6.54
from Table 9.1A floodway design flow approximately 16.16
----) x 1400 Lis = 1486 Lis , floodway design flow
M M.4 slngle-channel,7.5m 0. 02 3.44 LZ6 0 . 28 0 . 35 o~ ro:-rs- <To« O . K.
M.3 single-channel,7.5m 0. 06 2. 36 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 1.15 2.98 2.98 < 6.1 6 O. K.
M.1 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0. 02 6. 88 3.10 0. 58 1.80 4.78 4.78 < 6.88 O.K.
N N.1 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0.02 6. 88 1.50 0.75 1.13 1.13 1.13 < 6. 88 O.K.
P P.4 dual-channel, 7.5 m 0.03 6.16 0.88 0. 58 0.51 0.51 0.51 < 6.16 O. K.
P.3
P.2
dual-channel, 7. 5 m
dual-channel, 7.5 m
0.03
0.04
6.16
5.60
1.49
1.75
0.58
0. 58
0.86
1.02 I 1.37
2. 39
1.37 < 6.16
2. 39 < 5.60
O. K.
O.K .
P.5 s ingle -channel,7 . 5m 0. 005 1.72 1.90 0.58 1.10 1. 10 1.10 < 1. 72 O.K.

P.l floodway, 7.5 ml 0.04 5.60

(roadway)
3. 20 0. 58 1. 86 1 5.35 J
, 5.35'
__JLf_r_om__T_alp_le__9_._lA__f_l_o_od_w_a~y_d_e~fi~gn--f_l-ow__a~p~PLf'0_x_i_m_at_e_l~y~5~=~5~O~)_x_~t27_0__L_/S_~f_l_21_3__LL(S_,~f_l_00_dw
__aY~Le_S_i~gn__f_1_OW__~__________

ARRB SR 34,1986 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
'd'ouble spot' i.e. node section L.2 when, in
fact, only the TA . value for a 7.5 m
dual-channel carriagJway with S = 0.01 is
required. Application of eqn (9.g) leads to:
1230
TA. = - - = 5.67 ha
1 217 (9.9)
Consi der desi gn 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, So = 0.02

for the particular surface channel of t ributary (impervious) area : 3.44 ha

in teres t. Compari son of thi s va 1ue wi th the (from Table 9.2)
cumulative (CA) at node section L.2 (both
cases) leads to the conclusion that the 7.5 m upstream contibuting area* 1.40 ha
carriageway(s) is satisfactory and that no
further consideration need be gi ven to upstream contributing (CA) 1.40 x 0.58
alternatives (i) - (iv) listed in STEP 5. = 0. 81 ha
The above review concerns situations where TFST : O.ill < 3.44 t'hPrpfnre O.K..
the originally adopted (STEP 3) catchment
travel time - 10 minutes - was less than that * 'upstream contributing area' is that
which closer inspection subsequently revealed sub-area portion which yields runoff in a
to be more appropriate. design storm to the channel discharge
section under review.
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 TA .
for the node section N.1 case, however, i~
unnecessary considering the small cumulative
(CA) which the catchment draining to this
section presents.
If, however, the difference is significant
j node point
M·5
upstream
contributing
area = 1· 40 ha.

and widespread, e.g. affecting all mai n

catchments in a development, th~n thp rlp~ignpr
has no alternative but to return the 'new'
shorter travel time into STEP 3 , recalculate
Table 9.2 and repeat STEPS 5 an d 6.
It is clearly advantageous to adopt travel
times which prove to be short rather than
long. T;!hlp 8 ,1 reflects this philosophy.
The above review - while fortuitous in its
outcome for the Case 1 and Case 2 developments
of Fig. 9.1 - highlights the need for close
liaison to be maintained between the drainage
system designer and those responsible for
traff i c management, bu il ding approva 1s (floor
levels) and city planning generally.
It should be restated here that the ma .;or
drainage networks identified in Figs. 9.2 and
9.3 have been shown capable of conveying
des i gn rare s to rm runoff fl ows wi thout
surcharge of their flood escape paths. This
does not preclude the possibility of overflow
from fl ow paths withi n component sub-areas.
This matter is addressed in STEP 7.
STEP 7: Sub-area detailing
With a sati sfactory 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 single-channel type. The
check which needs to be carried out is a mini-
versi on of the test-and-modi fy procedure of
Tables 9.3 and 9.4.
node point
M·4
-1-
landscaped levee: ----1
design height = 0 · 13 m.
Fig . 9.4 - Drainage detai l. node points M'4 & M ·5 - Case 1
Investigations carried out on streets
which deliver storm runoff laterally to major
system networks will almost invariably yield
similar 'O.K.' 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 dua l-channe 1 carri age-
ways generally in fl ood escape networks has
been stressed (STEP I, Section 8.2). This
precaut i on does not p recl ude, however. the
possibility of surcharge at intersections such
as at node point M.5 in Catchment M (see Fig.
9.4). Floodproofing in the fonn of a low,
landscaped levee bank within the nature strip
at the south-western corner of the
intersection may be warranted.
The channell ing of floodwater mak.i ng its
way to node point .... 4 (Fig. 9.4) also needs
careful attention. Again, the presence of a

70 ARRB 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 would be required to
contain the pond is given by :
(9.10 )
where h levee height about top-of-kerb
v = averagevelocity of down-slope
ave moving flow
g = gravity acceleration (9.81 m/s )
In the vicin i ty of M.4, S for the
down -s lope roadway is approx i ma te9 y 0.03 and
average veloci ty approximately 1.6 m/s in a
design flood. Required levee height is,
therefore, about 0.13 m. Some freeboard would
need to be added to thi s.
It will be necesary in some of the
hydraulic computations of STEP 7 to find the
design flood flow rate at various locations in
developed catchments. These should be
computed using the principles set out in
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Handbook.
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:
flood path description single-channel,
7.5 carriageway longitudinal slope, S
0.02 0 The des i gn procedure descri bed in Chapters 8
upstream contributing area 1.40 ha
upstream contributing (CA) 0.81 ha
capacity flow, Q , for flood path
780 Lis (from Ta51e 9.1A)
tributary (impervious) area for flood path
: 3.44 ha
required design discharge (approximate)
0.81
- - x 780 = 184 LIs (9.11)
3.44
Values computed by this method tend to
undere st i ma te requ ired flows by about 10 per
cent.
ARRB SR 34,1986
Further discussion of these matters cannot
be justified in the present publication .
Suffice to conclude that with careful
detail ing, thoughtful planning and the use of
modest flood-proofing measures, it is possible
to handle major flood flows generated in
small, isolated urban catchments wi thout
damage indoors and without inter rupti ng the
supply of essenti al communi ty services or the
functioning of strategic installations.
STEP 8: Final design detailing
The outcome of STEPS 6 and 7 is a ser i es of
deSign and planning decisions and component
detail computations which will, when realised
in the field, enable the goals of a major
drainage system to be achieved . STEP 8
i nvolves the process of committing those
decisions and deta i I ing to paper in the form
of drawings for a works programme .
9.3 NON-ISOLATED DEVELOPED CATCHMENTS
It is clear 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.
A variety of solutions to the basic
problems - how can flow peaks be reduced? how
can flow peaks be delayed? - is avai lable to
the designer. These fall into three broad
categori es:
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 of the procedure
and 9 incorporates some simpl ifications which
may attract criticism on the grounds of their
violating recognised hydrological pr i nciples.
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
successi ve node sections down the rnai n
drai nage path commenci ng at the hi ghest. At
each node a design storm of duration equal to
contri buting catchment travel time should be
71
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

used to fix average storm intensi t y and to SUI""ary

compute design flood magnitude at that
location. A 'broad brush' procedure for desi~nin~ ma j or
stormwater d rainage sys te ms f or small urban
catchme nts has been described. Th e resulting
Such an analysis leads to stormwater node s y stem sus eon 1y the r 0 a d way r e s e r v e san d
section flows higher than those gi ven by the floodway easements of the urban landscape to
'blanket' design storm procedure. Computed c ontain runoff resulting from major storms up
disparity between the values is greatest in to and including that having a design average
the uppermost sub-areas of each catchment recurrence interval of 100-years (approxi-
tapering t o insignificant near its flood ma t ely ) . The procedure t akes account of flow
disposal point. conveyed in underground pipes of minor system
network s and includes an ar bitrary, optional
allowance for part-malfunction of the minor
A suspicion that the Handbook approach may system network (50 per cent bloc kage ) . Design
the re fore d i sad vantage occupants of premi ses f o r zero blockage follows the same procedure
in the upper sub-areas of catchments therefore but employs different values for gap flow,
needs to be explor ed. Q9ilP' design ARI adopt e d frnm Tables 5.2A
and / or 5. 2B.
Reference to such sub-areas in the Case 1
and Case 2 catchments (Tables 9.3 and 9.4) Th e procedure enable s trial flood escape
reveals flood escape path capacities , net wor ks to be raQidly asse ssed and focuses on
represented by tributary (impervious) areas, those s e gments of the floodpath which require
whi c h are well in excess of demand (see Column particular attention e.g. sp e cial hydraulic
10 in Tables 9.3 and 9.4). Strict hydro- design, building restric t ions, road layout
logical analysis requlrlng significantly modifi c ations, e t c.
increased manual or computing effort would
undoubtedly reduce this gap. Nevertheless, The procedure assumes that, in general.
and as a general rule, major system surcharge ke r bside flow depths up to 0.20 m i.e. 0.050 m
in an upper catchment sub-area is unl ikely above kerb, can be tolerated and incorporates
where the tributary (impervious) area of its a floodpath ma ximum depth/velocity constraint
fl ood path is greater than twi ce the which ensures th e safety of pedestrian and
equivalent impervious area being served. wh eeled traffic during major flood events.

ARRB SR 34, 1986

10
The minor drainage system -
design procedure outline
10.1 INTROOUCTION
There are important procedural differences
which distinguish the approach used in the
two previous chapters on major system plann-
ing and that presented here in connection with
the design of minor drainage systems. The
planning procedure described previously is
essentially a 'broad brush' operation con-
cerned with the mai ntenance 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 plan-
ner 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 predict-
ability 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 procedure by which a minor system is
designed may be divided into three broad
phases: -
Phase Catchment definition and
design guidelines;
Phase I I Flow estimation and dis-
tri but i on;
Phase I II Surface system and under-
ground 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 interval mi nor
stormotater drainage system for a corrmercial,
i ndustri al, residential or mi xed development
sub-division. Following this outline of pro-
cedure, guidelines and hydrological/hydraulic
information presented in earlier chapters are
appl i ed (Chapter 11) to design, fi rstly, a
mi nor stormwater drai nage 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
Design Procedure - Phase
The primary data used in the design of an N-
years ARI mi nor stornwater drai nage system
involve three aspects of definition:-
a) catchment definition
b) design guidelines for surface-moving
fl ow management
c) design guidelines for underground-
moving flow management.
The first of these calls for information
on the physical nature and properties of the
catchment, including, in particular, the lo-
cation of existing underground services. It
is similar to, though more detailed than, that
required in STEP 1 of the major system plann-
ing/design process.
The second aspect of definition, that
relating to surface-mov in g flows, arises from
their being the most obvious manifestation of
storm runoff in a developed catchment. Crit-
eria 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:-
D.P.!. A set of guidelines must be adopted
whose aim is to ensure the orderly
movement of stornwater flows in the
surface channels of developed catch-
ment minor drainage systems.
A similar set of criteria must also be
adopted for the management of stormotater
flows moving in underground networks:-
D.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 guide-
line information presented in Phase I.
Des i 911 Procedure - Ph.se I I
With the catchment defined and design guide-
lines identified, the procedure addresses the
task of preparing a valid hydrological model
which satisfactorily represents the hydrolo-
gical response of the catchment to storm
input.
73
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
The catchment 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 later stages in the de-
sign of a minor drainage system for a
catc hment must descri be it s compon-
ents (ultimately developed) and yield
a sati sfactory representati on of its
runoff response to rainfall input in
all desi gn 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
fl ow est imate( s) at each catc hment reference
point. This procedure i s defined in DeSign
Princ.iplp. Nn. 4:-
D.P.4. The rainfall / runoff mathematical mod-
el which should be used with the
catchmen t hydrological model must be
a valid or acceptable procedure which
yields the greatest runoff estimate
for each compo nent drai nage unit,
co ns ide red individually, for design
storms of ARI = N-years and sma ller.
Application of DeSign Principles 3 and 4
enables the designer to estimate design flows
re su lting fromARI = N-years storms in, first-
ly, 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 concent rated flow entry
structures needed to transfer surface-moving
stormwater to the underground network. The
stortTlrlate r flows upon which deSigners mu st
base their s elections 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, terminal inlet, concentrated
flow entries, branch and lateral un-
derground pipelines, etc., should
co nvey and di scharge the peak fl ow
generated in its catchment c rit i ca 1
desig n storm having ARI = N-years.
Surface channel compo nent s shoul d be
se 1 ected in accordance with the
guide lines of DeSign Principle No.1.
The same flow estimation concept embod-
i ed in D.P.S. is also applied in the cas e of
the catchme nt or sub-catchment main drain
pipeline or 'mainline' (see Table 6 .4). It
is expressed in DeSign Prin ciple No . 6: -
D.P.6. The on -line compo nents of any main
drain pipeline, including its junc-
tion pit(s), node pit(s), pipes,
etc ., should convey and discharge
peak flows gene rated at successive
node pits by design storms of N-years
average recurrence interval which are
c ritical in th e catchments contribut-
ing to those stations.
The completion of Phase II of the proce-
dure provides the designer with a c lear pic-
74
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 compon-
ent sub-catchments of complex urban land-
scapes (see Fi g. 7.4). In the 1atter case,
Phase I I must inc 1ude a fi na 1 step in whi ch
the interaction of flows moving underground
between sub-catchment disposal points towards
their (catchment) central disposal point must
also be considered.
Design Procedure - Phase III
Phase II encompasses the flow estimation/dis-
tribution segment of the total procedure. It
also includes some elements (surface-to-under-
ground component selection) which, strictly,
fall into the category of 'design'. Identif-
ication of these components forms the start-
i ng poi nt for Phase I 11. Phase I I I i nvol ves
the application of Design Principle No. 2
guidelines relating to the management of
underg r ound -movin g stormwater flows to design
an 'approximate ' underground network. Approx-
imate pipe headloss values and pit headloss
estimates are employed in the deve lopment of
this design which concludes with a catchme nt
Hydraulic Grade Lin e (pit water l eve l s) being
declared, satisfying N-years design ARI r e -
quirements .
This network is combined, in each case,
with the surface drai nage component select-
ions made in Phase II to provide an approxi-
mate minor stormwater drainage system design.
The fi nal segment of the procedure i n-
volves detailed modification of the approxi-
mate 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 cer-
tain cases, final deSign detailing may call
for a re-working of the Hydraulic Grade Line
computations using accurate pipe and pit head-
loss values: some Significant c hanges to the
approximate network may ensue in these ci r-
cumstances.
10.2 MINOR SYSTEM DESIG" PROCEDURE
The outline of procedure which follows has
been prepared for use in the deSign of storm-
water systems for small isolated catchments
e.g. the L, M, Nand P catchments of Fi g.
7.3, and for interconnected sub-cat chments of
1 arge catchments e.g. the drai nage units of
catchments Nand Pin Fi g. 7.4. The 1atter
cat egory represents, of course, the more gen-
eral case.
The basic drainage unit used in the
following outline is therefore referred to as
a 'sub-catchment' in the interests of gener-
a 1 ity and interact i on between it and its
fellows reviewed at the appropriate stage
ARRB SR 34,1 986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

(STEP 7). Where the outline is to be inter-
preted for isolated urban catchment cases,
'sub-catchment' should be replaced by 'catch-
ment' and all references to sub-catchment
interaction disregarded.
The three phases into whi ch the mi nor
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 cov-
ering a range of values of N (see Section
2.6).
STEP 1: Sub-catdment defi niti on
STEP 2: Design guidelines and data
(surface-moving flows)
STEP 3: Design guidelines and data
(underground-moving flows)
STEP 4: Hydrological model - stage 1
STEP 5: Hydrological model - stage 2
STEP 6: Design flow distribution in
primary and main drainage
lines
STEP 7: Design flow compilation -
all components of sub -
catchment
STEP 8 : Pit water levels and 'first-
round' pipe sizes
STEP 9: H.G.L. and pi pes of approx-
imate network design
STEP 10: Approximate system design -
ARI = N-years
(STEP IDA: Cost/frequency insert)
STEP 11: Final design detailing
STEP 1: Sub-catc~ent definition
value for N-years design ARI
types of 'preferred inlets' and hyd-
raulic characteristics of these
crossflow acceptable or not acceptable
at minor street intersections
pipes : concrete or FRC; normal condi-
tion or poor condition
i) measure, extract or classify and record
the following for all components contri-
buting runoff to primary drainage lines:
area
land use
' di stri buted' or 'concentrated' fl ow
entry
drainage line characteristics (type,
PHASE length, slope, etc.)
I allowable or capacity flow at terminal
i nl ets.
Almost all of items (a) to (f) inclusive
relate to drainage network structure (see
Chapter 7). The following definitions and
explanations are needed in order to proceed
PHASE with STEP 1:-
II
Component identification code: Node pits in
the mi nor drai nage system network carry the
same identifiers as corresponding node sect-
ions in the major system. A supplementary
codi ng system is requi red to enabl e compon-
ents other than node pits to be identified.
The system set out in Fig. 10.1 is used in the
PHASE Chapter 11 illustrative cases.
III
P7N1E1Nl
P8 P12
M·3Wl
M3
M·3W2
M2N2

This involves listing tnformation and data

I p7N1 P·7N1El
)PllNl

comprising that required to plan a major M· 2Nl

drai nage system for the sub-catchment, plus
the following : -
a) locate sub - catchment s torllWater di sposa 1
point and terminal node pit, if different
b) declare design flood level at sub-catch-
ment stormwater disposal pOint
c) adopt a network of main drain pipeline(s)
and associ ated node pits taki ng account
of the presence of maj or s ervi ces and
other underground installations
d) record gutter invert levels at roadway
sections containing node pits
e) define sub-areas draining to identified
node pits
f) identify primary drainage line contribut-
i ng areas and associ ated termi nal gutter
in 1ets
g) identify the locations of all significant
pedestrian crossings
h) identify the following as matters of pol-
icy:
M·2E2
M·2 P·7
M·2El P'7El P' 11
Si mple System Complex System
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 sub-
catchments draw on only one or two of these
directions, but the code is capable of exten-
sion to provide systematic identification in
networks of great complexity.
'Distributed' and 'concentrated' flow
entries: Distributed flow originates on s ub -
catchment areas such as roadways, unchannell-
ed open space areas and residential or com-
mercial subdivisions in which mmerous small
units discharge stormwater individually.
Flows classified as concentrated come from
subsidiary or allotment drains which collect

ARRB SR 34,1986 75
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
runoff from (usually) large-area compo nents,
e . g. residential sub-division, dri ve-in
ci nema, ca rpark, etc. Stormwater from sllch
a reas enters the system as concent ra ted input
to the main surface rlrainage line or is pass -
ed to the unde rgroun d network via a sump and /
or junction pit.
Allowable or ca pacity flow at a terminal
gutte r inlet can only be found aft e r su rface -
movi ng fl ow ma nag ement gu i de 1i nes have been
adopted in STE P 2. This item re la tes to the
hydraulic characteri stics of the catc hment
roads and streets [item (e), STEP 1, Secti on
8 . 2J and preferred inlets [i tem (h) aboveJ.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 1 (see Table 10.1)
1. Contour map of sUb-catchment,~
boundaries. node pits, FIGURE lA
terminal gutter inlets, etc. ,
2. Sub-catchment underground
network (Stage 1) gutter
inlets, dimensions, etc. FIGURE 18
3. Table of sub-catchment TABLE 1
properties
4. Reference: Chapter 7 and Sections 2.6,
6.1, 6.2, 6.4.
STEP 2: Design guidelines and data (surface-
lIIovi ng flows)
A set of guidelines and associated hydraulic
information and data must be -adopted for the
management of runoff movi ng 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 playa major role in Phase II
of the design procedure.
The Table 6.3 Guidelines 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. Adopt guidelines Table 6 . 3 or ) TABLE 2
similar ) INDETERMINATE lines. Testing of the Stage 1
2. Reference: Section 6.1 - 6.3 inclusive.
STEP 3: Design guidelines and data
(underground-lIIOying flows)
A set of guidelines and associated hydraulic
information and data must be adopted for the
management of runoff moving in the under-
ground pipe networks of minor stormwater
drainage systems. A typical set of guidelines
and other related information are presented
in Section 6.5: they playa major role in
Phase III of the design procedure.
The guidelines referred to here are re-
quired under Design Principle No.2 (Section
76
10.1) and are adopted to ill ustrate the de-
sign of minor drainage sy stems in Chapter 11.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 3 (see Table 10.1)
1. Adopt guidelines Table 6.4 or ) TABLE 3
similar )
2. Reference: Sections 6. 4 - 6.8 inclusive.
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 desi gn procedure.
STEPS 4 & 5: Hydrological Models -
Stages 1 and 2
By means of the procedure and guidelines re-
viewed in Phase I, it is possible to convert
real-world sub-catchments into mathematical
representations or 'hydrological models'
whi ch can be used to yield design flow esti-
mates and flow distributions in all drainage
path components. Th is i nvo 1ves the app 1 i ca-
tion of Design Principles 3 and 4 (see Sec-
t i on 10.1).
It is assumed in the i nit i a 1 sub-catch-
ment model (Hydrological Model - Stage 1)
that design flows generated in all primary
(surface) drainag e lines fall below the lim-
its set by Guidelines 1, 2 and 4 of Table
6.3. These are:-
a) design flows at terminal gutter inlets
ilrp Ip<;<; th;ln 95 per cent capture approach
flow of the preferred inlet AND have flow
spread less than the adopted limit
(Guidel ine 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 en-
try poi nts are less than the adopted limit
(Gu ide 1i ne 4).
Primary drai nage 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
model (Fig. 4A, see Outcomes below) to deter-
mine the classification of each primary drain-
age line is carried out in STEP 4 and present-
ed in Table 4 (see Outcomes below): the tasks
i nvol ved are, for each primary drai nage 1i ne
and concentrated flow entry:-
1) compute design flow (N-years design ARI),
and,
2) compare design flow with guideline
1imit(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
lead immediately to change in the Stage 1
network layout (Fi gu re 1B).
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.
Those dra i nage 1 i nes found to be I NDE-
TERMINATE are modified by the addition of
in-path gutter inlets or other means to en-
able them to satisfactorily convey and dis-
charge 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 car-
ried out in Fig. 4B (see Outcomes below).
Such additions also affect change in the
Stage 1 network layout.
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
i nformat i on about the mi nor system d ra i nage
network and has proven ability to satifactor-
ily model design flows (N-years ARI) in all
primary drainage paths within the constraints
imposed by Guidelines 1 - 4 (Table 6.3) in-
clusive. This model forms the basis for all
subsequent flow estimation computations and
is presented in Fig. 5 (see Outcomes below).
OUTCOMES OF STEPS 4 AND 5 (see Table 10.1)
1. Stage 1 hydrological model FIGURE 4A
2. Tabular computation of primary
drainage line design flows,
comparisons, etc. Sizes and TABLE 4
locations of gutter inlets
in DETERMINATE drainage Ijnes
3. Graphical determination of
gutter inlet positions, etc., FIGURE
in INDETERMINATE drainage 4B
1i nes
4. Stage 2 hydrological model in-
cluding information on gutter FIGURE
inlet locations, types, sizes, 5
concentrated flow entries,etc.
5. Reference: Chapter 4 and Sections 5.2,
5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.3.
STEP 6: Design flow distribution in pri.ary
and .ain drainage lines
The tasks executed in STEPS 4 and 5 to derive
a valid hydrological model for a given sub-
catchment 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 fai lure of some primary
drainage lines - investigated in STEP 4 as
wholly surface flow conveyors - to meet adop-
ted guideline limits. The primary drainage
line design flows (ARI = N-years) are present-
ed in Figure 6A (see Outcomes below).
Emphasis in the procedure from STEP 3 to
this point is clearly on design flows generat-
ed in primary drainage lines by design storms
which are critical in their individual catch-
ment areas. Flows determined in this way lead
ARRB SR 34, 1986
to the selection and design of primary drain-
age line component s as required by DeSign
Principle No.5 (see Section 10.1).
Flows conveyed by the main pipeline, on
the other hand, arise from design storms which
are c ritical in collections of primary drain-
age areas, the aggregate fl ows enteri ng the
mainline at or in the vicinities of its node
pits: the catchment area contri buti ng 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 De-
sign Principle No. 6 (see Section 10.1).
To determine these design flows (ARI =
N-years) requires a set of computations simi-
lar to those of Table 4 (STEP 4) but reflect-
ing the collective nature of the contributing
catchment. Execution of these calculations
requires the Stage 2 hydrological model to be
interpreted as a system of catchment aggregat-
ions (see Fig. 6B, Outcomes below). The flow
computations are carried out in Table 6 and
the results presented in Fig. 6C (see Out-
comes below).
OUTCOMES OF STEP 6 (see Table 10.1)
Primary drainage line flow
l
1.
distributions (design ARI = FIGURE 6A
N-yea rs)
~
2. Stage 2 hydrological model FIGURE 6B
'collective' i nterpretat i on
drain pipeline design flows ~
3. Tabular computation of main TABLE 6
Main drain pipeline flow
l
4.
distribution (design ARI = FIGURE 6C
N- years)
5. Reference: Information transferred from
the outcomes of STEPS 4 and 5.
STEP 7: Design flow compilation - all
components of sub-catc~nt
Data and information extracted from Fi gs 6A
and 6C enable the flow distribution compila-
tion 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 sub-
catchment, under design ARI = N-years condit-
ions. The compilation is presented in Fig. 7
(see Outcomes below).
Where the deSign of a mi nor drainage
system for a comp 1ex urban 1andscape of the
type illustrated in Fig. 7.4 is required, an
additional task must be performed. This in-
volves the computation of flows moving under-
ground between sub-catchment di sposal poi nts
towards their (catchment) central disposal
point (see Design Procedure - Phase II above).
The outcomes of these computations are presen-
ted in Figs 7A, 7B, etc. (see Outcomes
below).
77
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
l
OUTCOMES OF STEP 7 (see Table 10.1)
1. Design flow distribution
compilation for sub-catchment FIGURE 7
(ARI = N-years)
2. Design flow distribution FIGURES
compilation for other sub- 7A, 7B,
catchments (ARI = N-years) etc.
N-years)
3. Des i gn f1 ows between ter- FIGURES
minal node pits of parallel 7A, 7B,
sub-catchments etc.
4. Reference: I nformat i on trans ferred from
the outcomes of STEP 6.
The declaration of these f1 ow compi lations
completes Phase II of the minor system design
procedure and provides the basis for the
underground network design steps and final
des i gn detailing of Phase III.
STEP 8: Pit water levels and first-round pipe
sizes
Des i gn of the underground network commences
with the setting of water levels called
'ass i gned water levels' (AWL's) in all junc-
tion pits - with or without gutter i nlets -
located on sub-catchment lateral and main
pi pelines. AWL's are set first along 1ate~al
pi pelines and ma i n pipeline branches begln-
ning at their upstream extremities and then
along main pipeline trunks commen cing from
their discharge points (see Guideline 6,
Table 6.4).
In setting pit water levels the designer
should observe the requ i rements of Guidel i nes
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 i n a rapid and orderly
fashion.
These tasks are followed by 'first-
round' 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
cha rts of the type presented in Fi gs 6.9 and
6. 10. Pit head10ss is ignored in this pro-
cess. Design flows are obtained from the
outcome of STEP 7 (Figs 7, 7A, 7B, etc.).
Pri ority shou 1d be observed i n se 1ect-
ing sizes for pipe components: lateral pipe-
line components should be selected before
pipes of the ma i n drain (see Guideline 8,
Table 6.4). This task is performed using
Table 8/9 which has been designed to facili-
tate the first-round pipe selection procedure.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 8 (see Table 10.1)
1. Junction pit water levels
(AWL's) are assigned along
all lateral and main drain TABLE 8/9
pipelines
78
2. First-round pipe sizes are
selected for all lateral and TABLE 8/9
main drain components
3. Reference: Sections 6.4 - 6.6 inclusive.
STEP 9: H.G.l. and pipes of approxi.ate
netlIOrk desi gn
The tasks of reviewing the first-round selec-
ted pipes and making alterations where neces-
sary in the light of Hydraulic Grade line
analysis, is conducted in STEP 9 as a combin-
ed exerci see It is cOlTl11enced at the down-
stream extremity of the sub-catchment and its
main calculations are reported in Table 8/9
(see Outcomes below).
The tabu1 ar procedure includes two Hyd-
raulic 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 Do). The first
of these a ims can be ach i eved, generally, by
appropriate pipe diameter selection. The
second can be achieved in the majority of
cases but sometimes fails at locations where
hi gh discharges pass through mUlti-pipe junc-
tion 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 under-
ground-moving flows take the part-full or
open-channe 1 form and norma 1 p ressu re pi pe-
line head10ss and pit head10ss (water level)
values cannot be validly applied. A design
approach to meet these situations is offered
in Table 6.5.
EXdlll!lles of such situations occur most
frequently in the upper extremities of moder-
ate 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 pipeline. These are the more serious
cases for the designer since they are likely
to be preceded and followed by reaches which
behave as normal pressure pipelines.
The two possible outcomes reviewed here
- junction pit outflow full or part-full -
lead to different algorithms for fix i ng pipe
inverts and, hence, mainl i ne junct ion pit
floor levels [see eqns (6.19) and (6.21)].
The computations which arise as a co nsequence
of these outcomes are entered in the Remarks
col um n of Table 8/9 (see Outcomes below).
Where underground networks are to be de-
Signed for catchments cOl1l>rising a number of
sub-catchments (see Fig. 7.4), then a set of
tab l es 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 al so be determined.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 9 (see Table 10. 1)
1. Hydraulic Grade Line and
pipe sizes of app roxi mate
ARRB SR 34, 1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
under ground network design ) TA BLE
for s ub-catchment ) 8/ 9
(ARI = N-years) ) l.
2. Junct i on pit outflow pipe ) mi nor storllwater drai nage
maximum invert levels ) TABLE
(appro ximat e network design) ) 8/9
( ARI = N-years) ) 2.
3. H.G.l. and pipe size s for
appro ximate underground net - TABLE S
work de si gns for other s ub- 8/9A,
catchment s (ARI = N-years) 8/9B ,
and pipes linking their etc .
terminal node pits
4. Reference : Sections 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6. 8.
STEP 10: Approximate syst~ design -
ARI = N- years
The first task in STEP 10 is t o extract in-
formation on lateral and main pipeline adopted
pipe diameters (Table 8/9) and present these
on a St age 2 hydrologi cal model network lay-
out. Oiameters of the remaining pipes
cross-connections from gutter and 'sag' in-
lets, etc., to the lateral and main pipelines
- are fi xed 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 infor-
mation on surface drainage comp onents declar-
ed in STEP 5 - gutter and 'sag' inlet locat-
ions, types, sizes, etc. - to produce an
appro ximate design for the sub-c atchment
mi nor d ra i nage system. The des i gn is that
for ARI = N-years and is presented in schema-
tic f orm 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 pit s
- locations, pipe entries and e xits
d) concent rated fl ow ent ry poi nt s
- 1ocat ions
e) pipe components (all pipes)
- locations, types, lengths,
diameters
Where catchments comprl S1 ng a number of
sub-cat chments are involved, then a set of
appro ximate minor system designs must be pre-
pared, one for each sub-catchment. Diameters
for pipes linking sub-catchment terminal node
pits (see STEP 9) form part of the out come of
STEP 10.
The design is described as 'appro ximate'
on the grounds that its fi nal f orm cannot be
determined until site constraints [see item
(cl, STEP 1, Section 10.2J, and construction
requi rements have been taken into account.
ARRB SR 34,1986
OUTCOMES OF STEP 10 (see Table 10.1)
Schematic representation of )
sub- catchment appro ximate ) FIGURE
) 10
system for design ARI = N-years)
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: Outcomes of STEPS 5 and 9.
STEP lOA: Cost/frequency insert
The question of what ARI's should be applied
in the design of minor stormwater drainage
systems is revi ewed in Sect ion 2.6. Des i gn
ARI tends to be fi xed 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 provid-
ed it is soundly based on assessment of sample
developments covering the range of likely land
uses. One item of economic evaluation which
shoul d be part of any such enqui ry is cost/
frequency analysis.
The first task in conducting a cost/fre-
quency analysis is to assign a range of val-
ues 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 in-
dustrial/commercial developments are N = 0,
2, 5, 10 and 20-years.
With these values assigned, the proced-
ure described in STEPS 1 - 10 incluSive, must
be carri ed out for each nomi nated non-ze ro
value of N commencing with the greatest.
This is less 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 'O-year'
case is the hypothetical layout of inlets,
underground pipes and junction pits which
satisfied the minimum requirements of the
guidelines adopted in STEPS 2 and 3. It
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 accep-
ted into thei r respective su rface drai nage
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. Th is const i tutes the ma in part of the
data base for the analysis.
The next tas k involves costing the set
of designs. The level of sophistication em-
ployed here need not be high but should in-
cl ude:-
79
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
a} costs of all drainage network ma in com-
ponents
- junction pits
- concentrated flow entries
- gutter inlets of all types
- pi pes
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 $177,500
design ARI 5-years $171,500
design ARI 2-years $156,000
design ARI I-year $151,200
O-year design $136,500
These cost/frequency data are plotted in Fig.
2.2 (curve I) : they apply to a typical 12 ha
residential sample area in the Adelaide foot-
hills, 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 1 is typical of resident-
i al catchments : the conI/ex form illustrated
by curve 2 is obtained, typically, for indus-
trial/ commercial developments. The conclus-
ion whi ch may be drawn from the curve 1 re-
lationship is that design ARI = 2 - 4 years
represents 'best value for $ spent'.
These considerations provide designers
with valuable information which aids policy-
making. They are urged, however, to resist
the temptation to adopt deSign ARI's which
have been decided solely on cost considera-
tions of the type described here. The reader
is referred to Chapter 2 for a wider discuss-
ion of this subject.
In STEP 11 the schematic representation of
the sub-catdment mi nor stomwater drai nage
system, collated in STEP 10, is converted to
a set of working drawings used for construc-
tion. The conversion is accomplished in two
stages:-
Stage A: pit floor levels according to eqns
(6.19) and (6.21) collated from the
'Remarks' column of Table 8/9, and
Guidelines 11 and 12 are applied to
the approximate design declared in
STEP 10. It is also appropriate
for pi pe class and cover requi re-
ments (Guideline 13) to be consid-
ered at this stage.
Stage B: site constrain t s - service locat-
ions in particular - are applied
to the Stage A design to produce a
set of working or construction
drawings. Some recalculation may
be involved.
80
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 whi ch have no
appreciable effect on the design - to major
redesigns. In the latter case, significant
a lte rat ions to the network, e. g. rep 1acement
of a number of conventional junction pits
with 'drop ' pits or alternative pipeline mod-
ifications (see Table 6.6) to avoid existing
underground services, may force recalculation
of some reaches of the netwo r k. Suc h reca 1-
culation 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 dia-
meter selection and Hydraulic Grade Line com-
putations may have to be repeated using more
accurate headloss coefficients and pipe fric-
tion factors than employed in the procedure.
Reference should be made in these circumstan-
ces to appropriate texts on hydraulics (for
pipe friction values) and to the referenced
literature on junction pit headlosses. Con-
sideration should also be given to the hyd-
raulic modelling of particular installations,
e.g. multi-pipe junction pits, whose behav-
iour under design flow conditions is crucial
to the success or fail u re of a system (see
Table 6.6).
Much of this need for redesign can be
pre-empted if thorough site survey and inves-
tigation is carried out as part of catchment
rlpfinition [item (c), STEP 1J. The designer
who is aware of the locations of all major
servi ces and other underground i nsta 11 at ions
wi 11 arrange his bas i c netwo rk 1ayout - Fi g.
1B to a voi d these, and all subsequent seg-
ments of the design will reflect this know-
ledge. The alternative is a set of major
computational difficulties Lu be overcome in
STEP 11 or, worse still, following the dis-
covery of an unexpected service line unearth-
ed by a construction crew.
OUTCOMES OF STEP 11 (see Table 10.1)
1. Schematic representation of sub-}
catchment final design (Stage A}} FIGURE
minor stormwater drainage system} 11
Design ARI = N-years }
2. Schematic representation of par-}
allel sub-catchment final design} FIGURES
(Stage A) minor drainage systems} llA,
including pipes linking their } lIB,
terminal node pits. Design } etc.
ARI = N-years }
3. Construction drawings of catch- } CON-
ment minor stormwater drainage }STRUCTION
system (Stage B) for design }DRAWINGS
ARI = N-years }
4. Reference: In situations where fi nal de-
sign calls for refinement of the pipe
diameter selection procedure and the
H.G.L. , more precise values for pipe fric-
tion factor, f, and pit headloss coeffi-
ci ents must be sought from the literature.
ARRB 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 schemafic form an ordered account of the main com putati onal and graph ical components of the
minor dra inage system design procedure .
The composition of each component and its role in the procedure are described in general terms in Section 10 2.

I Phase 1- Catchment definition & design gu idelines

=~ll:[
[ '"r II
Table Guidel ines Table Guidelines
STEP -- --~ STEP 6.· 3 STEP 64

'~m
Guidelines Table Guidelines Table
1 2 1-5 3 1-1~
2 3
l- I
FIGURE 1A FIGURE 1B TABLE 1

Phase II - Flow estimation & distribution

Stage 1 Hydrological Model

~
STEP
4
, "-
"-

FIGURE 4A
II] TABLE 4
~FIGURE 4B
STEP
5
, "-
"-

FIGURE
St age 2

Hydrological Model

corresponding
sub- compilation
for
STEP STEP other

•
sub-catchments
6 7

I t
FIGURE 6A TABLE 6 FIGURE 6C FIGURE 7

Phase III - Surface system & underground network design

Table 8/9
iii
ii
co lu mns 1-12 T,bl" 12-24
columns /9
STEP commencing
STEP
commencing
8 top of bottom of 9
network network

~ .P ~

~~-
~
STEP
, - " STEP <11
a
W / -
10 "-
10A
"- f/ Frequency

"
FIGURE 10 FIGURE lOA

Final design I"

Stage A
~ V
Constructi on dra wings
STEP
11
, "-
I"-

f-
(Fi nal design Stage Bl

"- ~
" FIGURE 11

ARRB SR 34,1 986 81

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

82 ARRB SR 34, 1986

The minor drainage system -
case study applications

INTROOOCTION

The step-by-step procedure for designing
minor stormwater drainage systems for small
urhan catchments, rles c ri bed in Chapter 10, is
applied in Chapter 11 to two hypothetical
urban developments located in the Adelaide
foothills, South Australia.
In the fi rst - Case 3 - a mi nor 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 already been designed for
the catchment and that, therefore, runoff
from storms of AR I = 100-years or 1ess wi 11
not result in indoor damage. Design ARI used
for the minor system is N = 2-years.
The second illustrative design - Case 4 -
f ocuses on Catchment, M, a 12 ha portion of
the 38 ha residential sub-division featured in
Fi g. 7.3. The minor system network for this
catchment includes a branching main drain
pi peline and four lateral pipelines. A major
system design (ARI = 100-years) is presented
for the same catchment in Chapter 9 (Case 1)
where a mi nor system desi gn AR I of N = 2-yea rs
was assumed. This led to a 'gap flow' design
ARI of M = 50-years for the surface-moving
system.
Although design of the minor system net-
work 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 (out-
lined in Chapter 10) which would not be
revealed by a design at N = 2-years level.
Both designs - Case 3 and Case 4 - are
intended to fu lfi 1, Pri ma ri ly, a demonst ra-
tion role for the novice. This leads, in
places, to decisions which may be validly
questioned by seasoned designers. Discussion
of such poi nts provi des opportuni ty 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.
Each design is presented as a set of
figures and tables corresponding to those of
Table 10.1 and supported, generally, by add-
itional notes. Readers are advised to con-
sult Table 10.1 frequently in their study of
the Chapter 11 designs as well as appropriate
sections of Chapter 10 when the need tor
further explanation arises.

CASE3 : STEP 1, FIGURE1A

boundary of northern primary
Node X~ '--_ _ _ _ _ _-+-_d_ra_in_ag_e_a_re_a_ _ _ _ _-'

l Residential
(outside catchment)

Node Xk3 I Res identia l

in< R.l.10~ 10-_1_5 r_e_sJ_h_a.

I f I'l-- . -7m----t------+-t---~
Ch-
Ch. 56 2 m.
Ch. 00 ~ gutter inl et inv. R.l. 111·20
node pit inv. R.l.100 ·10

ADDITIONAL NOTES
1. Ca tchm ent Location , Ad ela ide foothilis, South Australia Isee Fig.5.21 ; Raintall chart Fig.5.1
2. Roads : 20m . roadwa y reserves,10m dual ch anne l carri ageway. kerb .and gutter,
concrete width=375 mm ; Za=8, pavement,hotmix ; cross slope,Zb=40.
hydraulics, Fig.6·3I1ext)
3. Storm wa ter Disposal, XA-4 - XA·3- XA-2-XA-1- X·0 Imainlin el
design flood level at XA- 3, R.L. 99'85
4. Policy Items : adopt design ARI::2 years for minor system
" preferred in let", side entry inlets 1m & 2m wi th and without deflectors
hydraulics, Fig. 6.71 text)
pipes : concr ete pipes throughout; normal condition
CATCHMENT AND BASIC DESIGN DATA

ARRB SR 34,1986 83
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3 : STEP 1, FIGURE 1 B

concentrated entry

~I ~I
(from carpark)

11
t
termjnal XA ·3E1R

I
t
gutter inlet R.L.10010

1It------f
L ker b line

lr ~ node
XA-3
RL 100.00 XA-3E1
!2 'Om
CP

~t 70m I 180m

XA3E1L kerb line

:I
RL.IOO ·)O
-e
~

~I ~I I. 200. .1
NOTE ' Pipe location fixed by Guideline 1, Table 6·4 (major roads)

FIGURE 1B ' TERMINAL INLETS AND BASIC UNDERGROUND NETWORK LAYOUT

CASE3 : STEP 1, TABLE 1

Z
o DRAINAGE LINE CONVEYING FLOW
5<n
«1 a:: TO TERMINAL INLET
l-

I-
ii: .....
Z ..... I- z: a:: ci
u.J o a::
..... --'
« -a « I - I- -s' ~
E
I
o
Z
I-
Z > . I-
z
a w !;;: I-
ZVl
0- ;: 01 ., .,
~
",-
>- ., :.--'
I-
w « z: --' z: t:l w z: w D 01 '"
~.,
C
~~
'"
c:~ '" 0.. ~r-.,
Z
..... I-
« u.J ~ - 0: u.J
z:
I-
el.
0 ..... -
--' w u.
u.J
a::--, u.a:: C '"
., ., .,-
:. 0
a::
-2~~.,
0-
E a:: a 0«;;; 0« 00
E co'" >-c
:=:.=
w , >
- Vl.,o..E.-'" .-'"~ '"'"'
--
>- E
'"Vl
u.J --'
I
<f- I- u.J el. w a::u. Vl «~ u.JU :.;:.
u _
C
u ., REMARKS
w
I-
,« ,
<n
=>
<n
=>
'"
I-
,.,
Z
I-
=>
>
u.J
E
,a , .....
,.,
Da::«
>-=>--,
u.J=>
" '0
el.z
>-0 o
E
' ,:",
., ., o ~ ~

'"
0
~
"'"0
0.. .-

--' T V'lil 4 •• 1 I- ' , 1---' . ~---1 V) ~ ,_, II '" :J

wt:l
'" Vl

4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
x A ·3 node 1100·00
pavee
E1 R 1100·10 I road 1 st Qradel 0·49 I 0 680 I 13-5
residentiall15 res/ ha. 1 1·00 I 0 I 200 I 4·0

t------jt-----t-----t---+--I---r:~=_i~~~+_-=-=--.J_=--j._=.=-=--I..___:~ > 5551 002 I 40

75

park I pervious I 150 I 0 I 457 I 9' 0

E1L 110010 I road 1 1S~agV~el 0441 0 I 56 2 1 11·0 I 555 I 002 I 40 75

identification-see note 1 Figure 1A and Section 5·6 see see see note 4 see Figure1A see
note 2 note 3 note 5 note 6

ADDITIONAL NOTES
l.Identification of primary drainage area terminal gutter inlets X A·3E1R and XA3E1L applies code described
in STEP1, Section 10·2 ;'R" and "L"signify dghj or left looking in directi on of flow.
2. Area or equivalent area : measured from catchment pla n, factor of 0·75 used to convert roadway res er ve into
road equ ivalent paved area .
3. Concentrated ," c;'or distributed ,"O '; contribution : all carpark run off co nsidered co ncentrated at drain discharge
point ; factory roo f stormwater fed to dra i nage l i ne from many outl ets, hence "dist r i buted "
4. 0ra inage line total length and fall : drainage line length conveying run off from mos t re mote element of
component; "fall "o f drainage line over thi s l ength .
5. Effect iv e length of dra i nage line, Leff : length over whi ch the bulk of co n t ribution enter s dr ainage line ;
con t ribution from upper 118 m. of road component terminat ing at XA· 3E1R is s ma ll , hence effective length
is 562m-7m=555m.
6. Capac i ty fl ow, Gu i deline 1 (Tab le 6' 3, te xfloap pr oach flow for 95% ca pture (la rgest preferred inle t ) or
2·5m spread , which ever is lesser ( Figure 6-7. t ext)

84 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3: CASE 3: CASE 3: STEP 4/ FIGURE 4A

STEP 2; STEP 3/ Stage 1 Hydrological Model
r--

TABLE 2. TABLE 3. '"

..c
""
""
~
road : 0·49 ha
residential : 1·00 ha t:
Table 6· 3, text Table 6' 4, text factory roof : 0·64 ha '"<-Cl.

Guidelines Guidelines I XA3E1R

park : 1·50ha '"
u
I--
1 - 5 1 - 13 .~ ~------------ C
and and 1:1 200m CP
Sect ion 6· 3, text Se ction 6'5, text Note : In this model, all
XA·3 ~ XA·3E1 runoff is considered to
pass to terminal

TABLE 2 TABLE 3 c:
I D
gutter inlets
XA ·3E1R and XA ' 3E1L.

~I XA'3E1L road : 0· 44 ha I
C" concentrated entry.
D" distributed entry.

CASE 3 : STEP 4 / FIGURE 4B

Flow accumulation in drainage line terminating at inlet XA · 3E1R

~70 qf,:75
246 2 h 07 2Ch 207
.... ....
- ....
--
Vl

--'
OJ 200
.... ....
....
.~ 1
-'
OJ
Resid ntial I
0'1
/U
c:
.iii
0 145
1

L I 101 L s concentrated
J from carpark

~ r~
~"
I
c: I
c:
....
.2
/U 100
~ I
I
Roof
:;
~- -85
94-
E OJ
<-
::J
u
u
~
70 I........ i
/U .,,, Kv<,> Park
:.
0
~o~ ..... ~ captu e~. ('oj

u: 45 0
'0 -.D

01
7m
I
I by ass 19 {
100
~ ++-.E Ponlln~

200 300
017

400
-
Chainage (metres)
~~
500
..c:
LJ

600

ADDITIONAL NOTES
1 Flow is considered to accumulate in the drainage line commencing ch 562 ("effective length" 555m l.
Road component flow represents base contribution reaching 45 LIs at ch 07 : other contributions
(e xt ract 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 which can be 80% captured by 2m gutter inlet
without deflectors (see Fig. 6'7, text . ). Both requirements are served by combined gutter
inlet I J.P. at ch 207.
3 Surface flow at ch 07 is 70 LIs which can be 95 % ( or better) captured by 2 m 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
PRIMARY DRAINAGE COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL
CONTRIBUTING AREA TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
I- UNDERGROUND PIPE ENTRY POINT TIME TO
a... overland allotment guTTer or u/ground ENTRY
w
0
-+- c
natural pipe POINT
I-
z Cl z: '-- '- flow drain channel travel
---l
0 0 o n:l
UJ
L: z I- z:
<t:
LJ
-
I - ,--"0
"-
(analysis)
I Z
-0
I- - <X: __
QJ
l-
:z LJ <X: :z I0-- L:J LJ -- c
-+- E
W
w I - 0:: a... W 0 lJJ -LL ~ E "-.. C E .-
c E c E
.-c full- part-
<X:
L: LJ :z a... ---l LJ
-
QJ
I E '- .- I
<t: - <X: V1 ~~ E I · E I
:r: >- 0 0 I I ..r E I E E ..c E EI arpi1 i1rf~a
LJ
I-
<X:
I
en en
=> =>
I
0::
I-
z
(\

L
0
0::
LJ
V1
w
IY. LL V1 '+-
0
>-
0::
:::> ---l
0_
0-
<X: '--
0

n:l
..c
CJ1
C
-- QJ
Cl.
0
QJ

E
..,.
--
'
CJ1
c - E
.~
I QJ -+- I QJ
-
CJ1
c -
I

E
-+-

-
CJ1 I
c - E tc
QJ
ti
LJ

1 2 3
V1 Vl ll..I

4
LJ

5
0 :r: V1 L.J
6
min. - VI -+-
7
QJ .
- QJ fU ·
'+- -+-
-
- QJ

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
'+-
--
n:l .- QJ n:l .-
- '+- -+- min. min.
21
pav ea sec -
x A .3 EIR ca I"park olld arade - 70 .03 5 200 1.' 4 - - - 200 4 3 12 12
10 m road pa ved - 8 .02 2 - - - 673 13l 6 - - - 8 9
first arade
residential 15 res/ha 5 nomi al 15 - - - 200 4 3 - - - 18 8
factory roof Raved
fi rs t grade 10 - - - - - - 400 8 4 - - - 14 14
pa rk pervious - 140 .0 35 - - - 450 9 5 - - - 40 14 ~
CRITICAL STORM DURATION 40 147
ElL 10 m road ~l~~1 orade - 8 .0, 2 - - - 563 11 5 - - - 7 7

~--------v- ______ ~A~ __~___________

Identification see Note 1 Data from Figure 1A, Table 1, and see Note 3
ex. columns Section 5'5, text;see Note 2
1-4, Table 1

ADDI TIONAL NOTES

1. Data for co l umns 5 and 6 are transferred directl y fro m co l umns 6 and 7 of Tabl e 1.
Components of mu l ti -component drain age lines may be li sted in any order except for
pervious components whic h should be listed l ast.
2. Th e decisio n to di scharge a concentrated flow, e . g. that from th e carpark in Case 3,
directly underground cannot, strictl y , be made until the result of the col umn 31
compariso n is known . The entries in co l umns 17, 18 and 19 above should therefore
appea r , more correct ly, in co l umns 14, 15 and 16 respectively pending this outcome.
Component tota l trave l time (col umns 20 and 21) is the same for either listing.
With experience , des i gners wil l freque nt l y be abl e to cor rectl y prej udge the
co l umn 31 result and may use colu mns 17, 18 and 19 as i n th e above illu stratio n.
3. Total travel time: two travel times corresponding to the ' F' and 'P' co nd itions
of Fi g. 4.7, text, are shown for eac h component . Where components are paved , both
times are the same. The value of ti shown for pervious components can only be
fi xed after all other ti values have been found: i t i s set equal to the greatest
of these. Two criti ca l s torm durations are shOlvn, each equal to t he greatest
1isted valu e .
4. Component (CA ) : va lue s in columns 26 and 27 are derived, generally, from col umns
24 and 25. The entry for pervious components in column 27 is given by :
t.
~ X CpAD (see Section 4. 5, text )
c .
5. Component flows, columns 29 and 30, are derived from co lumns 22/26 and 23/27
respectively inserted into Eq n. (5.4), text. This decides the full-area versus
part-area issue in each case.

86 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

FLOW ESTI MATI ON IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES .: N = 2 -YEARS

-+-
RAIN FALL x PRIMARY
OJ ~
INTENSITIES Lnmm/h. ::!::: CONTRIBUTING AREA Z
--D
FOR STORM th TOTAL FLOW -l
~ VI
c AT NOMINATED REMARKS
DURATIONS WHICH 0 0"-
- -l
ARE CRITICAL -+- ENTRY POINT ::>
\.:Jt- {Gutter inlet
On = {C
Lis I E selections for
t- -
full-area part-area - --I

:3 ~ DETERMINATE
analysis analys is rn
r---~----~--~--~~ .
o::--D Ii nes included
<x: OJ
Ln for Ln for 0.. - here)
E~
N=2years N=2years Ot-
u-

~------~------~ ~------~-------~-----'r---~
CD
der ived from column c ~ see Note 4 see Notes 5 - 7 co see Note 9
E~LJ-+-
20&21andSection ~OJOJx OJ
~
5'2 text 8::OVl~ z
. roL.. _ OJ
x~OJ--D OJ
OJ ~th Vl
L..

6. Concentrated flow entri es to the surface drainage line which violate Guideline 4, Tabl e 6.3, text,
are excluded from surface drainage considerations. Note that on ly surface drainage contributing
areas and flows are i nc1urlerl in 'totals' shown in columns 26/27 and 29/30 respectively .
7. Full li st of component surface flows are needed only in cases where drainage lines prove to be
INDETERI-1INATE.
8. Comparison with guideline limits: values li sted in column 31 come fro m two sources:
o Guidel ine 4 limit, applied to concentrated flow entries
o column 15, Table 1, app li ed to total surface drainage flows
Comparison is between the adopted design flow (larger of co lumns 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 DETERMINANCY in other surface drainage
lines. . .

9. Remarks column is used for any relevant comment, in particular, those relating to the consequences
of the column 31 comparisons. In drainage lines which prove to be DETERMINATE, it i s possible
to immediately fix the type and size of required gutter inlet. This can be done by applying the
design flow together with data from column 13, Table 1, to Fig. 6.7, text. The result may be
shown in column 32 , 'Remarks' (see corresponding column in Case 4) .

ARRB SR 34,1986 87
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 3 : STEP 5, FIGURE 5 CASE 3: STEP 7, FIGURE 7

! 1

I
t7\ 70 75
\../ ~y pa ss\.. ,/
road :0·49ha.; factory 19
roof:0'64 ha.; re sidential: 70 176
XA3E1 If' flows : Li s
lOO ha.; park : 1-50 ha. XA· 3
XA ·3 ....-It--.,....--. .I;.:.P;..
. _ _..... 287 176 XA3E 2 176 XA· 3E3
XA3E1 XA3E2 XA·3E3

I 55
NOTE :
Fl ows presented in th is figure
same as those shown in Fig. 6A.

Note : I nspec tion pit

included,see gu idel ine -
/G) 55

3. tab l e 6'4. text . FIGURE 7: DESI GN FLOW - ALL COMPONENTS; N=2 YEAR S

Ch.207 CASE 3; STEPS 8&9, TABLE 8/9

STAGE 2 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
next page •

CASE 3 : STEP 10 , FIGURE 10

CASE 3: STEP 6, FIGURE 6A N

u.J
(T'\

<i.
x
* E'"
Nt"--
(T'\

t1 7m 100m 100m
XA .3 E52~5.-~:;:::-"'-~~- XA.3E3

t
17\ 70 XA·3E3R 75 375 375
IP
\....J ';tpa s~ ,.J
70 19 176 Notes :
tlows : Li s E
XA ·3E1. I.P. "' C>
u
XA·.:l (T'\
1. All pipes concrete .

e
287 176 XA:'3E2 176 XA·3E3
2. 2m side - entry gutter inlet wi thout
NOTE : Strict. adherence to t he Rat ional
deflectors shown or @
I {\
55

55
Methodl see Chapter 4} requ ires that
de si gn fl ows tra m inlet XA·3E3R be
based on trave l time t o that point.
The procedu re di sregards such
considerations within primary drainage
3. Pipe diameters for cross- connec tions
found from Guide line 10, Table 6.4 ,
text ; for design flows see Figure 7.
4. Headloss, pi t water levels and
pit f loor level s for pipe marked *
areas . Rational Method the ory is
\.V applied in pipes which carry combined
require further inves t igalion .
See Guideline 10 , Table 6.4 , text .
flows to a node pit.
Hence-critical storm charac t er is tics at XA '3E1 :- FIGURE 10' APPROXIMATE NETWORK DESIGN N= 2 YEARS
northern area : duration 14 mins, L2 = 43 mm / h.
southern area : duration 7 min s, L2 = 58 mm / h.
tlow in pipe XA' 3E1- XA·3 : 170+176} Lis + ~~ x55L / s = 287L/ s CASE 3 : STEP 11, FIGURE 11
FIGURE 6A :DE SIGN FLOWS IPRIMARY DRAIN LI NE S} N= 2 YEARS XA .3E1R
pi t f loor level
RL. 99·20 XA .3E3R
2 pi t f loor lev el
R.L. 102.92

~
X A .3E2 >

E}- pit fl oor level ;

N ~ R.L.101.30 ~ ~
7m 100m 100m
CASE 3: STEP 6, FIGURE 68, TABLE 6, FIGURE 6C XA. 3 ~5~
2 5"'(
-::3=
7 5~c~la::!.ss-:y-:-II1-=:
37~5~Cil.l:
lasu..S~y:"""4Il
' Y'
XA .3E3
>- XA.3E1 pit floor level
~ ~ ~~f~~o~Olevel RL 102 .90

I ~
XA.3E1L
pit f loor level
Not es :
1. Pipe inverts at pi ts

I
R L. 99 20 coincide with pit f loor
levels .
FIG URE 68 TABLE 6 FIGURE 6C
2. Pi t floor levels fixe d by
Gu idelines 11 - 13 and
Remarks column , Table 8/9.
3. Pipe class - Guideline 13
FIGURE 11 ' APPROX IMATE NETW OR K - PI T FLOO R
LEVEL S AND PIPE CLASS ES

88 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 CASE 3: STEPS 8 & 9/ TABLE 8/9 PIT WATER LEVELS , PIPE DIAMETERS & H.G.L. AN ALYSIS: N = 2 - YEARS
>- w
a. PIT WATER LEVEL TRIAL E
~
PIT - TEST 1 TEST 2 BWl REMARKS
0:
5 PIPE lOSS '"
N
AWL ,: &
>-
z
~
W
0
0

~~~
z
V1

-"
«
G'LlNE G' LlNE ASS' NO
DIAM. dl~
~
.. CASE Kw VJ
2g
? -'" hf+K W
[*] minus
BWl
hf + 1'50 0 «
0
HYDRAULIC
GRAD E
AW L " ASSIGNED I PIT) WATER LEVEL

>- i5
;:s
>: 3 «
:3
ex:
z >- ex: ~~
w>-
~ E
Z
0
4 5 WATER
lEVEL >-' ~I
000 ->
NO
N

"'" ""
0
~
Q.
LINE BWl" BOTTOM IPITI WATER l EVEL

i5
, ,
0::>
El:)~
z"O
1r5
-"
3
:t:
>-
:::l
'::: IAWLI
>-
W
'"J!". - IAWL- BWLJ IAWL - BWLI 0
0
«
~>
:>
CD 3
<D
::>
<D
::>
~~~
>:V1
OW
~ '"~ '"5
z Table
6'4
Table
6-4 RL m
Tables
6·5 & 6·6 m ""
m
Eq6'17
m m
Eq. 6·18
m m IPit W.L:s I
(Xl V1 Vl ~o
m
O'l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
LATERAL PIPELINES (j)
X A ·3 "l" junco --i
E3
104'10 pit 103 ' 95 n.a. 103-95 RL10H5 o:::IJ
- TEST 1 O.K. for Do " 0.3 75 , fails TEST 2
s:
li }
pipe J-3 2·0 0·64

~
~ first round - 0·300 2·49 0 32 2·03 2-67 Pipe invert (upstream) fi xed by eq uation 6. 21:-
E3 to 176 100 0·02 0· 375 1·59 0·13 0·65 0·26 0·91 2 00 1· 21 0·375 max . inv. leve l. E3 "Rl 103 . 95 -{ 1.5 x . 26) - 0. 375
E2 • RL 103.18 o
water level, E3 . f ix ed at AWl. :::IJ
E2 Insp. ~
102 ·10 pi t 101 '95 103-85 101·95 R.L 101 ·95
Z
-
li }
TEST 1 O.K . (fo r Do • 0.3751, fails TEST 1

~
pipe ~ first round - 0·300 2-49 J -1 0·2 0·32 2'03 0·06 2-09
1·59 0·13 0· 66 0·03 0·69 2·01 1· 22 0·375 Pipe invert (upstream) fixed by equ ation 6.21:- ~
E2 to 176 100 0·02 0· 375
E1
max . ;nv . level , E2 = RL 101.95-(1.5 x . 03) - 0.375
• RL 101.53 I Gl
m

r
water level , E2 , fi xed at AWL.
E1 J.R with
o
100 ·10

{>
late ra ls
pi pe
El to
node
287 7 0·02 --T
99 ' 95 101-85

first
99 ·95
nd
~ 0·375
0· 450
0·525
2-60
1· 81
1'32
J-
2A/2B
0·8 0·34
0·17
0·09
0·12
0·05
0·02
0·27
0·1 4
0·07
0·39
0·19
0·09
0·10
-
-
0'81 0'525
R.L. 99 '94

li }
TESTS 1 and 1 O. K. for DQ • 0.515
Pipe invert (ups tream) f1Xed by equation 6.19:-
max. inv . level, El = RL 99.85 + 0.02 - 0.525
• Rl 99 .34
m
(j)

Gl
Z
.
water level, El, fixed by equation 6 .20 :-
II
node
100·00
mul t i -pipe
J.p. DES1IG N Ft OD ILEV EL 1
R 99 '85' B.t
I I I I I I
R.L. 9985
aWL at El • RL 99.85 + 0.09 • RL 99 .94
Z
(j)
MAIN DRAI N PIPELINES s:
~

pi t ident i ficat ion ;

. .
ex. Fig. 7
~ .
See Note 1
NIL
"---r--' . .
ex. Tables
. .~ .
derived
.
.
~
. ... . .
derived see
.
see Note 7
,
r
r
C
gutter invert 6·5.6·6
""> - ... ""'"
"'-vi
column s
"" - col umns Notes 5 & 6 :0
!~
~m

levels ex . Fig. 1A ~2! .l; 17&18 12&17 OJ

~8 ~ 0
~z ~8 ~
Z
ADD IT IONAL NOlES 4. Pi pe fri ct i on head l oss : see equati on 6.16, text, nonna 1 concrete
o
~
roughness, f = 0.019. --i
Pit water l eve l s are fixed according to the pr i ority set dow n i n
1.
Guide l ine 6 Tab l e 6 . 4, text. In pr i ori t i es 1 and 2 assig ned 5. Hydrau li c gr ade li ne is ca l cul ated f rolll co l um ns 23 and 19 (adop -
o
water l eve l' i s the LOWER of t he competing l eve l s (Gu i de li nes 4 ted va l ue) i. e . eq uation 6 . 20, text, except where TEST 2 f ai l s. I
and 5); in pri ority 3 , the HI GHER of t he competi ng . l eve l s is
assigned . Th e Ca se 3 development i nvo l ves on l y pnonty 1 pl pe
See remarks, co lumn 24. s:
m
compone nts . The Case 4 deve l opment, fo 11 owi ng, inc lu des compon- 6. H,G .L. pit water l eve l s li sted in column 23 are max i mum design Z
ents from all t hree priorities. l eve l s s ubject to, possib l y , two DOWNWARDS revis i ons: --i
(j)
2. First round pipe diameters: data from co lu mns6a ndB are app l ied a) Guide l ine 10 cas e s (cross-connections) in which Dt » Do '
to Figure 6.9 (concrete pipes) or Fi gure 6. 10 (FRC pipes) . Pipe
s i zes are set 'in directio n of flow' throughout network. Gu i de - b) Gu i deline 13 : cases where equation 6.21 has been used in
l ines 7 and B, Table 6.4 are observed here . Later tria l s are Tab l e B/9 (part - fu ll outf low from pits) and where cover
li s t ed be l ow first round diameters . requi rements detenni ne 1eve 1 of pi pe invert.
3. Velocity s hou l d be computed using area of pipe nom i na l diamete r 7. Pit f l oor l eve l s : remarks co l umn 24 i ncl udes data used i n final
(co l umn 12) . des i gn deta il i ng, STEP 11.

(Xl
CD
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 STEP 1. FIGURE 1A

-
par k , 1' 28 ha

M .3=r~
(node pit) I
/ II-
r
I
I
-
road , 0·18 ha,

I I
So = 0·03

1-7·5m dual channel ---.J

I carr iage .... ays
:1 1
I
,
f
I----=---tl/ I ... : ~ I~ :
1 ~ ~ I ~ I
I
~
1
20 m
10 m
I ...
61 vf
I~ ,.,~
.c
I i
ttl

",0 I '"
110

~
,.,

:1~
10m dual channel "'I ~ .. : .. ~ I~ .. I is 0 7.5 m single channel carriage .... ay
carr iage .... ay in ~'I :;; ~
I ~ '" I :;; ~ I~ ~ in 16m road .... ay reserve
20m road reserve .
Pavement cross
~ I ;;:-
·· 1 ~ 'E
1 .~ ~ 1~ :: I~ ~ 1 16m . I
slope Zb = 40

_
]:

•
oJ
i
road , 0 ' 16h a
1: ~ f ~
ro.irQ.l~6;:-:h.,--~~
II //~
cross slope Zb = 30
M '2 ~ 1 So=0·03 M. 5 I So= 0' 02
I
LEGEND
(node pit) I 1 node pIt)
1 I I sub-area boundaries
I :;; ;' % I sho .... n - - - - -
primary drainage area
I ~o i~ II ;, ~ I ~ boundaries shown - - - - --
%1 Vl 6 ~ I ~
~ '~ ~~ / ~ 6 I 0 terminal gutter inlets
~ "'J ~ / ~~ I ~ shown .. : 0

~ ~I / .. ~ ~ I - h
I :;;I ~ / ~ ~ ~ .~ I '~ 7·5m dual cannel carriage .... ay
l!) '1 ~ / 0.6 J in 16m roadway reserve
:c ~~I i'-' / / ro.d , 024 h. I 0 08h. , I I 16 m
i7:sm1 I
r-
'l ~

r"":;
ro.d

_ /~( So = 0·005 So = , ;~ ~ c=-pe Z = 30

/ , r n ~ r1 . o·nRh~ (rn~r1 n nR h" b
M·1.,..' S = 0·005 S = 0 005 SCAL E
terminal 0 0 0 100m
node pit M·4 I I
(node pit)
ADDITIONAL ' NOTES
1. Catchment location: Adelaide foothills 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 10 m carriage .... ays
kerb-and -gutter, concrete; .... idth = 375mm; Za = B
pavement, hotmi x; cross slopes Zb = 30 and 40
longitudinal slopes, So' are at rece iving inlets
hydraulics, Figure 6.3 text.
4. Stormwater disposal point : M.O(see Figure 7.3,text.)
design flood level at M.O, RL 100 ·00
Figure 1A: 5. Residen t ial land use areas (see section 9.1, text. )
des ign res idential dens ity, 20 res I ha .
Catchment data- stormwater passes to fronting gutters or rear of
Case 4 allotment drainage easements.
6. Policy items :
adopt design ARI = 5 years for minor system;
"preferred inlet" : side-entry inlets 1m , 2m .... ith and
without deflectors; hydraul ics, Figure 6.7, text.
pipes : FRC pipes throughout , poor condition.

90 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 : STEP 1 , FIGURE 1B

N
M·3N1R
M·3E1

E
C>
~
Iii
.....
c
Inspection Pit OJ
"0
(see Guideline 3, Table 6·4 text) VI
OJ

r"
UJ ."0 "0<-

r
:?:
E
~ 15m ~
-'
~\\..
"'
.!: ~
..... <- <- c
~.1: c
~~\ ~ ..... OJ
OJ ~ ~. OJ >- E
M· 2N1R 13m g.3 M' SN1R 0 < - .....
c ..... 0
0 ..... 12m 0 c :::
4Sm 0 40m u OJ '"
---- -----

::.::
7m
M'2E1L
M·2E2
:z:
UJ
:?:
Sm M'S~ E
E
C> :z:
::>
<i: -' C>
~ et:
et: UJ
a.. ~
0
l- ii:

1. P. I.P.
I
(J "0

-r~ r~
:z: E
E <i: et: '" .....
<- C
V"I
~
V"I L Il) 1:: QJ
~
M·4N1, M' 4E1 ~~
100m Sm 40m 8 .....
-----
M·4 7m
Sm M·4E1L lM .4E2
E
C>
~
NOTE : Pipe location fixed by
Guidel ine 1, Table 6·4 (text)
1.p.
major and minor roads

E
C>
C> Drawing not to scale

Stormwater disposal point

M'O- Design flood level : RL 100·00

Figure 1 B : Ter minal inlets and basic underground network layout

ARRB SR 34, 1986 91

 STORM DRA INAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATC HMENTS

CASE 4: STE P 1, TAB LE 1

CATCH MENT DEFINIT IO N DATA - CASE 4
z DRAINAGE LINE CONVEY ING FLOW
;....
I-
< ::J TO TERMINAL INLET
0: W en
I- I- Z 0:: Ci:ci
... -.. -
::
Z W 0:: --'
W 0 W < ~ < 1-1- .0
~
N

.
0 I- Z I- zV> ~
> w
E
Z Z I- ~ -<::J < I-
8 0
.s::;
'"
c:
C:c >-ai ~ --'
.. .. . .. - .. . - ·w
~ '"
l- I ~
!'" > .. V> -
Z
zW w
< 0 ..J
c:r
z
W
I-
ow -
w
o::W
0>
c '"
..
~
0-
0
~

.. . .. :::.. :::.. .. .- ... '"'"' .... ..

I- Cl. Cl. --' w u.. 0 --' u..o:: 0 _>- ..
c:
0 < -V>
E < W 0:: Z
< 00 -!:
I
w
w
, 0::
'f- >-
a:
W
I- --'
0
Cl.
0::
w 0:: LL
V> «~ Wu
E ~ E_ c:
",'"

.-
:= REMARKS

- ..
W V> do:: E
I- en en l- I-
> l:
0 W
<
>-::J --'
w ::J Cl.Z O-E
o ~ ~
~ 0 a..~
< ::J ::J Z ::J W 0::0 o -
>-0 1---' ~ ::>
w V> V> W <::J --' w 0 IV> w <w I- w u.. V>_ w u W <::J
W --'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
M 5 node 110·30
N1R 11065 7Sm road ls~a~~~de 0·12 D 200 4·5 200 ·03 30 65
pa vee
Nl 110·65 7·5m rOJd h I. Yld U ~ 0·19 D 290 50
}180 ·03 30 65
resi dential 20res / ha 066 D 160 4·0
E1 110·40 7·5m road ls r.ave_a"
qrade 012 D 90 2·0 see mi n i mu m trave I ti me
} 90 ·02 30 76
residential 20 res/ ha. 0·60 C 40 1-0 provisio n, sec tion 5'5, ltext }
M ·4 node 103·00
Nl 103·15 7·5m road 1 s~a~~~de 0·13 D 200 7-0
~ 185 ·03 30 65
residential 20 res/ha 0 89 D 165 6·0
pavee,
El 10303 7·5m road 1 st grade 006 D 90 OS
residential 20 res / ha. 060 C 40 0·2
~ 90 ·005 30 75 min imum travel time Iroad}

Ell 103'03 7·5m road lsa~~~e 0·06 D 90 OS 90 ·005 30 75 minimum travel time
M ·3 node 11420
N1R 114·25 10m road 1 s~a;~~e 0·07 D 70 07 70 ·01 40 70 minimum travel time
Nll 114·25 10m road lsa;~a~e 0·25 D 310 60
park
pervious 0·38 D 0
~ 60 01 40 70

pavee.
114·40 7-5m road 1 st. 0·14 4·0
El D 250
grade
park pe rvio us 1-26 D 0
~ 250 ·03 30 65

M ·2 node l OBO
pavee
N1R 107·80 10m road 1st. grade 0'15 D 200 55 200 ·04 40 65
pavee, 0·21 8·0
Nll 107-60 10 m road 1sl. gra de D 260
f.,id ~ "lid l 20 1l:!:.l lld. 0·77 D 180 5'5
~ 160 ·04 40 65

E1 10750 7-5m road 1 s~a;r~ade 0·12 D 90 2·0

residential 20 res/ha . 0·60 C 45 1·0
~ 90 03 30 65 minimum trave l time Iroad }

M 1 node 102·20
N1R 102-30 10m road ls~a;~~de 0'15 D 200 4S 200 ·02 40 76
Nll 102'30 10m road 1 S~agVr~~e 0'15 D 200 45
par k pervious 0·84 D 0
~ 200 ·02 40 76

102·25 7- 5m roa d 1 s~a;r~ede 0·15 290

~
El D 7'0
90 ·005 30 75
par k pervious 0·66 D 0
Ell 102·25 7·5m road ls ~ave_a"
. grade · 0'06 D 90 0·5 90 005 30 75 min imum travel time
M ·0 flood ~isposa point
des igr water evel R.L. 10000

CASE 4: STEP 2 , TABLE 2 CASE 4 : STEP 3, TABLE 3

Table 6' 3, text Table 6' 4, text

Guideli nes 1- 5 Gui delines 1-13
and and
Section 6'3, text Sec t ion 6· 5, t ext

TABLE 2 TABLE 3

92 ARRB SR 34,1 986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 : STEP 4, FIGURE 4A

Road 10
IIReserve
LA - 0 LR-,o,-,ad::..:..:.;.Re-,s=-er::..:v:....:e",,
Park:038ha.
I
: 0,-2_5_h-la
Drainage Network Components
LE..G.It:ID

I 007ha. 1'13 concentrated gutter inlets ... ...... ...... ....... 0-

M3E1 o
IRoad : 0·14ha.1 contribution ..... C junction pits .. ...... .. ........... - - -
Park: 1-28ha.1 distributed combined inlet/J.P' . --O-
contri bution ...... D concentrated flow en try ..... .. .. ~
Road Res: 0 21 ha I main drain pipel ine ....~ •
"'"Ro-a-cd,----, l. P. Residential:077 hal cross connection ......... ~
Reserve ~ I=-
to .
I 015 ha.
Residential Road 1 0 o IRoad
Res: 0·19 ha. ~ .2!
o o I 0·80 ha. Reserve
0·12 ha.
Resident ia1:0'86 ha. ~~
Vl6

~~.
C MSN1 C OJ
M·2E1 4Sm. M2E2 M'SE1 40 m • c::
M·5 . - - - - { - - - - - - -, M·5E2

o IRoad Reserve : 0·12 ha.1

oIRoad Res: 0·12 hal
I.P
Inspection Pit

I.P.
IRoad Reserve : 0·06 ha.1 o IRoad Reserve
1'1 ·0 I 0 06 ha
FIGURE 4A : STAGE 1 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

CASE 4 : STEP 4, FIGURE 4B

FLOW ACCUMULATION & CAPTURE GRAPHS FOR DRAINAGE LINES TERM INATING AT -
M' 5N1, M4N1 & M·2N1
~ Inlet ~
Inlet
M·2N1L\.
- 32 m
-t M·4N1 1
~
,t Additional Notes
1.The values 85 Lis and 79L / s are obtained from
Figure 6'7, text . They represent gutter(approach)

I I t
~-5~1~ .
Q 31I 100 .
90 93
flows which can be 80% captured in drainage
lines having 50 =0'03 &0 '04,re spectively, in their

::s
120
1--
,- .'27 m

110r-tj:~ I;::!z
~I

u-II
.IOJ
c
:.: :;
VI
'-

.~
u::
Ff-'
80

70
i"""'- ::;::85 Lis
I ........

6O!
68 Li s
..... ~
.....

I
terminal inlet vicinities(see column 13,Table 1)
2.The flow accumulation graphs for lines terminating
at M·5N1 & M·2N1L are plotted together becau se

I
'-......(
the ir effective drainage line lengths are , by
co inc idence ,both equal to 180m (see
~ 100ts::::1;:- 96i: I± SOIl I, I " ............column 12, Tab le 1)
OJ 9O~L..... I .- 40 M·4N1 Line
en ........ N...-85L/s I
(So=0 ' 03)l r---.....
~ 80 ~~ -7QLAr30~~~~-t-r~~'r- I t-II-t-t-j~~........~-
.~
'C 70 ~ I.~
I1"":::::::-- I 25
-....:::::~fttSl--'-k~+I-
""
. -r-+--+y=p-:':-: asc::-
s-\erl..,..,L-'-:
./C'!S +-+-+-+--t--t--P-..I-
I .....
-t- I
............ I I
.; 60r-r- '~ I~ - -ftt<, 4'7 (.s,-,,"+--+--
I I--I--I--I--I--I--I--t--I--I--I--I--~'t-....
f---11f---1!
~ 50 ~I u 4'7.: 0'0 .,--+-~-+--t--i'--+-~-+----'.-'---'--~--'----'-
I ~--""~
:; ~ ~ ([0""0 '.J 50 100 150 185
~ 40~~2 ~II~ .I I 'O~) ~
~
.3;i
~
30 ."
20
10 '
M·5N1 & M· 2N1L Line
17,L/s~.- bypass 16L / s
I
3. Gutter inlet selections/placements '
shown here are not necessarily " best
~ solutions ",man y sat isfactory
""'~
.....
Dra i nage l ine length (m)

~arrangements are po ssible

°0~L--'--L~~5~0-L~~-~1~00~-'---'---'-~15~0~~~180
Drainage line length fr om terminal i nlet (m)

ARRB SR 34,1986 93
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 4, TABLE 4

TIME OF ENTRY COMPONENT
PRIMARY DRAINAGE COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL
CONTRIBUTING AREA TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL
f- UNDERGROUND PIPE ENTRY POINT TIME TO
-
0...
overland allotment gutter or u/ground ENTRY
f- w
0
+- c natural pipe POI NT
z D Z .- flow dra in channel travel
--l '-
w 0 0 ro
« - 0 '-
(analysis)
E Z I-
z LJ f- '- U
Z I- - «
f- I
z LJ « -a z 0
- L:J
w -LJ +- c
Q)
+- +- E
w I- W 0.... W f- a LJ E '-....
.-c c E E c full- part-
.-
.-c
Q) ~ E
E « ~ z 0...
-
--l LL E .-
LJ «1 >- a a « -Vl ~£ 1 E 1 E 1
E E
1
E E area area
I
LJ
I-
«
1
eo co
~ ~
Ii:
l-
z
0...
E
a
~
LJ
Vl
w
fY
0
>-
LL
a:
~
Vl '+:-
«
u _n
0-
'- ro
-'=
-<-
0\
c
1
Q)
a..
E
1
Q)
-'=
-+'-
0\
c
E

--ro
1
1
Q)
E
- --
-'=
0\
c
1
I
Q)
-'=
-+-
0\
c --ro
I
1
Q)
E tc t ·I
- - ro .-E
--l 0
.-
LJ Vl l/) W LJ 0 I Vl LJ
min.
Q)
Vl -+-
-Q)
'+-
.-
-+- -Q)
'+- -+- -Q)
'+-
.-
-+-
min. min.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Raved -
M .5 NIR 7 . 5 m road first Qrade - - - -- - 2 200 4. 3 - - 5 5
NI 7.5 In road ditto - 2 - - -- - 290 5 4 - - - 6 6
. _----- f - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 1- -_ . -- -- - ---- - .- -_.
res i dent i a 1 20 res/ha 5 i5 mi 5 - - - 180 4 2 - - - 17 7
~

CRITICAL STORt1 DURATION - 17 7

El 7.5 In road
vaved --
. i~SUlr:<l~ I -
I--
-'by i sp cti pn, 5 l1li r S ( ee S ct i on . 5) - -- - -- 5 5
-- ' - - -_.-
r es id e nt ia l 20 I-es/ ha 5 15 mi s 180 3 3 - - - 40 I 1 19 9
paved
M .4 NI 7.5 In road fil-s t grade - - - 2 - - - 200 7 2 - - - 5 5

residential 20 re s/ ha 5 15 mi s - - - 185 6 2 - - - 17 7
CRITICAL S TOR~l DURATION- 17 7
pavea
El 7 . 5111 road first grade ------ -- -- -- --- -- 5 , -mi s - - --- -- --- ---- -- --- f-,-
5 5
- f- - I- I - --
r es identia l 20 r es/ ha 5 15 l1li s 185 7 2 - - - 40 .2 1 18 8
n~ve?
Ell 7 .5 m r oad f irs t grade ------ ----- -- --- -- 5 l1l i s - --- - -- -- - ---- -- -- - 5 5

M .3 NIR 10 m road ditto --- --- - -- -- -- -- - -- 5 mi s - --- - - - --- --- - -- --- 5 5

i~ 11 10 m rnilrl d it to - - - 3 - - - 310 6 4 - - - 7 7
--
pa rk pe rv i ous - 11 0 2! 32 - - - - - - - - - 32 7 ~
CRITICAL STOR r~ DURATION - 32 7 J
El

NIR 10 m road
7.5 m road
park
raved
i rst~~ _

perv i ous

paved
-
-
-
110
-
2~· 32
2 -

-
-
-+ -
250
-
CRITI CAL STORMDURATION
4
-
4
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
6
32
32
6
6~
6- J

r~ .2 first Qrade - - - 3 - - - 200 5 . 5 2 - - - 5 5

NIL 10 m road ditto - - - 3 - - - 280 8 3 - - - 6 6

-- -------- --- ---- - ----
r es ide ntial 5 15 ~i n - - - 180 5.5 2 - - - 17 7
CRIT ICAL STORM DURAT ION - 17 7
p.ilved - --- -- ---
El 7.5 m road flr s t -.9rade ------ - ---- - - - -- -- 5 mi s - -- -- -- --- 5 5

residential 20 r es/ha 5 15 mi 5 180 5 2 - - - 45 1 1 18 8

M .1 NIR 10 m road ~m~ a r ade - - - 3 - - - 200 4.5 3 - - - 6 6

NIL 10 m road ditto - - - 3 - - - 200 4.5 3 - - - 6 6
f- - - - 1-
park pervious - 175 3 40 - - - - - - - - - 40 6"
CR ITICAL STORM DURATION - 40 67
El 7. 5 m road r ve u
irs t grade - - - 2 - - - 290 7 3 - - - 5 5

par k perv i ous - 175 3 40 - - - - - - - - - 40 S~

CRITICAL STORM DURAT ION - 40 57

Ell 7.5 m road ff~~~ Qrade --- --- ---- - -- -- - -- : mir s +---+----+---+-- -- 5 5

94 ARRB SR 34,1986
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

FLOW ESTIMATION IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES: N = 5-YEARS

:;:'
RAIN FALL >< PRIMARY
(lJ
INTENSITIES Lnmm/ h ~
z: CONTRIBUTING AREA zw
'-0
FOR STORM If)
OMPON 0 TOTAL FLOW ---1
t- wI/)
DURATIONS WHICH c
...
0
(C A) n
=>
ro
AT NOMINATED
ENTRY POINT
-
=>
0"
---1
REMARKS
ARE CRITICAL
l:Jt- (Gutter inlet
LJ
(lJ 0::
Vl t- Qn=(CA)nLn LI
Z IL:
<t: (lJ
0 O· 36 S t- ----1 selections for
full-area part-area UJ
(lJ (analysis) LJ
_

0::
Vl
3 _ DETERMINATE
analysis analysis <t:
u...
0
".,
UJ .

UJ
0::'-0 lines included
Ln for Ln for n... Qn for Q n for <t:
n... -
(lJ

area >- here)

t- N=5 years N=5years L:~
N = 5 years N=5years o t-
Lis Li s LJ -

29 30

ARRB SR 34, 1986 95

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4 : STEP 5, FIGURE 5

lli.EJiQ
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A .

Road Reserve : 0·14ha.

Park : 1· 28 ha.
Road Res.: 0·19 ha.
Re sidential: 0·86ha
Road Res : 0·21 ha.
Residential:077ha

Residentia I
0·80 ha.

45m. M5 __---1~---'4'-"0...:.:m"-.---J M 5E2

Road Res: 0 ·12 ha.
Road Reserve :0·12 ha. Inspection
I.P Pit
r-::R-oa-d~ Road Reserve : 015 ha. M4N2 .~ ,,;
Reserve Park : 0·84 ha.
0·15 ha .
-'C..c:
0.10
"0 co
Road Reserve:0·15 ha. "Via
0.1
Park : 0·68 ha. 0::

Road Reserve :0·06 ha

FIGURE 4A STAGE 2 HYDROLOGICAL MODEL

CASE 4: STEP 6, FIGURE 6A

LEGEND
refer Case 4 , Step 4, Figure 4A
28

LP 68

60
~62 1
21 21

62 60

Pi t
All flows Li s
I. P
derived from Table 4
62
1

81 62

I. P
62+(gx 22) = 81
76
see note re combined flows in
.
M·4
]
J 11

M·O Ca se 3, Step 6, Figure 6A

FIGURE 6A : DESIGN FLOWS IN PRIMARY DRA IN AGE LINES OF CASE 4 -N = 5 YEARS

96 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
des i gn mus t therefore cons i der 'tota 1 catch-
ment' aspects of flow estimation which were
avoided in designing the Case 3 network al-
ready reviewed. These aspects find express-
ion in Fig. 6B, Table 6 and Fig. 6C of STEP
6.
FIGURE 68
Table 6 relates to Fig. 6B in the same way
Table 4 relates to Fig. 4A and includes many
items transferred di rectly from the earlier
tabulation. With the aid of Table 6, the
designer is able to execute the required
sub-area gathering and storm duration com-
parison processes, and consequently determine
design flows in each segment of the main
pipeline network. The origins of the follow-
ing notes are found in Table 6.

The interpretation of the Stage 2 Hydrologi- 1. The 'from upstream' component entered
cal Model presented in Fig. 6B shows, schema- under node pit M.4 is that cont ri buted
tically, how catchment sub-areas are gathered from its adjacent (u pstream) sub-area,
at successive node pits - commencing at the M.5. Thus, the value for (CA)s= 1.07 ha
most remote - to provide the hydrological entered in columns 28 and 29 has been
basis for flow estimation in successive rea- transferred directly from columns 30 and
ches of main drainage pipelines. Where main- 31 respectively.
1 i nes are branche d, as inCase 4, then the
two (or more) branches must be considered
separately down to their point of bifurcation. 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 tc 19 mins and ti = 9 mins
catchment co ntributing to that point. Appli- (columns 22 and 23)
cation of the Two-Value Rational Method (see
Chapter 4) to determine this flow requires Because travel time between M.5 and
that critical storm durations in the contrib - M.4 is 2 minutes (see Fig. 6B), travel
uting branches be evaluated and compared. times for sub-area M.5 relative to node
Node-to-node travel times are shown in Fig. pit M.4 are 21 mi nutes and 11 mi nutes
6B to enable these durations to be determined. respectively (columns 20 and 21).

CASE 4: STEP 6, FIGURE 6B

LEGEND
refer Case 4, Step 4, Figure 4A .
Note : All main pipeline travel times are for lengths
from node to node

N I I
11'------' ~
'----------I] kf I
I
t7
6l(f
I
()+ I r('
M2E1 L - - - - i J' M5E1
~.~:--------{ 45 m ~ ___-{ 40 m.

~~ .~ ~
2 E2
.1'2 ____ M2E Ll=====M=5=::::::J
1(N) catchment.1 L J ';;; r - 5-

.~ "DO' ~ "c; ~ r-

'-----Ii ~ .,"'~f=-r--'
-----,1 ~I \
; , 0: U/)'~r-------'--------' ~1 ~ 1(E) "\ r-
"?'7(NJ- M'L- ~rY tra ve l ti me 3 mlns

node to node
-
1 ~
I
2; I J.
catchment M·4
\~
}-_4:..;:.O..::.m:.:...
. ---JM .4E2

trave I 2 mi ns.
~
....;==~'s;+....4~.~1~(El)::::::::~;;JtiT"""""f;i:fi'"HMFN"'f"":=='
... TOTAL CATCHMENT
~===:::!.-=======~
FIGURE 6B : "SUB-AREA GATHERING " SCHEMATIC HYDR OLOGIC AL MODEL

ARRB SR 34,1986 97
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

CASE 4: STEP 6, TABLE 6

TIME OF ENTRY COMPO NENT PROGRESSIVE
SUB -AREA COMPONENT . CO MPO NENT TRAVEL CHANNEL OR U/G TOTAL CRITICAL
TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL STORM
UNDERGROU ND PIPE NODE PIT TIME TO . DURATION
o overland allot ment gutter or u/ground NODE PIT IN TOTAL
-'
:z -: C flow drain natural pipe UPSTREAM
f- « ~ 0 ' ;0 (hannel travel AREA
:z :z LJ f- ~ ~~~-'~~-r~~---r-r-+--.--r-+----,-~--+----7~--~
f-
:z o « 2 'D analy si s analysis
~~-+- c
1
l:J E
w o w E cE
:z -' LJ ~ ~ ~ E ~ C E ._ .-C E tu l l- part- tull- part-
>- o a:: o
a::
«LL Vl ~ ~":::, E":::EE ..::: E E
a:: a.. LJ Vl co-+- Wi -- I I -+- I ' -+- , I area area area .area
CJ a:: « 01 _ OJ
f-
:z
L
o
Vl
>- :::>
0==
~ . ro
Olo.aJ
~
CT\ _ O J
~ ro g'~E C - t( ti t( t i
ro E
W -' 0 E E
w LJ CJ :r: Vl aJ ro . _ QJ
LJ min. V) +- __ ....... +- - '+- +- - ..... +- min. min. min. min .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 20 21 22
BRANCII IU -, 1-1.4 ' 11.1 same values as listed Table 4 but
b-.-.--r--~----------~~r-------I--~ Hr~~1-~--r_--~----~
M .5 NIR 7 . 5 m r oad ~~~~~ ora cl e results only ((olumns 20 & 21) needed. 5 5
1--t--1-+-I- --t-.- 5- m
--ro- a-d----+'--'-'-"'-d,'--.t-"-to'-"-"-"----t- ----f Trave I time en try poin t - nod e =7 ER0 1+---6- --1-- -
6- -1-----+- -- --1
N 7
1--t--1--\ and
N2 residentia l 20 res/ha 17 7
El 7. 5 m road ~~~~~ grade 5 5
El residential 20 res/ ha 19 9
see add itional see Note NC! 2 .". 19 9
I-
M-t--1-.4+ ---+------"7f-r o-m- u...i.p-s t,.-r-ea-m-------II-
_ ----1
_ Not e N°.1 - i-r-- Tab Ie 6 1E~...~-2:-1-+--1-
1 --j-----+---\

b-+-1--1 ~~d
7.5 m road ~m~ qrade Table 6 5 5
N2 res i de nt i a 1 20 res/ ha 17 .7
El 7. 5 m roa d ~m~ or ad e 5 5
El r es i de ntia l 20 r es/ ha 19 9
El L 7 . 5 m road ~m~ grade 5 5
21 11
M .1 from up£tream 24 14
El 7. 5mroad ~1~~~ orade
ElL 7.5 m road ditto
El park pervious 40 14
40 14 J

BRANCH M.3 -> M. 2 -> M. l

I~ .3 NI R 10 "' "udcl ~1~~t qrade
NIL 10 m road ditto
EI 7. 5 m road ditto 6 6
NI L park pe rvio us 32
El park. ditto 32
32 7
M .2 from ups tream 34 9
NI R 10 m road V1 ~~¥ qrade 5 5
NI L 10 m road ditto 6 6
1-+-1--1 and ~r-e-
s i-d-
e n-t-ia-l--~2-
0-r-e-
s/-h-a----+---~ ·---·r-T-~-.r-r-+-~--tL-r--+~-.r-~1~
7 ~--~7,...-r--~~~--I
N2L
7. 5 m road ~1~~¥ orade 5 5
EI res i dent i al 20 res/ ha 18 8
34 9
M .1 f r om ups tream 36 11
NI R 10 m r oad ~~~~~ orade 6 6
NIL 10 m road ditto
NIL park pe rvio us see Note N°· 6 40 11 ~
b-r-+-+_--~---------+----------r_--+_~--~ Table 6 r-r-+--+~~~---+----+--4~0--~~
1 1~

BRANCH Ml + M. O
Contributio n from branch M.5 + ~L4 + M.l at M. l 40 14
Contribution from bra nch M.3 + f1.2 + M.l a t M.l 40 11
40 14
M .0 from ups tream 42 16
NIL
42 16

98 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

FLOW ES TI MATION IN MAIN DRAIN PIPELINES : N=5-YEARS

RAINFALL INTENSITIES CUMULATIVE
Ln mm/h FOR MAINLINE FLOWS
PROGRESSIVE CR IT I CAL COMPONENT CUMULATIVE FROM TOTAL
STORM DURATION IN UPSTREAM
TOTAL UPSTREAM (CAln (CAln CATCHMENT
CATCHME NT AREA
<t Q = (CAln Ln Li s
u.J n 0.36 REMAR KS
a:::
full-area part- area <t ~
0 anal ysis ana lysis full-area part-area
LJ
analys is analysis c:: tull - . .part - f ull- part-
analysis analysis
u..
Ln for Ln for II area area area area Qn for Qn for
c::
N=5years N=5years LJ N=5 yea rs N=5 year s
ha. ha . ha. ha. ha. Lis Lis
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
see note resu I ts
only (col 's 28 & 29l 0 .1 0 0 .10
needed 0 .1 6 0.16
0.37 0.37
0 .1 0 0.10
0.34 0.3 4

--
45 63 1.07 1.07 134 187 desig n f l ow at M.5
1. 07 1. 07 Isee Note N'· j I ( 172)
0 .11 0. 11 I Table 6 I input to M.5/M.4 :
0 . 49 x 58 ; 79 LI
0 . 38 0.38 see Note N°· 4 ."..,...- 0.36 s
0 . 05 0 . 05 Table 6
0 . 34 0 . 34 see Note Nq 5 ~ i nput at M.4 ; 71 Lis
0 . 05 0 . 05 Table 6
42 58 2 . 00 2.00 233 322 desig n f l ow at M.4
2 . 00 2 . 00 (288)
0.13 0 . 13
0.05 0.05 in put at M. 1E1 ; 30 Lis
0 . 07 ~ x .0
29 52 2 .25 2.20 181 318 design flow to M.1

0 . 06 0 . 06
0.2 1 0.2 1
0. 12 0. 12
0. 04 b'2- x .04
0 .1 3 !b- x .1
33 68 0.56 0 .4 3 51 81 des ign flow at M. 3
0 .5 6 0 . 43 (7 5)
0 .1 3
0. 18
0.33
0. 13
0 .18
0 . 33
-
r input at M. 2 ; 23 Lis
nput to M. 3/ M. 2 :
0 . 51 x 63 - 89 LI
0 . 36 - s
0 .1 0 0 . 10
' ~i nput at M. 2 ; 77 Lis
0 . 34 0 . 34
32 63 1. 64 1. 51 146 264 des i gn flow at M. 2
1.64 1. 51 (2 43)
0.13 0 .13 input at M.1 ; 21 Lis
0. 13 0 .1 3
}i nput at 14.1 ; 24 Lis
0 . 08 ~x . 08
29 58 1.98 1. 79 160 288 design flow to M. I

2 . 25 2 . 20
1. 98 1. 79
29 52 4 . 23 3 . 99 34 1 576 desig n flow from fl. 1
4 . 23 3 . 99 (543 )
0 0
28 49 4. 23 3.99 329 543 desig n flow at M.O

ARRB SR 34, 1986 99

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

3. The fl ow '(172 Lis)' listed in column 33 Th e fl ows requi red i n Task 1 fo r t he

is the design flow contributed f rom sub- M. 5/ M. 4 an d M. 3/ M. 2 pipe line segments can
area M.5 relat i ve to node pi t M. 4. It be deriv ed from inf ormat ion contained in
can only be determined after all entri es lab le b : the re sul ts are repor! ed under
under M.4 have been evaluated to find 'Remarks' , co lumn 34. They ar e :
critical storm durations (tc and til an d,
hence, design rainfall intensities. Thus o segment M.5 / M.4
the 172 Lis listing is derived from {CA) s
= 1.07 ha and \ 58 mmlh :- (0.11 + 0.38 ) x 58 0.49 x 58 79 Li s
0.36 0. 36
1.07 x 58
172 Lis o segment M.3 / M. 2
0. 36
(0.1 8 + 0. 33) x 63 = 0.51 x 63 = 89 Lis
The flow '1 87 Li s ' shown in column 0. 36 0.36
33 is th e design flow (N = 5 years) into
and from node pit M.5, and should only be The distribution of these flows
used for design in th e immediate vicinity (Task 2) and, consequent ly, the magn i-
of M.5. Where flows in pipe segments tudes of flows passing to the main pipe-
near node pit M.4 are required, the sub- liners) at the points of interest, are
area M.5 'relative flow' 172 Lis found by a procedure similar to that
should be applied (see Fig. 6C). (using the same graphs) employed in Fi g.
4B (see figure below).
4. In general, entry of fl ow to mai n drai n
pipelines takes place at or near node 5. Flow input to the main drain pipelines at
pits. This is not always the case, e.g.: ot her s i gnifi cant 1ocat ions can be fou nd
in the manner indi cated above (Task 1).
o segment M.5+M.4 : flow entries at M.4N1 Results of these computations, derived
and M.4N2 from the data presented in Table 6 are
also listed under 'Remarks', column 34.
o segment M.3+M. 2 : f low entry at M.2N2
6. Flow estimation in Branch M.5+M.4+M.1
Determination of flows input at concludes with branch design input to
these points in design storms which are node pit M.1 of 318 Lis. Corresponding
critical for mainlines involves two tasks : input from Branch M.3+M.2+M.1 to M.1 is
288 Lis. These flows arise from design
Ta sk 1. Fi nd the fl ows cont ri buted from storm durations which are critical in
their connected primary drainage their individual catchments and hence
areas in such design storms; storm rainfall intensities which are sig-
and, n ifi cant ly different (52 mmlh versus 58
mm/h). The storm duration and hence in-
Task 2. Find the distribution of these tensity which is critical in the remai-
flows, including gutter inlet ni ng segment of the network (Branch M.1
capture, in the respective + M.O), must be resol ved in accordance
drainage lines. with Rational Method theory (Chapter 4)

INLET ~ 0 INLET
M4N1 \l} \.1J M·4N2 NOTES :
1. All flo\ols derived from Table 6
2. Flo\ol accumulation relationsh ips
superimposed on Figure 49
INLET INLET
M·2N1 L M·2N2L
@ @ 60
32m flo\ol accumulation in drainage line
~ VI
"- terminating at M·4N1 (So = 0·03)
:::: 100 -'

'"
c
~I~
ClI o "
en
to
c
""
20 -14/
~ ClI
'"c -......,J-7 L1s (bypass)
~~
60
:. 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
....
.9
40 ~ I~ Dra inage line le ngt h (m)
o ""
'"
2!
to
::>
27 ~I " f lo \ol acc umulati on in drainage l i ne
E
::>
u
u
20 ............
'-.J- 11 Lis (byp ass)
r terminat ing at M·2N1 L (So =0·04 )
«
00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Drainage line length from term inal inlet (m)

'To tal catc hm ent ' flo w acc umu lation in drai nage lines M·S/ M·4 & M ·3/ M ·2

100 ARRB SR 34,1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

before the flow estimation procedure can FIG ~ E 6C

cont i nue .
Resolution is achieved in a short
tabular entry at the commencement ' of
Br anch M.l + M.O flow estimation comput-
ations . Thereafter the procedure con-
tinues in the manner set out for catch -
ment upper branches.
As a result of the flow estimation computa-
tions carried out in or derived from Table 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 Cat chment M. These flows are pre -
sented in Fig. 6C : only flows essential to
mainline segment design are included.

CA SE 4 : STEP 6, FIGURE 6C
DRAINAIGE NETWORK COMPONENTS
Main dra in pipeline .. .. . ........ ~
Cross-c onnections .. . .. ......... W
Conc entrated flow entry .. . ,
LP. M·2N3
Junction pit .. •
(75) 62

Al l flows LIs
derived f rom TAB LE 6

(2ee) 322 M·4 71

FIGURE 6C : DESIGN FLOWS IN
8
Design Flood Level MAIN PIPELINES OF
R.L .100·00 CASE 4-N= 5 YEARS

CASE 4 STEP 7, FIGUR E 7

See Add it ional Note

r e STEP 7

1
BO M'2 E1 62 M·2E2 M'SE2
264
All flows Lis
M·1N2 Inspection derived from
pit Figures 6A and 6C
243
M·1N1R M·1N1L
~ M·4E1
N
1
322 M·4 81 62 M·4E2
FIGURE 7 : DESIGN FLOWS IN ALL 1
PIPE COMPONENTS OF M·4E1L
M'O CASE 4-N=5 YEARS
543

AR RB SR 34,1 986 101

 CASE 4 : STEPS 8 &9, TABLE 8/9 PIT wATER LEV ELS, PIPE DIAMETER S & H.G.L. ANALYS IS : N = 5 -YEARS

P IT
0
WATER LEVEL 0

l-
lLJ a::
lLJ
~
E
- en
TE S T 1 TE ST 2
a::
V)
'-'
~$
D :..J a.. a:: I- lLJ -
a.. 0

hf+KW[~Jg]
0 -'
ci w lLJ
Kw \,20 hf +1 5 0 0 I-

~
Z -' lLJ ::::>
l- L: > -'
I- w <! Vl - ~
3 L: <!
z D I-
a::
<!-
3-, -<! a lLJ -
Vl-D 2g 0 en «
-
a:: REM ARKS (j)

~-
w 0 I-
lLJ
-' D « -0 D w -l
L: Z z ~ 3 " ~ 0
>-- -z
a.. > I-
«
z
LI1
w .y LJ
~ 0\ ~ V)
AWL=assi gned (p it) wa te r leve l o
I- I Z
- Z
0
- V)
E -D - - D<!
lLJ ~ a.. ::J I -' :D
~
LJ <! Z w w - LJ"I r- D
Z
lLJ I -
W W I- "- ~
Z
~
Z 0.. >--- Vl .--<
C
w BWL= boHom (pit) water level s:
<! a::
L: LJ <!
0
-
I-
a:: z 0..
-
-'
I
::::>
I-
-Z
-'
-0 -
-'
-0 L:J - '
- w -'
I-
-
Vl
0
-0
v,
a
~o
AWL- BWU E (AWL - BWU I- cd W
0 o
I
lLJ 0 a:: l- - w w LJ -' a > 0..
-'
D ~
Vl > <! -' <!
LJ
I
en en z
I LJ I-
I-
0..
L:
LJ
Vl
3 L:J L:J D ~
- .D - .D Vl lLJ -
a::
0
-'
OJ
- ' II
'+-
~

:J
Eq .6· 17
3
Eq . 6·18 0
D 3 a::
:D
~
I- 0 Z Z <! --l I - .D en L:J
<! ::::> ::::> ::::> ::::> 0 lLJ
-' lLJ 0 ::::> ro ::::> ro I- lLJ - It> .c ::.::: <! <!
-. L:J I - Z
LJ Vl Vl L:J '-' D lL -' -' L:J I -
- ~

RL m
> 0.. I -
- m m m m m m mm (Pit Wl:s) ~
G)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 m
lATERAL PIPELINES
o
m
(j)
M . 5 111. 35 [pit --
l junctio n 111. 7.0 n.a. 111 .20 111.20 TEST 1 OK for 00 - 300; fails
TEST 2; u/s inv . max . Rl 110.79 G)
plpe
E2 ., E1 60 40 .024 .300 .35 J -3 2.0 .04 . 08 .07 0.15 0.97 0.5 3
100 t b( egn ~8'P) m~t· BWl at E2,
R..111'-- _ = AWL
Z
JP with TESTS 1 and 2 OK for Do = 300 ; Z
~: 5:40 au tter flOl' 110 .25 111.10 11 0.25 11 0.23
upstream inv. max. Rl 109.87 (f)
~lpe .306 11. 09
~A/ 2B
. VO . Vi .Vb v.08 0.47 s:~
-
1 -+ j.j, 5 77 5 .020 i.O 0. 10 300 by eqn (6. 19 ) ; max. BHl at E1,
Rl 110.23 by eqn (6 . 20 )
'iVFJ.£b·· l ~iiunct1on B·.il r
•
IT N:
JP with
111.30 [qutter fl o~
110 . 15
111. 15
110 . 15 110.15
n.a . 111.1 5
FROr~ MA IN PIPELIN E (BRANCH) COMPUTATIONS 110 . 15
111.1 5 TEST 1 OK for Do - 300; fails
TEST 2; u/s inv. max. Rl 110.5E
r
C
:D
oipe bl' eq n (6·P) A m~x . BWl at N2 ,
~1
IN~ -> in
JP, gutter
68 27 . 024 .300 .96 1- 1 4.0 05 .07 .1 9 0.26 0.68 0.52
30n t Rill 15 = Wl
III
~
11 0.65 flow lat' 11 0.50 111. 05 110.50 110 . 47 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for Do = 300; Z
oipe .300 1.68 0.32 300
upstream i nv. max. Rl 109.95 o
t~ i -> r,1. 5 119 12 . 029 1B/3C 1. 5 .14 .lD .22 0.35 0.55 by eqn (6.19); max. B,il at N1, ~
-l
rWDE n. 5I~iiunction prev~g~aly__ 11 0. 15 Rl 110.47 by eqn (6.20)
110 .30 ISS ' 110 .40 110 .1 5 Bi·; l FROn ~1AIN PIPELINE (BRANCH) COMPUTATIONS 110.1 5 o
-2 TEST 1 OK for Do = 300; fails I
L ~unctio n
M .4 10j.25 [oi 103.10 n.a. 103 . 10 103.10 TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 102. 68 s:
~lpe
2 -, E1 62 40 .006 . 300 .88 J - 3 2.0 ,U4 .U'J .UB 0.17 0.58 U.04
300 _t _bl' egn (6'P)A m~ x . BWl at E2,
R 1 3.1 0 = Wl
m
z
-l
E1 JP , gu t ter 102 .88 103.00 102.88 102.52 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for Do = 300;
~
I.. 103 .03 f l ow l at'
u.uo upstream i nv . max. Rl 102 . 19
(f)

:D
Ol pe 81 5 .006 . JUU 11.10 I - 3A 0.5 ,VI .Ui . UJ 0.41 U.41
by eqn (6.19); ma x. BHl at El,
~1 -> M.4 300
:D Rl 102 . 52 by eq n (6 . 20)
III NODE 1U t hro ' pi~e 102.85 102 .78 102.78 BWl FRor,1 r1A I N PIPELINe: (BRANCH) Cor·IPUTATIONS 102.47
103 . 00 with 1at s
(j)
:D M "2
. 2 108 .40 [pi
l ~ u nction 108.25 n.a. 108 . 25 108 . 25 TEST 1 OK for Do = 300' fai l s
TEST 2; u/s inv . max. Rl 107. 8
w
•.po cE~pe-> -c 1
62 45 .020 . 300 .88 J-3 2.0 . U4 .10 .UB U.H1 1.00 U.~~
300 t ~y iR2'~~ ' 7 ~ )Aw~~x. BWl at E2,
...... El JP with
<D
CO ~ 107 . 50 :qutter f l ow
107 . 35 108.15 107 . 35
. 30U 1.13
107.25 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for Do = 300;
upstream i nv. max. Rl 106. 88
~A/2B 1.0 . UI .UJ .UI U. 1U 0. 2e U. 4tl
OJ

\OgFJij
~ l pe

2 JP
1 -> ~1. 2
multi -pi pe
80 7 .029
107 . 15 107.25 107.15 BHl FROrl: 1,1AW °1 PELIN E (TRUNK) COl1PUTATIONS
300
.. 107.15
by eqn (6 . 19); max . BWl at E1,
Rl 107.25 by eqn (6.20)
» MAIN PIPE LI NE : BRANCH M.5-M.4-M.1
:D
:D
M .4 N.UPE M.: t~ro ' pi ~e ~revioualY TEST 1 OK for Do = 300; fails
CD 110.30 with 1at s sS l gne 110.15 110 .15 TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 109.31
(f)
I ~~~e.. N3
187 100 .036 .300 2.64 J-2B 1. 0 . 36 2.02 .36 2.38 3.60 2. 47 egn:i6,p)Awr~x,
b{ 110 BWl at M.4
:D 1nn R 5 -
w N3 j~ro' pi pe 106.55 110.05 106.55 106.55 lEST 1 OK for Do = 300; fai l s
-~ 106 :70 TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 106 . 16
~1P! N2 . 300 2.43 J -1 0. 2 . 30 1.42 .06 1.48 1. 87 ~( i32:~~ ' n) Awr~x , Bl~l at N3,
-'
<0
CO
O'l
iT• N2 JP with
103.70 I qutter flol'l
172 83 .036
103 . 55 106.45 103.55
3.00 300
103.55 TEST 1 OK .for Do - 375; fails
TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 102.99
1 3. ~6'P)A
5 = Wl~r' BWl at N2,
n
~~P! N1 237 17 .032 .375 2.1 5 I- 2B 0. 5 . 24 .18 .12 0.30 0.89 0.74
375 t b{ e3
R
T~STS 2 O~ f?5 D? = 375;
(f)
-I
1O~:15 I ~~t~~~hfl Oil 103. 00 103.45 103.00 1
102. 66 u s lnv. max& l 2. 5 b~ eqn o:D
(6 .1 9) ; max . B~l at N1, l
~lpe
, 1 .. t~4 251 5 .03C .3 75 2.27 I- 2B 0.5 .26 . 06 .13 0.1 9 0.53 0. 62
375 102 . 66 by eon 6. 20) s:
M .1 I N1U~J. 6'1i ~ with
t~ro pl ~e ~revioualY..... 102.78
lat s sSlgne 102.90 102 .78 102 . 47 TESTS 1 & 2 OK for Do - 525; o
u/s inv. max Rl 101. 72 by eqn :D
oi~e
M.II .. E1 322 100 . 008
.450 2. 02 J- 2C
.525 1.48 2. 0 ..11
21 .79 .42
.36 . 22
1. 21
0.58 0.8, -
1.15 525 t (6 .1 9); max . B~ l a~)M.4, Rl
102.47 bv eon '6 . 20
»
E1 JP, gutter Z
101. 89 TESTS 1 and 2 OK for 0 = 525; »
iT• 102 . 25 flow l at ' s
~lpe
1 .. M.1 318 8 .006
102 . 10 102 .68 102.10
. 5<,5 1.4 I- 3A 0.5 .11
. Uj .Ub U.U~
0. 3C U.8<'
525
upstream inv . max Rl 181 . 30 by
eqn (6 . 19); max. BWl at E1,
G)
m
~tU,!Jnt _M_. mU ltl-p l pe
102 . 05 102 . 00 102.00
~

BWl FROn i·1AIN PI PELINE (TRUNK) COMPUTATIONS 101.80 Rl 101.89 by eqn (6.20)
o
102.20 JP m
(f)
MAIN PIPELINE: TRUN K M. 3-M.2-M.1 -M.0 G)
M . 2 NODE M. multi -ri pe 114.05 11 0.55 11 4.05 114.05 TEST 1 OK for Do - 300 ; fails Z
114 . 20 JP TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 113.45
oi~e
M. .. N3 81 100 .036 .300 1.1! lulti - 3. 0 .07 .38 .20
pi pe JP
0.58 3.60 0.83
300 ~{ in :bf7~ )Awr~x, BWl at M.3 Z
(f)

... N3
110.60 JP
thro' pi pe 110.45 108 . 35 110.45 110.45 TEST 1 OK for 0 - 300; fails
TEST 2; u/s inv~ max Rl 110.13
s:
»r
• N2
~3P! N2
thro' pi~e
75 68 .03;;
108.25 107.25 108 . 25
.300 l.Ot J -1 0.2 .06 .20 .01 0.21 2.20 0.65
300
108 . 25
~( n8:i~'7~) Aw~~x. BWl at N3,
TEST 1 OK for Do - 300 ; fails
r
C
108. 40 with lat s TEST 2; u/ s inv. max Rl 107 .66 :D
~~P! M 2 137 44 .025
• .lUU 1. ~,
J - 2B 1. 0 .1 9 .48 .19 0. 67 1.4 1 0.93
t ~r f~2'~~ ' 7~) Awr~x, BWl at N2, CO
preylous Y__
300 »
. 1 N1U~7t. 3O';; JP ltl- plpe asslg ned
M mU 107 . 15 104 .75 107.15 TEST 1 OK for Do - 375; fai l ~ Z

.
M 106. 84 TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 105.60
.j/ L . j~ mu lti - 3. 0 .,,9 Il. 3~ . 8/ ".19 l. 88 ~( eqn (6.19); max. BWl at M. 2
()
~~ ~e.. N2 264 100 .025 pi pe JF 2.5C 375 * 106 .84 by eqn (6.20) »
-I
N2 thro ' pi pe 104.65 102.10 104 .65 104.65 TEST 1 OK for Do = 375; fai l s ()
104. 80 JP TEST 2; u/s inv. max Rl 104 .1 9 I
~ ip e
, 2 .. M, 1 243 105 . 025 . 375 2. 2 J-1 0.2 . 25 1.1 .05 1.22 2.8: 1. 73
375 ~r f~a' ~~. 7~) A'Jr~x , BWl at N2, s:
o NODE M. mu lti -p ipe prevlo u s l~ 102 . 00 101.80 TESTS 1 & 2 OK for Do 600; m
M assigned 100. 85 102.00 Z
. 102. 20 JP uls inv. max Rl 100.57 by eqn
6;
mu ltl- u/j - (6.19 max. B~~ a )M.1, Rl -I
~ l pe
1.1 .. N1
576 100 . 01 :~5_~ ~ :8~ pijJ_e JP 3.0 : ~~ I ~ 66 1
1:
63 f:g 1.43
1.50 600 t 101. 8 bv eon 6. 20 3 (f)

10~ ~ 90 J~ro plpe 100.10 100.75 100.57 TESTS 1 & 2 OK for D~ - 600;
:t 100.75
. 60C 1.9 J -1 0.2 .i9 . 53 . 04 0. 57 1.43
~/S inv. max Rl 99.9 by eqn
6 . 19~; max. B~~ a~)N1, Rl

M.O
~lpe
1 .. M. O 543 100 .OOS
DESI GN FLOOD LEVEL RL 100.000 = BWl
0.75
..
600
100.00
00.5 bv eon 6.20

*Design of t hi s pipe falls into the ' Outcome 110utcome 2' situati on
-'
descri bed in Section 6.8 of text
o
w
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 251 Lis from the northern pipe ; and
choi ce - shown for each component in Fi gs 6A 71 Lis from pipe M.4E1 + M.4.
and 6C. While this gives appropriate values
for use in the design of the components them- The procedure adopted in the Handbook
selves, it represents a loss of data which for selecting values for Kw (see Tables 6.5
may be of importance in some design practices. and 6.6) is an approximate one which is in-
sensiti ve to the difference di scussed here.
Consider the alternative flows presented Designers who employ the full 'Missouri
for pipe M.4E1+M.4 : Charts', however, should be aware of the
difference and should use the correct (alter-
from Fi g. 6A (primary drai nage considera- native) values in their appropriate contexts .
tions) flow 81 Lis
from Fig. 6C ('total catchment' considera- A further interpretation which has been
tions) flow 71 Lis made in preparing Fig. 7 should be observed:
this concerns the aspect discussed in STEP 6,
Pipe M.4El + M.4 should be designed to Table 6, Note 3, above.
convey a design flow (N = 5 years, ARI) of 81
Lis. Pi pes ca rry i ng discharge direct ly from
node pits are shown with the appropriate val-
The design of mai nl i ne component M.4 + ues collated from Fig. 6C. Flows from the
M.1El, however, involves not only its design 1ocat ions whe re these pi pes are interrupted
flow of 322 Lis but also the flows entering downstream by a junction pit, inspection pit,
node M.4 under corresponding design condit- etc., use the 'relative flow' value (shown
ions. These flows determine the pit headloss bracketed in Fig. 6C).

CASE 4: STEP 10, FIGURE 10 CASE 4 STEP 11, FIGURE 11

NOTES : M·3N1R M·3N1L NOTES :
PIT flOOR PIT FLOO R
t All pi pes FRC Rl 1n SO ItL 11) SO t Pipe Inverts at Pits coin cide with
7 Pipp rli<:lmptprc:. in mm pit inverts.
3.Gutter inlets : see legend Fig. 6·5 2. Pit floor levels -see Table 8/9
~o", 'o~,,(fI M·3E1
4. Pipe diarreters for cross-connections and Guidelines 11 - 13.
M.3 7m PIT FLOOR 3. All pipes FRC- classes X and Y
found f r om Guideline 10, Table 6.4 PIT FLOOR E 300 RL 113 65
5. For de si gn f lows see Fig. 7 Rl 11) i.0 ~ g
I.P. M·2N3 ~?~L~R I.P. M·5N2
Rl l09·9Q ~ ~ PIT FLOOR
2 Rll10 56
2m
M2N2 2m
M·2N2L M·5N1R
r" '2N2 300
flIT flOOR
300
PI1 ~VV1 U
Rl 10763 Rl 10765

,
M.2N1R /s~ ::. g ~ ~\El1oR
PIT FLOOR °0 M-S ~,..., Rl109 ·67
Rll07' 05 Ptl FLOOR Sm l.Om
M·2 RL109 31 e 0'300 300 _
M SE2
PIT FLOOR ~ :g PIT FLOOR
Rl 10560 E "" PIT flOOR Pil flOOR M·4N3 RL110J9
I.p. M·4N3 ~:;; RL 106 88 Rll0783 loP Pil FLOOR
:;, 8 Rl 106-00

M·1N2 ~ ~ M 4N2
loP M·1N 2 I.P. PIT FLOOR 2 PIT FLOOR
Rl 104 00 Rll02 99
M·1N1R
PIT FLOOR
RL 10155 M·1N1L M·4N 1
PIT FLOOR 1
RL1 0215

~~
~""";;:-~_ _ _-7.'0".
0"m -_ _:-:-:-....,5"'m,-f-'+-~"--.. M.4E2 100m
525 M.4 300 525 lOO
M·4
PIT flOOR
RL 10172

M·1E1L M· 4E1 L
Eo
PI T FLOOR PIT FLOOR
0 0 RL10150 Rl 1022 8
"'~
MoliI~
M '~5IGN FIGURE 10 : APPR OXI MATE NETW ORK FIG URE 11 : APPROX IMATE NETWORK
~R
'LOOO ~O_[_S I~N FLOOD
~ WATER LEVEL : RL 100 00 DESIG N· N =5-YE AR S LEVEl RL100 OQ DESIGN WITH PIT FLOOR LEVELS

104 ARRB SR 34,1986

1Z
Concluding discussion
12.1 RESlME
Three aspects of master drainage planning
(runoff quantity) have been addressed in the
Handbook -
o
stormwater retention/detention/retard-
ation measures,
o
major drainage system planning,
o
minor drainage system design
and information provided and procedures des-
cribed enabling these categories of works to
be incorporated into Australian urban land-
scapes.
In Chapter 3, designers are urged to
select from a wide range of retention/deten-
tion/retardation measures which offer the
following benefits for urban drainage systems:
o
reduced cost of works
o
increased on-site soil moisture
o
reduced ri sk of i nju ry, drown i ngs, etc.
o
improved living environment.
Caution is advised, however, in locating
on-site retention/detention structures near
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 proced-
ures of Ch apters 8 - 11. Th e close i nter-
relationship which must exist between these
networks within a Master Drainage Plan is em-
phasised 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 I broad brush I approach to achi eve its goal
- that of mitigating the effects of runoff
generated in the wake of great storms. Pre-
cision in the prediction of flow quantities
and behaviour in such events is neither pos-
sible nor warranted. Major system planning,
including the checking of alternative routes,
ARRB SR 34, 1986
etc., can be carried out swiftly by hand us-
ing the procedure described in Chapters 8 and
9. There is little need for computer assist-
ance.
A well-planned minor drainage system, on
the other hand, should be designed to control
a specified level of storm runoff identi -fied
in terms of an adopted design ARlo 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 1 vement
in thi s aspect of master drainage pl anni ng
ra i ses important quest ions of data qua 1ity
input and expected error in mi nor d ra i nage
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 esti-
mate flows in ungauged catchments and to de-
sign appropriate minor drainage system net-
works?
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:
a) data extraction from plans, field surveys
and technical information,
b) classification of components into categ-
ori es for whi ch data from a vari ety of
related and unrelated sources are avail-
able,
c) interpretation and adoption of appropri-
ate data values,
d) application of data into mathematical
models (computation process), and,
e) revi ew and judgement.
Tasks arising from these sub-sets of the
design process are performed many times in
each design. For example, there are at least
30 measurement and data transfer acts [i tem
(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
whi 1 e the remai nder are data transfers between
steps. Correspondi ng 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 undeni-
ab ly great the use of hydrau 1 i c data from
tested components only and careful execution
of the design processes by hand or with com-
petent software should restrict the overall
error likely in the bulk of these acts to
between 5 and 10 percent. The error poten-
tial 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 s.all urban
catcMents
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 tie
Schaake et al (1967) showed in an experi-
ment-based study of the Rational Method app-
lied to small urban catchments, that errors
made by experienced practitioners are 1 i kely
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 (19 82)
rnnfirmp.rl this finding for a hypothetical ur-
ban subdivision in which critical storm dura-
tion was set equal to tc and showed that in
cases where critical storm duration equalled
ti - paved area travel time - flow estimate
variation was reduced by about one third.
This is explained by the lower level of un-
certainty that deSigners face in estimatin~
ti 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 likely to
fall within the range ± 15 per cent to ± 25
per cent.
Corresponding flow estimates produced by
more sophi st i cated and t i me-consumi ng models
such as IlllJOAS (Terstriep and Stall 1974),
IllUOAS-SA (Watson 1981) and IlSAX (O'lough-
lin 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 s.all urban
catchlllents
Hydraulic phenomena, unlike their hydrologic-
al counterparts, are uni versal in thei r be-
haviour, and are reproducable and repeatable
in full-size or scale laboratory rigs. Hyd-
raulic 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
Oesp ite these advantages, comp rehens i ve
testing of many components used in Australia,
in particular various gutter inlets (gratings,
side-entry inlets), junction pit configura-
tions, underground network flow conditions,
etc., has never been undertaken. Enough is
known from experimental work carri ed out on
simi lar units, however, to partly overcome
this deficiency by providing 'first approxi-
mat ion' data of the type presented in some
Appendix A cases. While this is satisfactory
as a stop-gap measure, it should be replaced
by a programme of systematic testing of units
used widely in Australian practice.
One of the main issues which the design-
er of urban drai nage networks in small urban
catchments must decide is the use to be made
of available data on the junction pit headloss
pilrilmpt.pr Kw ilnrl on thp. Oarcy-Weisbach fri-
ction factor, f. Should accurate values for
these parameters be obtained from the Missou-
ri and Moody charts, respectively, or are
approximate values satisfactory?
This question has been decided in the
Handbook procedures in favour of fi xed values
(Tables 6.5, 6.6 and Section 6.7) selected on
the 'high' side of average in each category
leading to 5 - 8 less minor computations and
two less chart consultations per pipe, com-
pared with procedures requiring full Missouri
/ Moody consultation. This tally applies only
where tri al pi pe si ze proves to be sati sfac-
tory. The saving on computations/consultat-
ions where trial and final sizes differ is,
of course, qreater.
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 illustra-
tions presented in Chapter 11. Reworking
TARIF R/g in p.ilr.h r.ilSP. with headlosses deter-
.mined 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.3El 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 a
margin for unknown headloss discrepancies
arising from laboratory-to-field transfer of
data as well as unknown gap and misal ignment
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 pro-
cedure are well-matched to input data quality
and that therefore the procedure is appropri-
ate 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 in-
terpret this as a denial of the use of on-
site retention/detention measures and inform-
al drainage line treatments recommended in
Chapter 3.
No such retreat is intended. The net-
works have been adopted, primarily, to demon-
strate the Handbook's planning/design proced-
ures in circumstances which involve large
storm runoff flows.
Use of the stormwater retention/detent-
ion measures and swales recommended in Sect-
ion 3.6 (soil hydraulic conductivity, Kh >
3 x 10-6 m/s) in the Case 4 catchment, for
example, would reduce design flows in all
drainage paths by at least 30 per cent, with
consequent network initial cost savings of
over 10 per cent. Thi s illustrates one of
the main benefits which follow the use of
s tormwater management measures, where appro-
priate, in urban landscapes.
12.4 RESEARCH NEEDS
Average annual expendi ture in Au stra 1 i a on
urban storm drainage works has bee n estimated
by Profess or D. H. Pil grim (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 significant-
ly exceeds annual expendi ture on all maj or
dams and flood mitigation schemes.
By contrast, the sum invested annually
in research on urban storm drainage, is un-
documented but is certainly less than 0.1 per
ce nt of the -above total.
Some of the consequences of this poor
re search support are revealed in Section
12.2. Expected error in urban catchment flow
estimation procedures can ran ge to ± 25 per
ce nt and in the a rea of d ra i nage netwo rk
hydraulics, many structures (gutter inlets,
junction pits, etc.) in common use have not
been adequately tested an d there are pipeline
flow conditions for which no satisfactory de-
sign data exi st.
Res earch needs may be separated into
four domains:-
a) urban catc hment hydrology
b) storm runoff management aspects
c) drainage network surface hydraulics
d) drainage network underground pipeline
hyd raul i cs.
ARRB SR 34, 1986
Urban catcn.ent hydrology
The runoff coefficients presented in Tables
5.3 and 5.4 are based on records from six
gauged urban catchments - four in Melbourne,
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 increas-
ed and representative network of gauging sta-
tions to provide data for improved design in-
formation and for testing of alternative
rainfall/ runoff mathematical models.
Other aspects of catchment hydrology
whi ch are imperfectly understood and whi ch
would benefit from association with an expan-
ded gauging network are:-
1. per cent impervious area measurements in
the full range of land uses (see Section
5.6)
2. fraction of paved area which is directly-
co nnected to the formal collection system
in different land uses (see Section 5.6)
3. field values for the overland shallow
flow parameter llim (see Fig. 5.3).
Storm runoff manage.ent
Research on aspects of storm runoff management
is needed to provide:-
l. appropriate parameters to assist design-
ers in their prediction of 'ultimate de-
velopment' likely in catchments (see
Sect ion 5.1)
2. information on design ARI for a wide range
of land uses based on case studies which
have given adequate consideration to tech-
nical, cost-sharing (developer/council),
community, political and environmental
inputs (see Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6)
3. advice to designers on the use and siting
of retention/detention installations tak-
ing account of building proximity and
soil characteristics (see Sections 1.3,
3.3 and 3.6)
4. information and advice to deSigners on
performance and public acceptance of in-
formal drainage channel treatments (see
Sections 3.5 and 3.6).
Drainage networks: surface hydraulics
The main roadside channel kerb-and-gutter
profiles used in the various Australian
states fall into three categories:-
1. 150 mm kerb, 450 mm gutter, Za 12
N.S.W. and Tasmania
2. 150 JTI1l kerb, 300-375 JTI1l gutter, Za =
8- 10: Victoria, S.A., N.T., Queensland
and A.C. T.
3. 150 mm kerb, no gutter Western
Australia.
107
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
Within each of these categori e s there is
a range of gutter inlet types and geometries
to be found, some used widely by main road
authorit i es, others found only in their muni-
cipalities of origin.
Of the total number of gutter/inlet com-
binations present in this array, relatively
few have been the subject of comprehensive
model tests, and of these only a handful have
been tested in the field or in full-size
ri gs.
Whi le the advantages of uniformity may
be appa rent to all tak i ng a nat i onwi de per-
spective, the realities of local custom and
fami 1 i 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, main-
ly, 'first approximation' flows for roadside
channel, carriageways, etc., and capture per-
formance (i nlets) information, respecti vely,
in Appendix A.
Drainage networks: underground pipeline
hydraul ics
Of the four research domai ns 1 i sted 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 pro-
gramme carried out by Sangster et al (1958)
which yielded the 'Missouri Charts'. Later
research has built on these foundations.
There are three areas of research in
underground network~ which de~erve ilttention:
1. headwater build-up in junction pits dis-
chargi ng under the part-full conditi on
(see Table 6.5)
108
2. drainage pipeline headlos s e s ca used by
gaps and misalignment at joints
3. junction pit headloss coefficients (water
level) for configurations having two or
three inflow pipes making angle s other
than 'in line' or at right angles to the
dis c harge pipe alignment.
12.5 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
The data, guidelines, design steps and tas ks
described in the Handbook have been compiled
from manuals of leading local government,
urban drainage and State Road authorit i es,
from Australian and overseas research liter-
ature and from consultations and discussions
with numerous practitioners and researchers.
The data base and mai n procedures have been
the subject of open forlJT1s and have been re-
viewed by a wide range of potential users.
Despite this background, the doclJT1ent
should not be regarded as a final and 'iron-
clad' textbook of practice but, rather, a
first statement subject to revision and fine-
tuning as a consequence of its use in the
fi e 1d.
It is intended that the project 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 e xperience and will include com-
ment on the performance of systems, info r ma-
t i on on the consequences of cost and cost-
sharing initiatives, shortcomings of proced-
ures, review of guidelines, updating of re-
search data, etc. Contributions on all of
these aspects will be welcomed by Australian
Road Research Board and the author, and will
form the extended data base for future revis-
ions 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 run-
off mode 11 i ng. ASCE Hyd raul i c En g. 109
(2), pp. 313-19, February.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (19 82).
Stormwater detention facilities. Proc.
Conf. co-sponsored by ASCE Urban Water
Resourced Research Council and Enginee-
ring Foundation. B.Urbonas, editor.
(ASCE : New York.)
ARANSON, D,A. and PRILL, R.C. (1977). Analy-
sis of the recharge potential of storm-
water 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. Hydraulics Re-
search Station, Wallingford, Oxon, Rep.
IT 185, 11 pp.
ARGUE, J.R. (1981). Urban storrTWater collec-
t i on systems - a revi ew. Aust ra 1 ian
Road Research Board. Internal Report,
AIR 1093-1.
ARGUE, J.R. (198 2). Stormwater fl ow estimat-
ion in small ungauged urban catchments.
Proc. 11th ARRB Conf. 11(2), pp. 193-
205.
ARGUE, J.R. (1984). Design flow estimation in
small ungauged urban catchments. Proc.
Thi rd Int. Conf. Urban Storm Drainage,
Gotenborg, Sweden, June, pp. t~~-64.
Reprinted as ARRB Internal Report,
AIR 391-1.
AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL (19 85).
Guidelines for floodplain management in
Au st ra 1 i a. Wa ter Ma nagement Se ri es No.
6. (AGPS: Canberra.)
BANNIGAN, J.M. and MORGAN, D. B. (19 81).
Hydraulic design of piped stormwater
systems. Proc. I.E. Aust. Conf. on
Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Sydney,
pp. 49-53.
ARRB SR 34,1986
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. Conf. 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. Hydrology 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. Hydrology and Water Re .:; .)ur ces
Symposium, Perth, September, pp. 249-53.
BLISS, P.J., RILEY, S.J. and ADAMSON, D.
(1983). Towards rati onal guidel i nes for
urban stormwater disposal into flora
preservation areas. Shi re and Munic-
i pal Record, July, pp. 181-85.
BOENISCH, M.E. (19 84) On-site detention -
e xperience at Wollongong. Proc.
Seminar on Problems of Existing Storm-
water Drainage Systems. N.S.W. Commit-
tee, Water Research Foundation of
Australia. G.G. O'LolJghlin, ed itor.
Sydney, 28 pp.
BONHAM, A.J. (1974). Storm drainage deSign
and new city planning. I.E. Aust.
Ci v. Eng. Trans. CEI6( 1), pp. 67-70.
BROO KS , L.G. and COC KS, G.C. (19 83). A rat-
ional approach to the design of storm-
wat e r sumps. Main Roads Dept, Western
Au s tra li a , Ma t erials Rep. 8 3/42M.
BROTCHIE, J.F. (1977). Urban development
without spoiling creeks. Habitat Aust.
Conservation Foundation, 5(1), June,
pp. 8 -13.
BURGI, P.H. and GOBER, D.E. (1977). Bicycle-
safe grate inlets study. Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-77-24. U.S. Dept. Transp. Nat.
Tech. Info. Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
109
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
BURTON, T.M., TURNER, R.R. and HARRISS, R.C.
(1976). The impact of highway construc-
tion 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.
CITY OF FORT WORTH (1967). Storm drainage
criteri a and des i gn manua 1 • Prepa red
by Knowlton-Ratcliff-English, Consult-
ing Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas,
December.
CLARKE, W.P., STRODS, P.J. and ARGUE, J.R.
(19 81). Gutter/pavement flow relation-
c;hirc; for rOilrlwilY rhilnnpls of mQriprilt.p
or steep grade. Proc. I.E. Aust. Fi rst
Nat. Local Govt. Eng. Cont., Adelaide,
pp 130-37.
COLMAN, J. (1978). Streets for 1ivi ng. Aust-
ralian Road Research Board. Special
Report, SR 17.
CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION (1985). Concrete
pipe guide. Concrete Pipe Association
of Australia, Elsternwick.
CORDERY, I. (1976a). Some effects of urban-
isation on streams. I.E. Aust. Civ.
Eng. Trans. CE18(1), pp. 7-11.
CORDERY, 1. (19760). PuLeliLidl vdlue ur
treatment of urban stormwaters. I.E.
Aust. Ci v. Eng. Trans. CE18(2), pp.
60 -63.
CORDERY , I. (1977). Quality characteristics
of urban storm water in Sydney, Austra-
l ia. Water Resour. Res. 13, \pp. 197-
202.
COUNTRY ROADS BOARD, VICTORIA (1982). Road
deSign manual. Chapter 6 : Drainage.
CU LLEN, P., ROSICH, R. and BEK, P. (1978).
A phosphorous budget for Lake Burley
Griff in and management implications for
urban lakes. Aust. Water Resources
Council Tech. Paper No. 31. (AGPS:
Canberra. )
DANDENONG VALLEY AUTHORITY (19 80) . Melton
drainage study. Master drainage plan
prepared for Melton-Sunbury Management
Committee by Dandenong Valley Author-
i ty, March.
de GROOT, C.F. and BOYD, M.J. (1983). Exper-
imental determindtion of head losses in
stormwat er systems. Proc. I.E. Aust.
Seco nd Nat. Conf. on Local Govt. Eng.
Brisbane, September, pp. 214-1 8.
DICK, T.M. and MARSALEK, J. (1985). Manhole
head losses in drainage hydraulics.
Proc. 21st Congo Int. Assoc. Hydraul i c
Res. Melb ourne, August, Vol. 0, pp.
123-31.
110
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, ,l .R. (lq811).
The simulation of gutter/pavement flows
on Sou th Australian urban roads. Proc.
10th ARRB Conf. 10(2), pp. 145-52.
DURU, J .O. (1982) . On-site detention a
s tormwater management or mi sma nagement
tech nique? Urban Stormwater Qu ality,
Management and Planning. B. C.Yen,
editor. Water Resources Pub., Colorado,
U.S.A., pp. 341-49.
EARLEY, P.C. (1979). Gully inlet spac ing de-
sign. ' Faculty of Eng. Univ. Western
Austral i a.
ENVIRONMENT CANADA (19811a) . Proposed rnodel
policies for urban drainage ma nagement.
Report of the Urban Drainage Policy
Committee to the Urban Drainage Sub-
cornmi t tee, Envi ronrnenta 1 Protection
Servi ce, Envi ronment Canada. Research
Repor t No. 102.
ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1980b). ManlJ dl of pr'iC-
ti ce for urban drai nage. Envi ronment
Protection Service, Environment Canada.
Research Report No. 104.
ESCRITT, L.B. (1965). Sewerage and Sewage
Di sposal. 3rd Ed. (CR Books/Appl ied
Science Publishers: London.)
FINLA YSON , C.M. (1983). Use of aquatic plants
to treat wastewater in irrigation areas
of Austral ia. Proc. 10th Federal Con-
vention Aust. Water and Wastewater
Assoc., Session 22, Sydney, 10 pp.
' FORllES, H.J.C. (1976). Capac ity of 1 atera 1
stormwater iql ei:,> . i, ivil I:: ng. South
Africa, 18(9), pp. 195-205. Discussion,
19(5), pp. 95-99.
GORDON, A.D. and STONE, P.B. (1973). Car
stabi 1 ity on road fl oodways. Univ. of
New South Wales, Water Research Labor-
atory, Rep. 73/12.
GOYE N, A.G. and McLAUGHLIN, D.A. (197 8) . Can
we afford to treat urban stormwater
runoff? Proc. I.E. Aust. 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., SHOE-
MAKER, W.J. and TUCKER, L.S. (1976).
Urban drai nage and fl ood control proj-
ects, economic, legal and financial
aspects. Hydrology 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 Resourc-
es Council. Tech. Paper No. 60. (AGPS:
Canberra. )
GUY, H.D. and JONES, D.E. (1972). Urban sed-
imentation in perspective. ASCE J.
Hydraulics Div., 98(HY 12), pp. 2099 -
116.
HALL, M.J. (1984). Urba n Hydrology. (Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers: Essex, U.K.)
HANNAM, I.D. and HI CKS, R.W. (1980). Soil
conservation and urban land use plann-
i ng. Soil Conse rvation Service of
N.S.W. Soil Conser vation, 36, pp . 134-
4S.
HAWKEN, H.W. ( 1921) . An analysis of maximum
runoff and rainfall intensity, Trans.
I.E. Aust. 2, pp. 193 - 215.
HEEPS, D.P. (1977). Efficiency in ind ustr ial,
municipal and domestic water use . Aust.
Water Resources Council. Tech. Paper
No. 20 . (AGPS: Ca nberra.)
HENDERSON, F.M. (1966). Open Channel Flow.
(MacMillan: New York.)
HENDERSON, F .M., FIELD, W.G. and WILLIAMS,
B.J . ( 19 80) . Urban Drainage. Notes for
a refresher course, Dept. Civ. Eng.
Un i v. Newc a s t 1e , N. S • W.
HENKEL, G.G . (19 81) . Land-use planning must
relate to drainage. Proc. I.E. Aust.
First Nat . Local Govt . Eng. Co nf.,
Adelaide, pp. 83 - 89 .
HOLMSTRAND, O. (1984) . Infi ltration of s torm-
water : Research at Chalmers Unive r sity
of Technology, results and examples of
application. Proc. 3rd Int. Co nf. on
Urban Sto rm Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1057 -7 2.
HUGHES, H. (1974). Road surface drainage - a
revi ew . Austral i an Road Res earch Board .
Research Report, ARR No. 33.
ICHIKAWA, A. and YAMAMOTO, T. (1984) . Experi -
mental field for the quantitative ana-
lysis of the pervious pavement at the
baseball field, University of Tokyo.
Proc. 3r d Int . Conf . on Urban Storm
Drainage, Goteborg, Swede n, June, pp.
1009-1 8 .
IN ST ITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1958) .
Austral ian rai nfall and runoff. Fi rst
report of the I. E. Aust. StorllMater
Standards Comm ., Sydney .
INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1983).
Seminar on retarding basins. Proc. of
seminar organised by Syd ney Division
Water Resources Panel. G.G . O'Loughlin,
editor, 19 April, Sydney .
INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1977).
Australian rainfall and runoff. 2nd ed.
(I.E. Aust: Canberra.)
ARRB SR 34, 1986
INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, AUSTRALIA (1987).
Australian rainfall and runoff. 3rd ed.
(I.E. Aust: Canberra) (i n press).
IZZARD, C.F. (1946). Hydraulics of runoff
from developed surfaces (and discuss-
ion). Proc. Highway Res. 26, pp.
129-50.
JAMES HARDIE PTY LTD (1985). Textbook on
Pipeline Design. (James Hardie,
Sydney)
JOHNSON, R.L. and PUTT, R.A. (1977). Storm
wate r retent i on and detent ion. Leh i gh
Univ. Fritz Eng. Laboratory Report No.
426 .2 , December, 35 pp.
JONASSON, S.A. (1984a). Determi nati on of i n-
filtration capacity and hydraulic con-
ducti vity. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Urban Stonn Drain., Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1073- 82 .
JONASSON, S.A. (19 84b). Dimensioning methods
for stormwater infiltration systems.
Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Urban Storm
Drainage, Gotebo rg, Sweden, June, pp.
1037-46.
JONES, E.D. (1967). Urban hydrology, a r e-
dir~ction. ASCE Civ. Eng. 37(8),
August, pp. 58-61.
JONES, E.D. (1971). Where is urban hydrology
p ra ct ice today? ASCE Hyd raul i cs Di v.
97(HY2), pp. 257 - 64.
KARR, J .R. and SCHLOSS ER, I.J. (197 8) . Water
re sources and the land-wat er interface.
Science 201, pp. 229-34.
KIDD, C.H.R. and LOWING, M.J. (1979). The
Wal ingford urban subcatchment model.
U.K. Inst. Hydrol ogy 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 SOU TH WALES (1984).
The streets where we live - a ' manual
for the design of safer residential
estates.
LIGHTHILL, M.J. and WHITHAM, G.B. (1955). On
ki nemat i c waves : I. Flood movement in
long ri vers. Proc. Royal Soc. Se ri es
A, Vol. 229, pp. 281-316.
LINSLEY, R.K. and FRANZINI, J. (1979). Water
resources Engineering, 3rd edition.
(McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Tokyo).
LLOYD-DAVIES,D.E. (1906). The elimination
of storm water from sewerage systems .
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 164, pp. 41-67.
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (1983). Standard - Storm-
water Drainage Manhole losses. Chart
A, Chart B, date 11/1/83.
111
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS
McPHERSON, M.B. (1969). Some notes on the
rational method of storm dra inage de -
si gn. ASCE Urban Water Resources Re-
s earch Program, Tech. Memor. No. 6 ,
New York, January.
MAKIN, I.W. and KIDD, C.H.R. (1979). Urban
hydrology project: collection and ar-
chive of U.K. hydrological data. Inst.
Hydrology Report No . 59, October.
MATTHEWS, T.M., PITTS, J.R., LARLHAM, R.C.
and KOCSAN, J. C. (19 8 3). Hyd ro-brake
regulated storage system for storm-
water management. Snell Envi ronmental
Group Inc. for Cleveland Dept. Public
Utilitie s , Ohio.
MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS
(19 81). Interim drainage basin manage-
ment criteria manual.
MILLS, S.J. and O'LOUGHLIN, G.G. (19 84).
Workshop on urban piped drainage sys-
tems. 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. Paper No. 45. (AGPS :
Canberra. )'
MAIN ROADS DEPARTMENT, QUEENSLAND (1980) .
Urban road design manual.
MULVANEY, T.J. (1851). On the use of self
registerinq rain and flood gaugps 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, C.B., MacARTHUR, D.A., CARLEO, D.J.,
QUINN, T.J. and STEWART, J.[. (1981).
Best management practices implementa-
tion : Rochester, New York. U.S. Env.
Protection Agency Report PB-82-171-067,
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 manual.
NICHOLAS, 0.1. and COOPER, G. ( 1984). On- s ite
detent ion - experi ence in Ku ri ng-Ga i •
Proc. Seminar on Problems of Existing
Stomwater Drainage Systems, N.S.W.
Committee, Water Research Foundation of
Australia. G.G. O'Loughlin, editor,
Sydney, 21 pp.
NOVA K, P. and NULLURI, C. (1984). Incipient
motion of sediment particles over fixed
beds. J. Hydraul ic Res. 22(3), pp. 181-
97.
112
O'L OUG HLIN, G. G. an d AVE RY , (i. C. ( 198 0) . Re -
cu rre nce i nt e rval s fo r mi no r urb an
drain d~e ;%r ~5 . Proc . I.F.. Ao.J5t. Hyd-
rology and Water Res ources Symp. Ade l-
ai de, pp. 39-4 3.
O'LOUGHLIN, G.G. ( 1986 ). The IL SAX program
for urban d rain age desi gn a nd ana lysis.
School of Civ. Eng. N. S.W. Inst. Tp' (I I-
no l., Sy dnp.j .
PHILLIPS, D.I. (19 85) . An e valu at ion of the
performan ce of an on-site st o rmwater
detention storage. Proc. I.E. Aust.
Hydrology and Water Resources Symp.
Sydney, May, pp. 197-201.
POLIN, M.J. and CORDERY, I. (1979). An eco-
nomic approa ch t o t he -;,~ l ect i o n o f a
design flood. Proc. I.E. Aust. Hydro-
logy and Water Resources Symposium,
Perth, September, pp. 194-98 .
POERTNER, H.G. (197 3). Pract ices in deten-
tion of urban s torm water runoff. U.S.
Dept Interior, Washington, D.C.
PUBLI C WORKS OEPARTMENT, NEW SOUTH WALES
(1985). Hydraulic capacities of gutter
inlets for N.S.W. Housing Commission.
Manly Hydraul ics Laboratory Rep. 419,
January.
RAGAN, R.M. and DURU, J.O. (1972). Kinematic
wave nomograph for time s of concentra-
tion. Proc. ASCE, J. Hydraulics Div.
98(HY10), October, pp. 1/6~-/1.
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
t low of surface water in sewers. J.
Inst. Municipal and County Eng. (U.K.)
58(20), pp. 1483-95.
ROBINSON, D. and O'L OUGHLIN, G. G. (19 83).
Introduction - what is a retarding
basi n? Proc. I.E. Aust. Semi nar on
Re ta r d i ng ~a., i 11 ') . Organi sed by Sydney
Division Water Resources Panel. G.G.
O'Loughlin, editor, Sydney, April.
ROSS, C.N. (1 921). The calculation of flood
discharges by the use of a time contour
plan. Trans. I.E. Aust. 2, pp. 85-92.
ROWBOTTOM, I.A., PILGRIM, D.H. a nd WRIGHT,
G.L. (19 86). Estimation of rare floods
(between the probable ma ximum flood and
the 1 in 100 flood). I.E. Aust. Civ.
Eng. Trans. CE2 8(1), pp. 92-105.
SANGSTER, W.M., WOOD, H.W., SMERDON, E.T. and
t3 0SS Y, H. G. ( 19'18) . P r ~ssu re c hanges
at stormwater drain junctions, Bull.41,
Eng. Experiment Station, Univ . Missouri,
U.S.A.
SATOR, J.D., BO YD, G. B. and AGA RDY, F.J.
( 1974). Water pollution aspe cts of
stree t su rfa ce c ontami nants. .J. Water
Pollution Control Federation 46, Wash-
ington 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. Hydraul-
ics Div. 93(HY 6), pp. 353-70.
SCOTT AND FURPHY PfY LTI) (1 9fl4). Eng i neeri ng
standards for residential land develop-
ment. Report prepared in association
with Coopers & Lybrand Services for
Dept Housing and Construction. (AGPS:
Canberra. )
SIEKER, F. (1984). Storrrwat er infiltration in
urban areas. Proc . 3rd Int. Conf. on
Urban Storm Drainage, Goteborg, Sweden,
June, pp. 1083-91.
STEPHENSON, D. (1984). Stof'mllater hydrology
and drainage. (Elsevier Applied Science
Pub Ii shers: Jlms terdam. )
STORM DRAINAGE RESEARCH COMMITTE E (1956). The
deSign of stormwater inlets. Report of
the Storm Drainage Research Committee
of Dept. of Sanitary Eng . and Water
Resources, Johns Hopkins Univ. Balti-
more, Maryl and, June.
TERSTlUEP, M.L. and STALL, J.B. (1974). The
Illinois urhan drainage Mea -; i.nulator,
ILLUDAS. Bull. 58, Illinois State Wat-
er Survey, Urbana, U.S.A.
THEIL, P.E. (1977). Urban drainage design for
new deve I opnent. Proc. Urban Dra i nage
Conf. Organi sed by the Urban Drai nage
Subcommittee, Environment Protection
Servi ce, Envi ronment Canada, Toronto,
March.
THOLIN, A.L. and KEIFER, C.J. (1960). Hyd-
rology of urban runoff. Trans. ASCE
125, pp. 1308-79.
THOMPSON, D.G. (1983). The one percent prob-
ability flood as a basic drainage de-
sign 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 Centre, Univ. Delaware,
Apri 1.
ULI/ASCE/NAHB (1979). Residential storm water
management. Report by Urban Land In-
stitute/Am. Soc. Civ. Eng/Nat. Assoc.
of Home Builders, Washington, March.
UNITED STATES OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(1978). Best management practices for
erosion and sediment control. U.S.
Dept. Trans. Fed. Hi ghw. Admin., Wash-
ington.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(1979). Design of urban highway drain-
age - the state of the art. U.S. Dept.
Trans. Fed. Highw. Admin., Washington.
ARRB SR 34, 1986
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ADMINIS-
TRATION (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. (Pengui n Books: Hamondsworth.)
van DAM, C.H. and van de VEN, F.H.M. (1984).
Infiltration in the pavement. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. on Urban Storm Drainage,
Goteborg, Sweden, June, pp. 1019-28.
WALKER, J.H. (1979). Characteristics of
pollution in urban stof'mllater runoff.
Proc. I.E.Aust. Hydrology and Water
Resources Symp . Perth, pp. 244 - 48.
WANIELISTA, M.P. (1979). Stormwater Manage-
ment - Quantity, Quality. (Ann Arbor
Science, Michigan).
WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION (1984). Seminar on
problems of existing stormwater drain-
age systems. Proc. Seminar organised
by N.S.W. Committee of WRF of Austral-
ia, 28 November. G.G. O'Loughlin, edit-
or, Sydney.
WATSON, M.D. (1981). Application of ILLUDAS
to stormwater drai nage desi gn in South
Africa. Rep. 1/81, Hydrological Re-
search Unit, Univ. Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg.
WATTS, B.A. (1983). Hydraulic losses in
stormwater pits.
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., RAN-
DALL, 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 cap-
acities - field assessment. Final draft,
July. National Capital Development
Commission, A.C.T.
WOLMAN, M. and SCHICK, A.P. (1967). Effects
of construction on fluvial sediment,
urban and suburban areas of Maryland.
Water Resources Res. 3, pp. 451-64.
WRIGHT-McLAUGH LIN, ENGINEERS (1969). Urban
storm drai nage. Cri teria manual, Vol s
1 and 2. Denver Regional Counci I of
Govts, Denver, U.S.A., March.
113
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

114 ARRB SR 34,1986

Appendix A
Additional hydraulic data
The gutter/pavement and inlet exampl es used
in the body of the Handbook to illustrate
major and minor storm drainage design pro-
cedures are not employed universally in Aus-
tralian practice. Additional hydraulic in-
formation for other widely used gutter/pave-
ment geometries and inlet types is therefore
needed. Appendix A presents hydraulic data
for four roadway reserve and i nl et combi na-
tions which, together, account for the bulk
of Australian practice.
In most cases the following data
presented:-
(a) roadway reserve (half-carriageway) flow,
Ot, versus longitudinal slope, So, limit-
ed 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
4.0 m and 5.0 m, Zb = 25 - 30-40. These
data are needed to pl an major drai nage
systems (see Chapters 8 and 9).
(b) half-carriageway flow, Ot, versus longi-
tudinal slope, So' for spreads of 1.0 m,
2. 0 m and 2.5 m, Zb = 25-30-40.
(c) grat ed inlet data , Zb = 25-30-40 :
o on-grilc1f' inlets, full gutter wi dth
(undepressed), capture 80% and 95%.
o sag inlets,Lig = 1.0 m, 2. 0 m (un-
depressed), capture 100%.
(d) side-entry inlet data, Zb = 25-30-40
o on-grade inlets, Lis = 1.0 m, 2 . 0 m,
depressed 50 mm, with and without
deflectors, capture 8 0% and 95%.
o sa(] inlets, lis = 1.0 m, 2.0 m, de-
pressed 50 mm, capture 100%.
Data items (b), (c) and (d) above are
needed to design minor drainage systems (see
Chapters 10 and 11).
The data relating to inlets are not of
equal quality. Some graphs and tables present
results obtained from substantial test pro-
grammes conducted on full-size models while
others present information inferred from
tests on mOdels having different geometry.
Three levels of data qua lity have been recog-
nised:-
ARRB SR 34. 1986
LEVEL 1 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 1ines or curves are used
to present Levell data in Appendix
A.
LEVEL 2 Flow/capture relationships derived
from one set of test results ob-
tained for a particular inlet case
are (model or prototype) supported by
results obtained for inlet cases
(models or prototypes) having diff-
erent geometries. Broken lines or
curves with long intervals 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 1i nes or cur ves wi th short
intervals between breaks are used
to present Level 3 data in Appendix
A.
In short, Level 1 data may be regarded
as 'dependable', Level 2 data as 'satisfac-
tory' and Level 3 data as 1 ittle 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-
: sign in Australian practice.
Performance data presented in Appendix A
for side-entry inlets with deflectors assume
deflectors similar to those illustrated in
Fig. 6.5, text. Minor departures from this
arrangement will result in marginal changes,
only, to indicated performance.
The mai n di fferences between the four
roadway reserve and inlet combinations add-
ressed in Appendix A relate to their roadside
channel geometries (see Fig. 3.7). These
are: -
TYPE 1 concrete gutter, 300 mm wi de, cross-
slope Za = 10
TYPE 2 conc rete gutter, 375 mm wide, cross-
slope Za = 8
115
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3 concrete gutter, 450 mm wi de, cros s-
slope Za .. 12
TYPE 4 : no gutter, pavement carried to kerb
All data for each type and combi nat i on
are presented together.
The following references form the liter-
ature data base for the graphs and tables set
out in Appendix A : Department of Main Roads,
N.S . W. (l979); Earley (l979); Burgi and Gober
(1977); Storm Drai nage Research Committee of
John Hopki ns Uni versity (l956) ; Henderson et
al (1980) ; Willing and Partners (l978); Hughes
(1974); Public Works Department, N.S.W.(1985} ;
Forbes (1977) ; United States Department of
Transportati on (l979). Additi onal data have
been obtained from full-size rig tests conduc-
ted in connection with preparation of the
Handbook at S.A. Institute of Technology in
Adelaide.

TYPE 1 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE Ala
CAPTURE BY ~ GRATED INLETS : Za = 10
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture : 95% capture:
gutter approach fl ow, Qt = 10 Lis gutter approach fl ow, Ot= 8 Lis

80% capture : 80% capture :

gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 Lis gutter approach fl ow, Qt '= 18 Lis

Notes: 1. grated in 1et - 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, So, 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 Alb
CAPTURE AT 1.0. AND 2.Dm SAG INlETS (GUTTER 300..)
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)
-- -
DESCR I PTI ON Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
loOm grated inlets (undepressed)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 40 Lis 29 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 59 Lis 42 Lis

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 65 Lis 47 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 96 Lis 68 Lis

1.0m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 46 Lis 37 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 60 Lis 47 Lis

2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 92 Lis 74 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 120 Lis .94 Lis

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 DRAINAG E DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 1 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROF ILE

1300 1300
300mm 3-70m 10 l .1 300mm 4}Om to l J
1200
~U Hotmix pavement
i 1200
-T:'U Hotmix pa ve ment
i
J~
(oncrete4 Contrete

1100
Kerb&Gutter I: . ,: ~
_\ ;:::2:::]' Zb = 25,30 or 40
--,
i 1100
Kerb& Gu lle ; 1
_:;:;:2:::'::f
--
Zb = 25,30 or 40
J
I
f/ ""r--, Za = 10
(each casel Gutter/ Pavemen t Profile jj ~ Za=10
(each case) Gutter/Pavement Profile

g ""'-
~ J WI'\. ~
~ /
900 900

J / "'" .......... ~ ~
'"
..........

II/I ~ "'"
IIrl ~,~
i'-.
~
.............
I'----
~
~
b r!-.J t:
~,

~
r--
Ci 800
~
U:: 700
~

lg'600 'I I
i'--
I II ~ " ~ ~
~
.............
""
-............
r. -
7~
~ 'O 2 ~-

?iJ~.3, ---- r---- -

- r-- ----
'-...... K r---- ~ 500 'IL '-...... ---..,
/// I-- --.1.t, '2<
---- r---
11....,25
-----
400
f
/--- Co-.

NOTE , For fI ~sh se I car iagewa s red ce

indica ed flo val u s by 8%
r--- 400
'I
I
NOTE , For II sh 5e I carri geway redu e
indica ~ d /1 0 v alu~ s by 1 %
--- r-- --- -
300 300

200 0 -01
I
-02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12 01 02 -03 -04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -09 -10 -11 -12
Gu ller Longitudinal Slope, So Im/ml Guller Long itud inal Slope, So Im/ml
Figure Al a : Hydraul ic ca pacity, Q.t , data for 8-0 m carri agewa y - Figure Al b: Hydraul ic capacity, Q.t, data for 10 -0 m carriageway
with 300 mm gutter with 300mm gutter

120 120
Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Oata Gutter Inlet H ~rau1i c Dat a
Capt ure performance of lOrn and 2-0m side- entry Capture per formance of "O m and 2 'Om side-entry
in le ts 'W it h and with out deflectors inlets with and without def lectors
11 0 110
~

,.I i
N
TYPE 1
"
I .~
N

E 150mm
:_:~ .. --~
Za =10 -'l
100 100
:;'" Zb= 30-40
Gutter/Pavement Profile Gutter/ Pavement Profile
~OTES NOTES
90 90
!L~ l.Inlets without deflectors ; lip deprf'ssed SOmm bet o...
gutter invert fel" fu ll length.li.s.
0 1.lnlets wit hout deflectors ; lip depressed 50mm be 10'"
gutter invert for full length.li.s.
H-I'+-I""--t--t- - t---
J ~_ N 2. lnlels witI'! def lectors: lip depressed SOmm, deflector
IL~
2. lnlets with def lectors : lip depressed SOmm, deflector
base depre ssed 100 mm below gutter invert . E fI base depressed 100 mm below gutter inver t .

1 1
60 80
IJ.: [ :7 3. App roach flow,Ot for inlet 21ength , Lis. other than 1·0 m
'"" €/ 3. Approach flo .... Ot for inle t 1lenqth . Lis. other than ' ,0 m
I-tHr"
I--f"I'--+ - +--I an d 2·0 m varies as ILL s t, appro)o mately.
<::
~
I! 4. tnle t widt h equals gutter width in all oases . <:: ~/I~
and 2·0 m va r ies as Ills l, approximaiely.
4. tnle l ... idth equals gutter width in all cases .

70 70
<0>
~ f c;
~
'Ii
3:
~ z
60 60
~ ~
r r
'<t
&'
:l: 50 0% Captu le
'<t
&'
:l: 50 .1
.:! .:!
'#-.
~ ~ W '"..-- :-
~
40 , ~
40 - f__- I-- f - f-- - ~O% aptu
~
~
-,
~

30
~

30
"'" I~ I

20 I
t
b :Z
........ ,

~~
"-
,,~

~ ~ "-
' . iX
~~
....11,
Q~
-- r - r-

--
\:,v-- 8O~ c.-=- :::-:... :::::-::.
-'-- BO,
""""" .!!CL
~

~
-
10

1/ ~- -....§. % (a
-:-!.: ..£a.2,!
~ I!!.J, ~ '- '- '-
- L ~ ~o/'!... a1!!.ur n-~-~---_ L _r-_=- _I- ­ I \: ~ --
~
2l~ ~t!!! e _ ;;1Z --
o o~-'--:-,:-:--\-,,",V~-'----'--...l:..-~-,-r_---L-_--1
-_-'-_-_-"-'-
~ -.:..:::.cf--=-.=l
-=-:..
- -:::L:..::..;.J o --=- r - - r- - --- =-
0-02 0-04 0-06 008 0-1, Q 11 0-", o 0-02 0-04 0-06 0-06 0-10 0-12 0-14

GUTfEr, LONGITUOI NAL SL OPE So I mimi GUTTER LONGITUDINAL SLOPE So I mimi

Figure : A1c Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydra uli c Figure : A1d Collation of spread and gutter in let hydrau li c
data - 300 mm gutters, Za =10 data - 300 mm gutters, Za = 10

ARRB SR 34,1 986 117

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 2 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A21
CAPTURE BY 37~ GRATED IILETS ZI .. 8
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture:
I 95%capture :
gutter approach flow, Qt 24 LIs I gutter approach flow, Qt 22 LIs I
80% capture:
gutter approach flow, Qt = 52 LIs
80% capture:
gutter approach flow, f)t 43 LIs I
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, So, 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 A2b
CAPTlItE AT 1.0. AND 2.0. SAG IILETS (GUTTER 31.>
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

DESCRIPTION Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
l.Om grated inlets (undepressed)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 40 LIs 30 LIs
allowable spread = 2.5 m 61 LIs ~~ L/5
2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)
I
allowable spread = 2.0 m 63 LIs 47 LIs
allowable spread = 2.5 m 96 LIs I 69 LIs

l.Om side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 57 LIs 47 LIs
allowable spread = 2.5 m 72 LIs 59 LIs

2.0 m Side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 114 LIs 94 LIs
allowable spread = 2.5 m 144 LIs 118 LIs

Notes:
l. 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 . I
2. Grated inlets - 375mmwide
3. Grated open area not less than 60% of total area.
I
I

118 ARRB SR 34. 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 2 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

1~r-~--~--~--r-~-----37-
5-------
3 -
61-
5m--to--l----I--~ 1300
375mm H15m to l J
1100 ~_-i-_+_+_-L_--' "., J mm Hotmix pavement 1200
Concrete-+'; ~J Hotmix pavement
i
Concrete --+,:
Kerb&Gutter ;' ...-<:+--:===::;;:;;~:::::::::==:i
,., I Kerb&Gutfe, .';fg . I I
1100 - - ---I-- . :i.,::22:::J Zb = 15,30 or 40 1100 Zb = 15,30 or 40

11000 _ _ .--k ------ .. Za = 8

_. Ieach casel Guttir/Pavement Prof il e /\
Za = 8
leach easel Gutter/ Pavement Profile

~
_
900 ~~/ . ~"
_ '"
-
"""
-. ~TE ~l~-;.;b
l carriapeways. redu ce
·ind ic at .d flow values by 1, % 5
900 -

!/ "-
l/ \ \.
~DTE , or ttu h sea carri geway reducF
ndicat d flow values by 15 ~.

~800 --1 / K - ;- I I 5 800

'" - 1 --+-1- i II / ~ '" ~
(//~ "'~~d-
· ~"l , . III u:: 700
~

i -{(! ~::~ =:~~1}-<.k!'-4.""·i~ "" """'" ~

:700
b, "<
~;-'I:--+I--
-+--+--l ~ II /
I~-
600 ~600
"'-.. ~
"Z
~

---r----- ---- -
500~~~~·~~~---~1-·~~-+--~~~---+---r---F~~ ~
__ 500 ~ '-----4 -30
' ---
~
400 --
I! --~Rl--r--r--..
__ ___ 400
1//, ------
~
~ t--
Ii I I --r--....L. I
'/ ! r--
I
- - r-.
300 f i 300

I
100 0 . 01 ·01 03 ·04 ·05 ·06 ·07 ·08 ·09 ·10 11 ·11 01 01 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 ·10 ·11 11
Gutter Longifudinal Slope, So Im/ml Gutter Longitudinal Slope, So (m/ m)

Figure A2a : Hydraulic capacity. Ut. data for 8·0 m carriageway Figure A2b : Hydraulic capacity, Ut. data for 10 ·0 m carriageway
with 375 mm gutter with 375 mm gutter

Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Dah Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Oata

Capture performance of 1'Om and 2'Om side-entry CC!pture performance of lOm and 2·0m side-entry
inl eis with and without de flectors inlets with and withou t deflectors

TYPE 1 TYPE 1

"I i
1S0m~_.".;.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
::. ~;;? 'I Zb=25-30 Zb~ 30 - 40
Gutter / Pavement Pro f ile Gutter/Pavement Prof de
N T IiQlI.S
180 0
tlnlets 'WItt-out deflect ors : lip de;l;;~~ed 50mm bel o.... . ~ : . Inlets without deflect"" lip dep'essed SOmm belCl'"
gutter invert for 1ull length.li.s . gu tter invert for full l ength.l~s .
12 Inlets with de1iectors : lip dep ressed I)Omm, defl ec tor [2. lnlets wi!h deflectors : li p depressed SOmm, deflec tor
base depressed 100 mm bel ow gutter IO vert base depressed 100 mm belo.... gutter in vert
160 0

1
3. Approach ftow: Qt. for Inlet ie ngth, l i s. other than 1-0 m
and 2·0 m vanes as Ills l. app rOXImately.
4. lnle t WIdth equals guller Width in all cases .

~ 140 140 / ...

0 ~/
z
110 ~ 120
ff
~

or
,~ :

<{
:;'" ~
I 100
I fI
"""'"
~
80 '" 80
I IAr;; "" """ .......
i I '-V

I 'ii'",
,

~ =>
'" I ,,' <:> V"
~~
~
2~
ani,
:::::::::: 95% (aptu e
60
60
b$ .:..~ """
"'"
11<_
'-.... ~
40 ff "- --........ ~
.........
11/ . ~
~ ~ ~", 'E ~
10
/
'>t ~~.......
K J-.ZS· \: t} -- t--
~ K:" r--- N % Ca
~
~ ~~

0
0 0·01 0·04 rJ06 OOb rJ1f. (J1l (I V.
o
o 0·01
--- L
\.
0·04
" 5% a fur

0·06
'-1.
0·08 0·10 0·11 0·14

GU [[,, ' LONGITUDINAL SL OP E S, I mimi GUTTER LONGITUD INAL SLOPE So I mimi

Figure : A2c Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic Figure : A2d Collation of spread and gutter inlet hydrauli c
data - 375 mm gutters, Za =8 data - 375 mm gutters, Za = 8

ARRB SR 34, 1986 119

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A3a
CAPTURE BY 4~ GRATED INlETS Z. 12
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 1)

1
Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture: 95% capture:
gutter approach fl ow, Qt = 23 Lis gutter approach flow, Qt = 22 Lis

80% capture: 80% capture:

gutter approach fl ow, Qt = 54 L/s gllt.ter approach fl ow, Qt - 47 Lis

Notes: l. 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, So, 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 Alb
CAPTURE AT 1.Om AND 2.0. SAG INLETS (GUTTER 45nm.)
(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

DESCRIPTION Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
l.Om grated inlets (undepressed)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 41 Lis 29 Lis
allowable spread = 2.~ m 63 L/~ 45 Lis

2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 63 Lis 45 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 95 Lis 68 Lis

l.Om side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 47 Lis 39 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 61 Lis 50 Lis

2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)

allowable spread = 2.0 m 94 Lis 78 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 122 Lis 100 Lis

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 - 450 mm wide
3. Grated open area not less than 60% of total area.
________________________________________________ 1

120 ARRB SR 34,1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 3 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

1300 1300
45 0mm 3' 55 m to l 450mm 4·55 m 10 l [

1200
(o ner.t,
Kerb & Gu tt , ; ;
.T J "" .'
Hotmix pa ve ment
i
I
1200
(o ner.t • .'iC J Hotmix pa vement
i
1100 ;i~' Zb ~ 25,30 or 40 1100 --,.1'" Kerb & Gutt';1 :1¢ v
Zb:25 , 30 or 40
I

!::~ '\
Ii?
Za ~ 12 Za = 12
Ji {each casel Gutter/Pavement Profil e l each case I Gutter/Pave ment Pro file

900 ~
§
"'~" ~ ~
- --r= 900
iJ
'" r-.....

~
~ iI ~ I ~ "-
(

5 80Or-- ""- 5- 800 ~

~~ ~
N ~
~
~ ~ / // ~o
u:,.. 700
~

1 7b600
l/;'/ ~
-"-
~<'
~-4.« ~
~V
~
'ru--
----- -
u:,.. 700
~
~ 600 Lrl "" "'" ~ "'-
~
'6_
'0"--£. ~

-----
--
"'- .......
~
5 f//
500
V ---+- - ;----
500
ij
...............
'--.......<' < ><

---- -----
r---
-r--
400 f-- f-- -
NO TE , For fl sh sea carri eways redu(
----- - ; - - - 400 -
NOTL For fl sh sea carri gewa ys reduc
r----
300
I indica ed flo va lue by 1 %
300
ndica d flo value by 1 V.

~ M ~ ffi ~ ~ .~ " 10 ·11 12 01 0 20304ffi~07 08 09 ·10 ·11 ·12

Gutter Long itudinal Slop., So (mi mI Gutter Longitudinal Slop. , So [mi mi
Figure A3a: Hydrau li( (apacity, a.t , data for 8·0 m carriageway Figure A3b : Hydraul ic capacity, a.t, data for 10 ·0 m carriageway .
wi th 450 mm gutter with 450mm gutter

Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Oata Gutter Inlet Hydraulic Oat a

Capture performancE! of 1·0m an d 2'Om side - entry Capture performance 01 l'Om and 2'Om side - entry
inl ei s with and without defledor s inlets .... ith and without de1 1edors

TYP E 3 TYP E 3

Gutter/ Pavement Profile Gutte r/ Paveml!nt Pro fde

180 =S 180 IiIlill

1. Inlets without defl ectors : lip dep ressed 50 mm below llnlels without de f lectors ' lip de press ed SOmm be low
I gu tter in vert for f ll ll length .li.s. gutter invert for fu ll length , Li.s

160 I 2. lnle ts with deflectors : lip de presse d SOmm, de f lector

base depressed 100 mm be low gutt er invert
2. lnle t s wit h de flect or s : li p dep ressed ~ Omm , deflect or
base de pre ssed ' 00 mm below gutter inve rt

1
' 60

1; '40
?j 3. Approach flo lo', Qt. for inle t llength,l i s . ot her than 1-0 m
and 2·0 m varies as ILL \ 1, apprOlO mate\y.
4. lnle t width equals gutter width in all oa ses.
.

~
' 40
;I'l
3. App roach flow, Qt, for inlet 2lenqfh, Li..s , other than ' ,0 m
and 2·0 m vari es as IL L 5 I, ap pr oXI mately.
4. lnl et WIdt h equals gutter width in all cases.

i5 :>:JI i5
1
z
120
,;t- hL 80"1. Capt re ~
z
120
q
::"
o/l ............. ~ ::"
r;..........
r

i --- h
I
1lO'I. aotur
~"""II
I
--
';;/. 80~ Ca ur ......... W
f 100
I~
S
100
:---
S
l :if II ~
I it '" 8• Ca otu e ~

~ 1'.§
~ ~
I il~ ~

cr 80 cr 80

=>
'"
60
I I 'if- r--
'j~
1/ , .... ,
-- 95·

95·~
Ca ure

Ca ure "\
~
-:u
~ =>
'"
60
I fIJi
I [I

ff ,;¥
---
'.i !

I I--.
,95%

9 • Ca
(, ptu

ur.
\.L.
~
~2_

1/ .... , "- .....

ff:! K
.....
40
' )1f
;:,.-. .... - -- -- 40
/11 "
r--.. .
..... 1'-

-- -- --
'/ kV ~
...... - "---> 2b!r ~~~
/ V..-:1 .....
- "- --''- ~I!i.' --
~
20

2. ~ -- -- -- r=::;. --¢. ~
......
.LI 20

.,/.~ ~'"
'* 1' ...... --'" ~£,

o
o 0·02
-- tt bQ" - --
0-04
- -
€Q.~ Coot

- ~.~ ~~ .~\
0·08 0" 0
95% ~t u

0·12
-
e
c--- f-- -
~'4
o
o 0'02
-R:; 0·04
1- _ ~ % C.ot

1-- <.2",,- ~!!!!

0-06
-
Ir--..

0·08
~e

~ r - -- - - - - -
-::::!",-
-~ ~

0" 0 0·12
~

~' 4

GUTT ER LONGIT UO INAL SLOPE So {mimI GUT TE R LONG IT UO INAL SLO PE So (mimi

Figure: A3c (ollation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic Figure : A3 d (ollation of spread and gutter inlet hydraulic
data - 450 mm gutters, Za = 12 data - 450 mm gutters, Za = 12

ARRB SR 34,1 986 121

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 4 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

TABLE A4A
CAPTURE BY soo. GRATED I ...ETS : NO GUTTER

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 1)

Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
95% capture : 95% capture:
gutter approach fl ow, Qt = 10 Lis gutter approach fl ow, Ot = 6 Lis
80% capture: 80% capture :
gutter approach fl ow, Qt = 26 Lis gutter approach fl ow. Ot = 17 Lis

Notes: 1. grated inlet - bars transverse

2. length not less than 0.75 m
3. grating open area not less than 60% of total area
4. gutter longitudinal grade, So, 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 A4b
CAPTURE AT 1.0. Aft) 2.0. SAG INlETS (NO GUTTER)

(DATA QUALITY - LEVEL 2)

I I
DESCRIPTION Zb = 25 - 30 Zb = 30 - 40
l.Om grated inlets (undep ressed)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 41 Lis 30 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 63 Lis 45 I I"
2.0 m grated inlets (undepressed)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 62 Lis 44 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 95 Lis 68 Lis
l.Om side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)
I
allowable spread = 2.0 m 31 Lis 23 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m I 44 Lis 31 Lis
2.0 m side-entry inlets (depressed 50 mm)
allowable spread = 2.0 m 62 Lis 46 Lis
allowable spread = 2.5 m 88 Lis 62 Lis

Notes :
l. 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. I
I

122 ARRB SR 34, 1986

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

TYPE 4 GUTTER/PAVEMENT PROFILE

1500 1500
4-0 m tQ t I 5-0 m to l I
I !\
1400
Conc rete
Kerb -
.q
..'
Hotmix pavement

-:J
i
i
1400

~ ~
(omret~l
Kerb -:'.
Hotmlx pavement

S i
i
1300

~
" /r Zb : 25 , 30 or 40 1300
- ;:1" Zb,25,300r40
Gutter / Pavemen t Prof il e
1200 -~j
"'- Gutter /Pavement Profile

"
~I / "
"'" I\.
~
"'~ ~
/
1100 fl !\
/
~
~

'/\ '"
I'-.....
0- 1000 0-1000
r-- ~ -l-ffu
lo'
u:
~
~
~
900
// I
I~
~
~
--- ~ ~n
<0 '
r,_
0 """'- ~
r-
lo'
u:
~
~
~
900 P I"'~" ~ ~
~
l b' 6-" ,

---
g. 800 " ~ 800
~ 700
;;;
x
600
I
I
~
'--
~

NOTE, For Uu h sea carria eways

I--
educe ind ie ted fl o vatu 5 by
I'--
---- --.l
?.Q., 30

. 2'

%
-
-----
r---
I--
--
-
~ 700

600
1/
'" i"--.

NOTE, or fl u h seal carr I ge way

educ e indicat 1d flo value
~
~
~

by 2 %
~
'25

I-
- ---
I-- I---
I--

I-
SOO SOO

-12 01 -12
Gu tter Longitudinal Slop e . So Imlm) Gutter longit udinal Sto pe , So (m/m)
Figure A4a : Hydraulic capacity, at , data for 8-0 m carriageway Figure A4b : Hydrau li c capacity, at, data for 10 -0 m carriageway
no gutter no gutter

12() 120
Gutter Inlet H~rauli c ·Oata 1 Gutter In tet H~raul ic Data

110 1 Ca pture performance of Z-Om side-entry

inle ts without de fl ectors
110 1
Capture perfor mance of Z Om side-entry
in lets Wit hout def lectors

~
N
~ TYPE 4 d TYPE 4

~ F~
N
lS0 mm "> :
100
e
N
" ~
II ;r Zb,25-30
-, 100
'"" >r lb ,30-4O
-:J

Kerb / Pavement Prof ile Kerb / Pavement Profi le

- -- ""f
1m II
90
y r-...!.
90

- - - - m

m
(I I 1m/ , / " If r--.. r-,3
SO SO
'0.
I "~ I ~ f'.... m VI ~ :---..... 4m
• I'---

,
-.......
5 70 L leulter
ngt of d press d
up str amI.
5 70
/ / 'P llJr

I'--- ........
~
eng! of d press d
c;
7!1
" II ~e fer o Fig bela
...........
~
~
a
WI; fc-- ~utt.r upstrami
-
0k
~
IRe or o Fi He ...........
3
60
;! It z
60
<-< -

-
m ~
~ ~!It;;
i3
lm
WV ;S; r- ur. r-.,41n
i3
1m 3m
4
r-- r--
IV
--I--. ----
X-
~ 5m ~
lm. /
./ c plur. ~
~
g' 6m
Q. 50
• ....6m 50
«
Om I ' -Om
«
ltv
~
~
L /5=2 Om
'" 11 '/
40 40
'"w I ~ 300m nl '"w /I W
-
~ ~
10 m
4
~
:>
G
'" r- ;
30 I n??:,,:/
75 mm depressio n
:--==
Zb ,00\

~a~t.
..
~ \ - 30

/
Sectio n at inlet -
20 ./ ~ 10
/ -
- '\: ;)Y ;'Y- ~ ~ /
- --
~ y NOTES
.'~"'
!iQ.ill

10 ~'r-.\·' Unlet lip and upstream extended gutter both

depressed 75mm bel ow kerb- sldellong rtudinall Invert. 10
l.Il Unlet lip and ups tream ex tended gutter bo th
. depressed 75 mm. bela"" kerb-slde llongrtudlnalJ Invert.
:/ 2. For information on mlet lengths greater than 2 Om,
on, II Forbes 11' 771 _
!. 'tI ~ '
./
Pf: 2. :g~~l:~rf~~~~~ (~977}~et leng th s greater than 2 Om,

o o
o 0-02 0-06 O{)S 0-10 0-12 0-14 o 0-02 006 O{)S 0-10 0-11 0-14

GUTTER LONGIT UDINAL SLOPE So (m imi GUTTER LONGITUDINAL SLOPE So (mimi

Fi gure : A4c Collation of hydraulic data for 2-0m inle ts in single Figure : A 4d Collation of hydraulic data for 2-0m inlets in single
cross slope (no gutter) carriageways - Zb =25- 30 cross slope (no gutter) carriageways- Zb = 30-40

ARRB SR 34, 1986 123

 -
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

124 ARRB SR 34, 1986

Appendix B

Forms for use by designers

Heading bl ock s for the f our main f orms used

in th e minor drainage system de s i gn procedure ..... CATCHMENT
a re provided in this appendi x. Desi gners may
copy the bloc ks and incorporate them into
blank forms appr opriate to their needs without to.)
SUB - CATCHMENT
penalty unde r Section 40 of the Copyright Act
1968. ·w SUB-AREA NODE PIT
TABLE 1 : Catchment definition data
......
This table lists all basic catchment data ~ ENTRY POINT l>-
CD
needed for the design process. The requi red r-
data are drawn from development plans, topo- GUTTER INVERT rT1
V'I
graphic surveys and hydraulic charts. LEVEL R.L. -A

TABLE 4 : Flow estimation in primary drainage COMPONENT

lines 0-

DESCRIPTION
Catchment data transferred from Table 1 to
n
Table 4 form the base for cal culating maximum
des i gn flows in all primary drainage lines.
HYDROLOGICAL ....»-
n
-J SURFACE
The table also includes provision (Remarks :I:
co lumn) for listing gutter inlet type/ s ize CLASSIFICATION 3:
rrI
selections made for DETERMINATE drainage
lines. Catchments in Northern and Intermed- (J)
AREA. OR . ....z
iate Australia (see Section 5.3, text) which EQUIVALENT AREA
0
include residenti al components show two run- TYPE OF CONTRIBUT'N .,.,
rrI

off coefficients in Column 25 - one for full- -0

CONe. OR DISTR. -z
area analysis and one for part-area analysis
..... Total length,
....-
as explained in Section 5.6, text. 0 0 0
L, metres ~
z
TABLE 6 : Flow estimation in main drain pipp- ~
1i nes .....
..... Fa II, metres .... »-
:;1!:
0
o Cl »-
Hydrological data transferred from Table 4 to
..... Effective length,
....
rrI!::
rrI -4
»-
Table 6 provide the base for calculating max- to.)
~ z
imum design flows in all main drain pipelines. L eff, metres 3:rrI

The layout of the table aids the sub-area

-z n
..... Slope So near
w
»-0
'gathering' process undertaken in STEP 6. terminal inlet r- z
Provision ' is made in Column 27 for the inclus- <
zrrl
ion of two runoff coefficients i n the case of .....
~
Carriageway r-~
rrlz
residential components in Northern and Inter- cross -slope, Zb -4Cl
mediate Australia. ..... Capacity flow
.,.,
r-
V'I 0
TABLE 8/9 Underground network hydraulic Guideline 1: Lis ~

design
Table 8/9 brings together catchment data sel-
ected from Table 1 and design flows collated
from Tables 4 and 6. Its layout enbles pipe
sizes to be selected and hydraulic grade line ,.,.,
~

..... 3:
computations to be performed. The Remarks 0-
»-
column is used to record junction pit invert ~
;>0;;
levels subject to possible downwards correct- VI
ion as part of the final design process. De-
signers must select an appropriate value for
the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, f, to be
inserted into the heading of Column 17.
Values of f are listed in Section 6.7, text.

ARRB SR 34,1986 125

 <D
co
0>

-:i
('I)
a:
TABLE 6 FLO.... ESTIMATION IN MAIN DRAIN PIPElINES: N~ -YEARS en
TIME OF ENTRY (OMPONENT PROGRESSNE IRAINFALL INTENSITIES
CO
(OMPONENT TRAVEL (HANNEL DR U/G i.n mm/h FOR
CUMULATIVE a:
SUB-AREA COMPONENT TOTAL CRITICAL MAINLINE FLOWS a:
TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL STORM PROGRESSNE CRITICAL COMPONENT UMULATNE FROM TOTAL <{
en ..... UNDERGROUND PIPE . NODE PIT TIME TO DURATION STORM URATION IN
UPSTREAM
t- a. overland allotment ~utter or u/ground NODE PIT IN TOTAL TOTAL UPSTREAM (CA)n
Z .2 (CA)n (ATCHMENT
w
~
.....
z<:l
.... 0
:l:;z
'"
.....
-'
-<
z
<:I
.....
~ c
0'-
~ ~
. flow drain natural pipe
channel travel
UPSTREAM
AREA
CATCHMENT AREA ct
'"
0:
Qn= ((~)~6ln Us
REMARKS
I ..... :r «
z t-
zuJ
Z
2 -o
u
-<
-u... --
.!'''C (analysis) (analysis) 1ull-area part- area ct ~ (analysis) (anal sis) full-area part-area
'" ..... ....
z .U (5 \:> U
E u
() t- c e c E, c tull- part- tull- part- analysis analysis
a. :> c e
.- ., E ·E , full- .part- full- part- analysis analysis
uJ
, 'E, c ...•
--.
c.. E c
t- :l:;« 0: Z
- -' u ""QI
E ·e
:r u «,
<{
() ueri CD . 0:
r
.....
0
a.
:l:; . U
c:: 0
c::
<:I
-<
u...
VI
VI
«
'E
00 ~ .. . E .z::
' c. ' ' "" ~ , , .z::
E E
QI c. - '
area
' lc area area area In for In for
Uc
.area area ar~a area Qn tor On for

-
0:
c o E c ~~
VI 0> c.QI
r 0=
c QI
tc t N= years N= years
3~ ~ z o . ~ ~ E c - E li i N= years N= years
.... ~
uJ -'
Z VI U <:I :r VI u
min .!!! ,..;;:;:: t.!!.;: QI QI .!!;
min. min min. min. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. LIs lis
<{ 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 911 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
co
a:
:::J
~
~
<{
~
en
z
z
Cl
en
w
o TABLE 4 FLOW ESTIMATION IN PRIMARY DRAINAGE LINES: N,. -YEARS
w
Cl TIME OF ENTRY COMPONENT RAINFALL 4-
)( PRIMARY
<{
z PRIMARY DRAINAGE COMPONENT TRAVEL CHANN.EL OR U/G TOTAL INTENSITIES Lnmmlh. GI
CONTRIBUTING AREA ....
TIME TO CHANNEL OR PIPE TRAVEL TO TRAVEL ==
..0 z
COMPONENl e
z
~ CONTRIBUTING AREA FOR STORM .r.
~
TOTAL FLOW ::i
....
a: t- UNDERGROUND PIPE ENTRY POINT TIME TO DURATIONS WHICH c
::l AT NOMINATED c'-
."
REMARKS
o .E (CAIn
overland allotment gutter or IU/gr~und 3~
ENTRY CD
Cl. ARE CRITICAL 4-
ENTRY POINT
~ w 0
..... co flow . drain natural pipe POINT
u
GI c: an = (CAIn Ln LI
l:)t- (Gutter inlet
a: t-
C
Z e Z '- .- channel travel VI t-
z :z::1:
ot- w
:1: z t- Z
-J
< 0
o '- '" (analysisl full-area part-area ....< GI
ell (analysisl e
U
0.36 s t -~
- selections for
- ~
U ,-'0
z ell VI full-area part-area
en t-:I:
zu < -0 t-
zW 0
- l:)
..............
u ..... co
o u .... ::> GI e ~E .-c e c e analysis analysis 0:
< .... analysis analysis ~-
.... .DETERMINATE
....L U c: E, e (T'I
W t-
, .~ full- part- $2
~ 0: Cl.
z -0:
Cl. -'
, E , . 'E
E, .c. e
, u
.... 0:..0 lines included
..... ell GI, .c.
<, >- ~~ 'E .c. E E area area tull- part-
, ell C. , , .....0> , '
e u..
< V) ....
:I: , 0
Cl. u 0: 0 .c.
..... ion for ion for .E Cl. Cn for <ell
an for Cl.

-
V) 0 _

-_
'-'CD CD 0:
:1: C 0: < 0 - 0>
:g - ell c -- ell tc t ·I area area >- N= years N= years L~ - here I
t-:J :;:) t-
z 0
V)
u.J >- :J -J '- nl co
0>
E cIII ==E ..... c - E ell '" .- E N= years N= years "c . t-
;:)V) V) u.J U c :z: V) u
min. ~ 0;; .....
1'0 .-
~ ~z
- ..... min min. ha
u
ha. ha. borC LIs LIs
Ot-
'-'-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

<D
C\J
 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

-lo

N
I CATCHMENT
SUB- CATCHMENT
\JJ SUB-AREA NODE PIT
JUNCTION PIT AND
~I
GUTTER INVERT R.L's

COMPONENT
t..nl
DESCRIPTION

0- I FLOW ' Lis

-.l I LENGTH m
CD I LONGITUDINAL SLOPE
-0 I GUIDELINE 4 ~
):>
(Table 6, 4.) -4
rn
::0-0
<51 GUIDELINE 5 --l
(Table 6·4)
,-4
rn
»
< OJ
.... ,;0 ASSIGNED WATER ,
rn I
rn
..... :- LEVEL (AWl) (X)

N 13 TRIAL PIPE DIAMETER Do "-

~

. ~ 1 VELOCITY, Vo= ano m/s

..... PIT LOSS CASE
~ I !Tables 6'5 & 6'6)
.....
V1
;:0:
.:
-0
-4
-lo
0- 3 "'10<
0.0 ..., ~
):>
..... -4
-.l 3 hf= Yoo(VO/2 ,.."
::0

~ 3 Kw ( 0/'2g J ,
-
):>
~
-..::r
..
,.."
<
,
, -4 ,.."
rn
~ ;:0: rn
~ 13 0- I //\ ~ V1 V1
. CD -4
:j
,~ "'Icf=
0.0
'-----'
Io.l
-0
-u
~ 13 AWL :nus BWL
rn
o
};

~ 13
~
rn
0-
.
l>
,
~

I
CD .\V
-......
::r

Vi
-4
rn
V1
-4
~
rn
-4
,.."
::0
0; ~ · 0 V1
0 '" QO

~ I~ ADOPTED DIAMETER ;::x:

Cl
r
N I~ BWL & HYDRAULIC ):>
\JJ ~ GRADE LINE z
CD ):>
,
):>

-<
,~ ,~
III In
V1

r=r OJ Vl
o VI
~ VI
~ _ . ::0
o 0.0 ,.."
Z
3 ~ 15 II

N -S~):> I
~ =+"0
. =+ ::0
;:0: -<
I'T1
~ - Vl ):>
OJ .:
~ OJ ::0
...,
m m
-..., V1

iii' ro
< m
m <

ARRB SR 34, 1986 127

 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN IN SMALL URBAN CATCHMENTS

128 ARRB SR 34, 1986

Symbols and abbreviations
A drainage unit area (ha)
Ai impervious drainage unit area
Ao junction pit outflow pipe area
(= 1TD~/ 4)
pervious drainage unit area
AEP annual exceedence probability (years)
ARI average recu rrence i nterva 1 (yea rs)
AR&R 'Australian Rainfall and Runoff'
AWL junction pit assigned water level
(see Fig. 6.12)
BWL junction pit bottom water level
(see Fig. 6.12)
C runoff coefficient
Ci runoff coefficient - impervious area
runoff coefficient - pervious area
weighted runoff coefficient
[see eqn (4.7) ]
Cy runoff coefficient, ARI = V-years
(CA) equivalent impervious area (ha)
d triangular channel flow depth (m)
kerb-side flow depth
pavement edge flow depth
di gutter sag inlet water depth above
lip
D pipe diameter (mm or m)
junction pit outflow pipe diameter
Dt diameter, cross-connection pipe
(see Table 6.4)
f Darcy-Weisbach friction factor
[see eqn (6.14) ]
Fy frequency conversion factor
(see Table 5.5)
FRC fibre-reinforced cement (pipes)
ARRB SR 34,1986
g gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2
hf pipe friction headloss
junction pit headloss (water level)
H.G.L. hydraulic grade line
average rainfall intensity (mm/h)
average rainfall intensity,
ARI = V-years
i average rainfall intensity,
10'1
ARI = 10-years, duration = 1 hour
k pipe boundary roughness (mm or m)
1/2
K coefficient of So in eqn (6.9),
Fig. 6.2
hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
junction pit headloss coefficient
(water level)
length of overland travel as shallow
sheet flow (m) (see Fig. 5.3)
limit of overland travel as shallow
sheet fl ow
L carriageway or pipe length (m)
Leff effective length of drainage path
(see Table 1, Chapter 11)
Lig grating inlet perimeter (m),
excluding kerb
side-entry inlet opening length (m)
M-years design ARI for major system 'gap
flow' (see Table 5.2 A & B)
n Manning's 'n' (see Section 5.5,
Table 6.1)
Manning's 'n' - gutter
% Manning's 'n' - pavement
Reynold's Number =
\J
129
N- yea rs design ARI for minor system drainage channel longitudinal slope
(see Table 5.2 A & B) (m/m) .

o discharge rate (m 3 /s or Lis) t time (mins)

Oc roadway reserve capacity flow time of concentration or travel time

(see Table 9.1A)
discharge rate - full area
(see Section 4.5)
triangular channel gutter flow com-
ponent or "f ronta 1 fl ow"
from extremity of pervious area
t i travel time from extremity of
impervi ous area
TAi tri butary (impervi ous) area
(s ee Td b I e ~ . 2)

Og gutter flow to junction pit via inlet T.N.P. terminal node pit (see Section 7.1)
T.N.S. terminal node section
Ogap 'gap flow' (see Section 5.4) (see Section 7.1)

Oi gutter sag inlet flow v velocity (m/s)

Vave channel flow average velocity
01 lateral pipe flow to junction pit
peak discharge rate, ARI = N-years junction pit outflow pipe average
On velocity (= Oo/Ao)
00 outflow discharge from catchment or
from junction pit w width of flow spread from kerb (m)

Op discharge rate - part area V-years general ARI expression

(see Section 4.5)
peak discharge rate Z reciprocal of channel cross-slope
Opeak
Osc roadway reserve storage-corrected Za reciprocal of gutter cross-slope
flow (see Table 9.1B)
reciprocal of pavement cross-slope
Ot triangular or composite channel
total flow
B triangular flow correction factor
Ou upstream pipe flow to junction pit (see Section 6.1)

Oy peak discharge rate, ARI = V-years channel flow multiplier

R hydraulic radius (m)
(see Section 6~1)
RD residential density (residences/ha)
S slope of natural surface (m/m)
(st:!t:! Fi y. 5.4)
e upstream-downstream pipe deviation
angle at junction pit (see Table 6.6)
v kinematic viscosity (water)
1.14 x 10-6 m2 /s at 15°C

130 ARRB SR 34, 1986