Hydarulic Design

CIVL3101

Abstract
This report has been written to prepare a suggestion of which conduit out of
trapezoidal, triangular, parabolic, and rectangular will best to satisfy the requirements
of an open channel flow between a freshwater river and a storm water reservoir due
to a population increase. To do so the SWMM modeling software was used to obtain
flow depths and velocities to calculate weather each conduit was sufficient for the
flow rate which was further backed up with hand calculations. There is a separate
scenario which only affects the triangular conduit into which the flow rate was
increased and thus the dimensions were increased to satisfy this flow increase. The
cost of each conduit was then evaluated in which the costs were compared with the
volume to find the most cost-effective option in which the trapezoidal had the highest
ratio between cost and volume making it the most cost-efficient Jordansolution
Leigh |despite
46454586its
large cost in comparison with the other 3 options. Jordan.Leigh@students.mq.edu.au
Contents
Background Information..........................................................................................................................2
SWMM Model.........................................................................................................................................2
Assumptions.............................................................................................................................................2
Given Data...........................................................................................................................................2
Conduit Dimensions............................................................................................................................2
Project Defaults....................................................................................................................................3
ID Labels..........................................................................................................................................3
Nodes/Links.....................................................................................................................................3
Junction................................................................................................................................................3
Conduit.................................................................................................................................................4
Outfall..................................................................................................................................................4
Results......................................................................................................................................................5
Trapezoidal Conduit.............................................................................................................................5
Concrete cost....................................................................................................................................5
Water Depth.....................................................................................................................................6
Triangular Conduit...............................................................................................................................7
Concrete Cost...................................................................................................................................7
Water Depth.....................................................................................................................................8
Parabolic Conduit................................................................................................................................9
Concrete cost....................................................................................................................................9
Water Depth...................................................................................................................................10
Rectangular Conduit..........................................................................................................................11
Concrete cost..................................................................................................................................11
Water Depth...................................................................................................................................12
Comparison of Hand Calculated and Model Flow Depths................................................................12
Triangular Conduit Wet-Season Alteration........................................................................................13
Cost to Volume Analysis....................................................................................................................14
Discussion..............................................................................................................................................15
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................17
References..............................................................................................................................................18
Appendix................................................................................................................................................19

1
Background Information
Due to an increase in population, more fresh water is required to supply this increasing demand. The
council has planned to create a canal between a freshwater river and a stormwater reservoir in which
the water will then be treated for use. This report will use the software EPA Storm Water
Management Model (SWMM) to design and analyse the canal to make sure it is satisfactory for the
desired purpose. Using SWMM the canals metrics will be calculated for 4 different conduit types
being trapezoidal, parabolic, triangular, and rectangular in which results will vary due to different
surface area contact between the conduit and the water.

SWMM Model

Figure 1- SWMM Model

Assumptions
Given Data
Initial Flowrate = 2m3/s
Wet Season Flowrate = 10m3/s
Start Elevation = 150m
Final Elevation = Start Elevation−Length × Slope = 142m

Length of System = 15000m

Slope of System = 0.05%
Conduit Roughness = 0.02
1m3 concrete = $1 for cost analysis

Conduit Dimensions
Conduit Shape Width (m) Height (m) Left Slope Angle Right Slope Angle
Trapezoidal 2.6 2.6 45 45
Parabolic 2.6 3.6 N/A N/A
Triangular 3.6 3.6 63.435 63.435
Rectangular 2.6 2.6 N/A N/A
Table 1

2
Project Defaults
ID Labels
Object ID Prefix
Junctions J-
Outfalls O-
Storage Units S-
Conduits C-
Table 2

Nodes/Links
Option Default Value
Conduit Length 15000m
Conduit Geometry Circular
Conduit Roughness 0.02
Flow Units CMS
Link Offsets Depth
Routing Method Steady Flow
Force Main Equation Hazen-Williams
Table 3

Junction
Property Value
Name J-1
Inflows Yes
Constituent Flow
Baseline 2
Scale Factor 1.0
Treatment No
Invert Elevation 150 m
Table 4

3
Conduit
Property Value
Name C-1
Inlet Node J-1
Outlet Node O-1
Shape Trapezoidal or Parabolic or Triangular or
Rectangular
Max Depth 2.6
Length 15000 m
Roughness 0.02
Flap Gate No
Inlets No
Table 5

Outfall
Properties Value
Name O-1
Inflows No
Treatment No
Invert Elevation 142.5
Tide Gate 2 No
Type Free
Table 6

4
Results
Trapezoidal Conduit

Figure 2 - Trapezoidal WEP

Node Type Average Maximum Maximum Maximum

Depth (m) Depth (m) HGL (m) Reported
Depth (m)
J-1 Junction 0.79 0.79 150.79 0.79
O-1 Outfall 0.79 0.79 143.29 0.79
Table 7 – Trapezoidal Depth and HGL

Link Max Flow (CMS) Max Velocity Max Flow Max Depth
(m/s)
C-1 2 0.75 0.11 0.3
Table 8 - Trapezoidal Link Flow

Concrete cost
2 2 2
2.6 +2.6 =13.52 =3.677 m
2
A1 , A 2=3.677 × 0.2=0.735 m

A3 =
(( 1
2 ) )
×0.2 ×0.2 ×2 + 2.6 ×0.2=0.56 m
2

2
A=A 1 + A 2 + A3= ( 0.735× 2 ) +0.56=2.03 m
3
Total Concrete=2.03 ×15000=30450 m

5
Water Depth

(
Ac =h b+
h
tan ∅)=h (2.6+h)

2h
P=b+ =2.6+2.828 h
sin ∅
Ac h(2.6 +h)
Rh = =
P (2.6 +2.828 h)
2 1
1
Q= × Ac × Rh 3 × So 2
n

( )
2 1
1 h ( 2.6+h ) 3
2= × h ( 2.6+h ) × × 0.0005 2
0.02 ( 2.6+2.828 h )
5
(h (2.6+h))
5.726=
(2.6+2.828 h)2

h=0.78562 m

6
Triangular Conduit

Figure 3 – Triangular WEP

Node Type Average Maximum Maximum Maximum

Depth (m) Depth (m) HGL (m) Reported
Depth (m)
J-1 Junction 2.35 2.35 152.35 2.35
O-1 Outfall 2.35 2.35 144.85 2.35
Table 9 - Triangular Depth and HGL

Link Max Flow (CMS) Max Velocity Max Flow Max Depth
(m/s)
C-1 2 0.73 0.32 0.65
Table 10 - Triangular Link Flow

Concrete Cost
2 2 2
3.6 +1.8 =16.2 =4.025 m
2 2 2
2.024 +3.8 =18.537 =4.305 m
4.025+ 4.305 2
A 1 , A 2= × 0.2=0.833 m
2
2
A=A 1 + A 2=0.833 × 2=1.666 m
3
Total Concrete=1.666 × 15000=24990 m

7
Water Depth
2
Ac =h cot ⁡(63.435)
2h
P=
sin ⁡(63.435)
A c h2 cot ⁡(63.435)
Rh = =
P 2h
sin ⁡(63.435)
2 1
1
Q= × Ac × Rh 3 × So 2
n

( )
2 1
1 2 h 2 cot ( 63.435 ) 3
2= × h cot ( 63.435 ) × × 0.0005 2 =2.345 m
0.02 2h
sin ( 63.435 )

8
Parabolic Conduit

Figure 4 – Parabolic WEP

Node Type Average Maximum Maximum Maximum

Depth (m) Depth (m) HGL (m) Reported
Depth (m)
J-1 Junction 2.02 2.02 152.02 2.02
O-1 Outfall 2.02 2.02 144.52 2.02
Table 11 - Parabolic Depth and HGL

Link Max Flow (CMS) Max Velocity Max Flow Max Depth
(m/s)
C-1 2 0.76 0.33 0.56
Table 12 - Parabolic Flow Link

Concrete cost

Arc Length=
1 2
2
√ b + ( 16 × a2 ) +
b2
8×a
ln(4 × a+ √ b2 +16+ a2
b )
¿
1
2
√ 2.62 + ( 16 ×3.6 2 ) +
2.62
(
8 × 3.6
ln
2.6 )
4 × 3.6+ √ 2.62 +16+3.6 2
=7.8828 m

2
A=7.8828× 0.2=1.57656 m
3
Total Concrete=1.57656 × 15000=23648.4 m

9
Water Depth
At y=0 , x=(1.3 ,−1.3)
At x=0 , y=−3.6
169
( x +1.3 , x −1.3 )=x 2− 2
=x −1.69
100
zy=−1.69
−1.69 −1.69
z= = =0.4694
y −3.6
c=2.20−3.6=−1.58
2 2
x −x
−1.58= − y= −3.6
z 0.4694

x= √
237047
=0.9737
500
Using SWMM Model , a=water depth=2.02 m , b=2 x=1.9474 m
2 2 2
Ac = × b × a= × 1.9474 ×2.02=2.6225 m
3 3

P=
1 2
2
√ b + ( 16× a2 ) +
b2
8×a
ln (
4 × a+ √ b2 +16+ a2
b )
P=
1
2
√ 1.9474 2+ ( 16 ×2.022 ) +
1.9474 2
8 ×2.02 (
ln
4 × 2.02+ √ 1.9474 2 +16+2.022
1.9474 )=4.656 m

A c 2.6225
Rh = = =0.56325
P 4.656
2 1
1
Q= × Ac × Rh 3 × So 2
n
2 1
1
Q= × 2.6225 ×0.56325 3 ×0.0005 2 =1.9997 ≈ 2m3 / s
0.02
∴ The water depth 2.02m isthe max depthfor the parabolic conduit

10
11
Rectangular Conduit

Figure 5 - Rectangular WEP

Node Type Average Maximum Maximum Maximum

Depth (m) Depth (m) HGL (m) Reported
Depth (m)
J-1 Junction 1 1 151 1
O-1 Outfall 1 1 143.5 1
Table 13 - Rectangular Depth and HGL

Link Max Flow (CMS) Max Velocity Max Flow Max Depth
(m/s)
C-1 2 0.77 0.29 0.39
Table 14 - Rectangular Link Flow

Concrete cost
2
A1 , A 2=0.2 ×2 .8=0.56 m
2
A3 =2.6 ×0.2=0.52 m
2
A=A 1 + A 2 + A3= ( 0.56 ×2 ) +0.52=1.64 m
3
Total Concrete=1.64 × 15000=24600 m

12
Water Depth
Ac =b ×h=2.6 h

P=b+2 h=2.6 +2 h
Ac 2.6 h
Rh = =
P 2.6+2 h
2 1
1
Q= × Ac × Rh 3 × So 2
n
1
1 2.6 h 23
2= × 2.6 h ×( ) × 0.0005 2 =1.00468 m
0.02 2.6 +2 h

Comparison of Hand Calculated and Model Flow Depths

Conduit Hand Calculated Flow Depth (m) Model Flow Depth (m)
Trapezoidal 0.78562 0.79
Triangular 2.345 2.35
Parabolic 2.02 2.02
Rectangular 1.00468 1
Table 15 - Hand Calculated and Model Flow Depths

The above table compares the models flow depths and the hand calculated flow depths to see whether
there was similarity in each. Both calculations use the manning equation to compute these values, so it
was expected that the values are extremely close to each other.

13
Triangular Conduit Wet-Season Alteration
During the wet season there is an 8m3/s max flowrate increase which brings the flow rate for this
calculation to 10m3/s. To Accommodate for this, change the triangular conduit’s dimensions will need
to be altered allowing for the increase in flowrate to remain between the 50%-80% depth requirement.
The calculation for the water depth of the original conduit will initially be used to identify whether the
original dimensions satisfy the flow increase.

2
Ac =h cot ⁡(63.435)
2h
P=
sin ⁡(63.435)
A c h2 cot ⁡(63.435)
Rh = =
P 2h
sin ⁡(63.435)
2 1
1
Q= × Ac × Rh 3 × So 2
n

( )
2 1
1 2 h 2 cot ( 63.435 ) 3
10= ×h cot ( 63.435 ) × × 0.0005 2 =4.28889 m
0.02 2h
sin ( 63.435 )

3.952>3.6 ∴ Conduit ¿ nsufficent For Increase∈ Flowrate

From the above calculations it can be seen that the water depth exceeds the original triangular
conduits height and thus the dimensions of the conduit must be altered to accommodate the increased
flowrate. When changing the dimensions of the triangular conduit, the aim will be to have a water
depth that is close to 80% depth as to reduce the cost of the conduit. The method used to do so
involves trial and error using the SWMM software to aim for a depth that is 80% of the height. The
below table will include the values used in the process of trial and error and the depth percentage for
each dimension change.

Trial Height (m) Top Width (m) Depth (m) Depth

Percentage (%)
Original 3.6 3.6 3.6 Over 100
1 3.7 3.7 3.7 Over 100
2 3.9 3.9 3.9 Over 100
3 4.3 4.3 4.29 99.767
4 4.9 4.9 4.29 87.551
5 5.1 5.1 4.29 84.118
6 5.3 5.3 4.29 80.943
7 5.35 5.35 4.29 80.187
8 5.39 5.39 4.29 79.591
Table 16 - Wet Season Triangular Conduit Flow Rate Trial

14
Cost to Volume Analysis
To decide which of the 4 conduit options is the best for the situation the cost and volume of each
conduit will be evaluated creating a ratio, this ratio will decide which conduit is the most efficient for
the lowest cost. This will allow the most suitable conduit to be identified and will be able to withstand
a higher flowrate if the population were to grow increasing the amount of water required to satisfy the
increase. In the below table the volume and cost of each conduit will be compared and computed into
a ratio which will allow for the best conduit to be identified. This table will be used in the discussion
to identify the best conduit for the given scenario.

Conduit Max Volume (m3) Cost $ Ratio

Trapezoidal 202800 30450 6.66
Triangular 97200 24990 3.89
Parabolic 93600 23648.4 3.96
Rectangular 101400 24600 4.12
Table 17 - Cost to Volume Ratio

15
Discussion
Throughout this report, the goal was to compare 4 different conduit designs and evaluate some of their
properties such as cost and normal water depth. To do so the SWMM modelling software was used to
gather the HGL and flow depth at the flow rate 2m3/s using the simple 2-point system.

The velocity and maximum depths have been obtained for all the conduits using the SWMM software
in which the values for trapezoidal are in tables 7-8, for triangular in tables 9-10, for parabolic in
tables 11-12, and for rectangular in tables 13-14. To find weather there is a surcharge within the
different systems, the average depth must remain the same or less than the max depth in order for
there to be no surcharge. As all the average depths and max depths are exactly the same there is no
surcharge for any of the conduits. The continuity equation that is being used is: ρ V 1 A 1=ρ V 2 A 2

Therefore, as the density, velocity, and cross-sectional area are all constant throughout all conduits,
the continuity equation is satisfied by the obtained data from the SWMM model.

Across all of the Water Elevation Profiles (WEP’s) the flow height depth remained static for each
conduit type. Due to the constant flow and no interference within the channel the WEP remained the
same across all conduits with the same gradient. This can be seen in figures 2-5 as all the WEPs have
a constant gradient which is shown by the linear water profile and hydraulic grade line proving that
there were no external changes such as flow or additional inflows along the conduit.

The Water elevation profile as well as water depth was monitored using the SWMM models to give a
max flow depth for each design option in which the manning equation was used to produce our own
hand calculated depths. Using table 11 it can easily be seen that the hand calculations flow depths are
extremely similar to the models flow depths which was to be expected as the software was also using
the manning equation to compute these values. The largest difference in values was the triangular
conduit in which the difference was 0.005m showing that the calculated values are correct and that the
minor difference within the values would be due to rounding throughout the calculations. The key
idea within the hand calculations was to find the cross sectional area and perimeter in terms of water
depth in which these equations could substitute the cross sectional area and permitter to allow for the
depth to be found at specific flow rate. If the depth was higher than the conduits height, the
dimensions would need to be altered to accommodate but that was not the case for the 4 scenarios.

To suggest a which conduit is the most cost effective, the volume to cost ratio was evaluated to give
numerical value to each of the 4 options. Out of the 4 options it can be seen that the trapezoidal has
the highest ratio in accordance with table 17 meaning it is the most cost effective as it has the largest
volume, but it has the largest cost. The ratio values were calculated by dividing the Max Volume of
202800m3 with the total cost of $30450 in which the ratio 6.66 was calculated. This makes it the most
ideal if there were to be a further population increase. Although the trapezoidal conduit has the highest
ratio, it is still $5010 more expensive than that of the next highest price. The prices of the remaining
options have a total variation of $1341.6 in which the rectangular conduit has the next best ratio of
4.12 with a total volume of 101400m3 and a cost of $24600. Now that the options have been narrowed
down to 2 it can be said that the trapezoidal conduit is best for its cost effectiveness and ability to hold
exactly double the amount of water than the rectangular for only $5010 increase in price thus

16
according to the ratio calculations the trapezoidal conduit best suits the scenario when considering the
overall volume and cost effectiveness.

Within this report there was a specific scenario into in which the flow rate was increased to 10m 3/s
due to the wet season in which the triangular conduit was considered with the requirement that the
flow depth is between 50%-80% of the conduit’s height. When increasing the flow rate the original
triangular conduits dimensions were insufficient to withstand the increased flow depth. The flow
depth was calculated to be 3.952m for the increased flow rate which exceeds the triangular conduit’s
height of 3.6m by 0.352m. To find the most cost efficient the aim was to get a value relatively close to
80$ to satisfy the requirement whilst keeping the cost as low as possible. To calculate the dimensions
of the new triangular conduit which satisfies the flow and flow depth percentage requirements the
trial-and-error table was employed in which the values can be found in table 16. With 8 trials being
calculated the final dimensions were a width and height of 5.39m for a total depth 4.29m which is
79.591% of the conduit’s height.

Conclusion
Throughout this report several different aspects of the open channel flow were analysed and modelled
to evaluate whether the conduits were able to satisfy the given requirements. It was quickly found that
according to the models results that all the conduits were able to satisfy the flow depths that were
produced by a 2m3/s flow rate. These results were then compared with hand calculations that
consisted of using the manning equation in which the flow depths obtained were extremely close to
that of the models’ values showing that the hand calculations were computed correctly. Once all
conduits flow depths had been obtained and checked that they were within the height dimensions of
the conduit’s the cost analysis could commence. This process involved finding the cross sectional area
of the concrete and multiplying the value by the length in which the lowest concrete volume would be
the cheapest with the trapezoidal being the most expensive and the parabolic being the cheapest. The
max volume of water that could be within the conduit was then turned into a ratio with the cost to
show which conduit would be the most cost effective. With the trapezoidal having the largest. Thus,
using the evidence gathered in this report it can be said that the trapezoidal conduit would be the most
cost-effective choice due to it volume to cost ratio and its ability to hold the largest flow out of all the
conduit types.

17