Technical Note

Summary In this Note the design of roof gutters is based on a solution of the gradually varied flow
equation with uniform lateral inflow entering the gutter at right angles to the flow. The flow capacities
of standard valley, boundary wall, northlight, box and rectangular eaves gutters were determined for a
full range of lengths and for typical gradients of zero, 1 in 600 and 1 in 350. It is shown that BS 6367 is
somewhat conservative in predicting capacities for short horizontal channels. For gutters laid to a fall of
1 in 600 the capacity usually increases slightly with increasing length except for gutters of small cross-
section, and for gutters laid to a steeper fall the capacity increases with increasing length of gutter.

Hydraulic design of roof drainage gutters

J A Anderson MA PhD CEng MICE MIWEM
School of the Built Environment, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB UK

List of symbols Tabic 1 Flow capacities of short horizontal trapezoidal gutters&dquo;’

B Width at water surface (m)

L Length of gutter (m)
Q Flowrate (1 S-I)
n Manning’s coefficient of surface roughness
A Area of water cross-section (m2)
g Acceleration due to gravity (m s-2)
dQ/dx Lateral inflow per unit length of channel (ml s-1)
s Friction slope
so Bed slope
x Distance from origin measured down the slope (m)
y Depth of flow (m)
ym~,~ Maximum permitted depth of water in gutter (m)
1 Introduction
A recent paper(’) discusses the basis of design for draining
roof areas where a design rainfall of 75 mm h-I is usually satis-
factory for roof gutters where overtopping is not likely to
occur inside a building, and where some risk to the contents
of the building may be acceptable in other cases. Runoff from
roofs is usually calculated on the basis that the surfaces are
impermeable.
2 Hydraulic design
In BS b3G7~z~ the method of design is based on the
assumptions:
(a) The gutter slope is nominally level, and certainly
steeper than 1 in 350.
(b) The gutter has a uniform cross-sectional shape.
(c) The outlets are large enough to allow the gutter
charge freely.
The flow capacities of horizontal trapezoidal gutters comply-
ing with BS 569<3) and discharging freely are given in Table 1.
The cross-sections are trapezoidal and the stated dimensions
are for top width, depth and base width respectively.
The overall depth of a gutter should be greater than the depth
required to give the design capacity, so as to prevent it being
overtopped by splashing or by waves produced by strong
winds. For valley, parapet and boundary wall gutters, the
amount of freeboard should be taken as two-fifths of the max-
imum depth of flow in the gutter, with an upper limit of
75 mm~. For eaves gutters, no allowance need normally be
made provided that any overflow from the gutter falls clear of
the building.
In a level gutter, the depth of flow is greatest at the upstream
end and decreases towards the outlet, where the theoretical
depth at the free overfall is equal to the critical depth.
Assuming that steady-state conditions are reached before the
rainfall stops, a simplified method of design using the gradu-
ally varied flow equation for spatially varied flow can be used
in the form
following
In this equation both Q and y are variables. An accurate
method of solution is by the Runge-Kutta fourth-order pro-
not
cedure<5~, working backwards from the free overfall.
The equations were programmed for solution using a digital
computer, and it was assumed that the lateral inflow was uni-
to dis- form along the complete length of channel. The friction effect
depends on the roughness of the internal surface of the gutter
and Manning’s coeflicient of surface roughness n was used.
Typical values of » are given in Table 2.
There are several complicating factors:
(i) The effect of lateral inflow causes additional turbulence
and energy losses compared with those for typical chan-
nels with a constant flowrate along the length of the
channel~6~. This will increase the effective n value.

223
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on April 11, 2015
Table 2 Aianning’s coefficient of
surface roughness
(ii) The effect of lateral inflow is probably greater near the
upstream end of the gutter where the flow velocity is
small.
(iii) Although the flow towards the downstream end of the
gutter is usually rough turbulent, the flow near the
upstream end will be laminar. Manning’s equation is
based on the assumption that the flow is rough turbulent.
Not all gutters are in a straight line, and discharge from a val-
ley is effectively a point discharge. In addition there will be
increased flow resistance caused by any bend. A design
method to deal with 90° bends is given by Crabb(7).
Three values of n were chosen for the computation, namely n
equals 0.010, 0.015 and 0.020 to cover the full range of possi-
ble n values. The flow capacities given in Table 3 are based on
the theoretical analysis using these values of n for short gut-
ters, with the length of gutter taken as fifty times the maxi-
mum permitted depth of flow. This gives a gutter length typi-
cally of the order of 5 m.
Table 3 Flow capacities (1 s-’) of short horizontal trapezoidal
ing for freeboard
Comparing the flow capacities of Table 3 with those of Table
1 shows that the values in Table 3 are approximately 20%
higher than the comparable values in Table 1, thus providing
an additional safety factor in addition to the allowance for
freeboard.
For completeness, the flow capacities of horizontal rectangu-
lar gutters specified in BS 569 as box gutters have been calcu-
lated and are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Flow capacities (1 s-1) of short horizontal box gutters allowing for
freeboard
In addition, for typical eaves gutters of rectangular cross-sec-
tion the flow capacities have been calculated and are given in
Table 5. In this case, there is no allowance for freeboard.
224
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on April 11, 2015
Table 5 Flow capacities (1 s-1) of short horizontal eaves gutters of rectangu-
lar cross section (with no freeboard)
3 Capacities of long gutters and gutters laid to a fall
The effect of frictional resistance should be taken into
account if the length of a gutter exceeds 50 times the maxi-
mum permitted depth of flow (ym.). For a horizontal pipe,
the gutter length is defined as either the distance between a
stop end and an outlet, or as half the distance between two
adjacent outlets. For sloping pipes, it is assumed in this paper
that the gutter length is taken from a stop end to an outlet.
The flow capacity of long horizontal gutters was determined
theoretically and the capacity was found the reduce with
increasing gutter length due to the effect of frictional resis-
tance. If the gutter is laid to a fall, the effect of gravity on the
flow is significant and becomes increasingly so as the down-
ward gradient increases. Typical gradients for gutters are I in
600 and 1 in 350. The results for all the different types of gut-
ter used in this investigation are given in Table 6 using a typi-
cal value of Manning’s 11 0.015. =
gutters allow-
The position of maximum depth moves away from the
upstream end of the gutter as the slope increases from the
horizontal position. This movement is considerably greater
for the longer gutters. For example:
(a) For L/ymaY 50 the positions of maximum depth are
=
approximately 1/4 and 1/3 of the way down the gutter for
slopes of 1/600 and 1/350 respectively.
(b) For L/y max 400 the positions of maximum depth are
=
approximately 2/3 and 4/5 of the way down the gutter for
slopes of 1/600 and 1/350 respectively.
4 Horizontal gutters
Compared with results for a short gutter, the capacity of a
horizontal gutter reduces with increasing length of gutter,
and for L/y max 400 the reduction factor usually lies between
=
0.67 and 0.77 depending on the particular gutter cross-sec-
tion.
5 Gutters laid to a fall
For a gradient of I in 600, the gutter capacity usually increas-
es slightly with increasing gutter length. However, for the
smallest box gutter and the two small rectangular eaves gut-
ters the capacity reduces slightly with increasing length: nev-
ertheless for Lm3~ 400 the capacity of these gutters is still
=
slightly greater than that for the corresponding short horizon-
tal gutter.
For a gradient of 1 in 350, the gutter capacity usually increas-
es substantially with increasing gutter length, with the excep-
tion of the two rectangular eaves gutters where the capacity
initially increases with Llyma~ and then reduces slightly for
Lly.. 400. Even so, the capacity is still considerably higher
=
than that for the corresponding short horizontal gutter. For
Llymax = 400, the overall average capacity at a gradient of
Table 3 Flow capacities (1 r’) of gutters for a range of lengths with n
1/350 is approximately 80% greater than for a horizontal gut-
ter of the same length.
6 Conclusions
For short horizontal trapezoidal gutters the British Standard
BS6367 is somewhat conservative to the order of 20% in
terms of flow capacity. For horizontal gutters, the capacity
reduces with increasing length of gutter to about 70% of that
for a short gutter when L/ym~ 400. =
For gutters laid to a slope of 1/600, the capacity usually
increases slightly with increasing length, although for rectan-
gular eaves gutters and small box gutters there is a small
reduction in capacity with increasing length.
For gutters laid to a slope of 1/350, the capacity usually
increases with increasing gutter length. For a long gutter with
L/ym~ = 400 and laid to a slope of 1/350, the flow capacity is
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS on April 11, 2015
=
0.0155
approximately 80% greater than for the corresponding hori-
zontal gutter of the same length.
References
1 Anderson J A Design of true half-round eaves gutters Building Serv.
Eng. Res. Technol. 14(1) 17-21 (1993)
2 Drainage of roofs and paved areas British Standard Code of Practice 6367
(London: British Standards Institution) (1983)
3 Specification for asbestos-cement rainwater goods British Standard 569
(London: British Standards Institution) (1973)
4 French R H Open-channel Hydraulics (New York: McGraw-Hill)
pp247-250 (1986)
5 Grossman S I and Derrick W R Advanced Engineering Marhematics
(New York: Harper and Row) pp825-831 (1988)
6 May R W P Design of gutters and gutter outlets Hydraulics Research
Report IT 205(1982)
7 Crabb F J and Turner P F An investigation into roof drainage by eaves gut-
ters Report E 811 (Garston: Building Research Station) (1958)
225