Joint Defra/EA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk

Management R&D Programme

Preliminary rainfall runoff management
for developments





R&D Technical Report W5-074/A/TR/1
Revision E





Produced: January 2012



Author(s): R Kellagher



ii
Statement of use
This document provides information for DEFRA and Environment Agency Staff
about consistent standards for flood defence and constitutes an R&D output
from the Joint DEFRA / Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D
Programme.

Contract Statement
This Guide was commissioned by the Environment Agency. The original project
number was MAS0813. The project manager was Richard Kellagher with
technical assistance provided by Ms V Jacot. The Environment Agency
manager was Geoff Gibbs supported by Andrew Pepper.

Revision E was guided by Geoff Gibbs (Environment Agency) and produced by
Richard Kellagher (HR Wallingford). This revision was an update to ensure
relevant references were given along with the inclusion of another method of
estimating greenfield runoff rates, using the Q
MED
equation from the Flood
Estimation Handbook (FEH). This report is produced as part of HR Wallingford
project MAY0405.

The HR Wallingford reference for this document is SR 744.

Keywords:


Research contractor:
HR Wallingford Ltd
Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon, OX108BA
Tel: +44(0)1491835381
(For contractor quality control purposes this report is also numbered EX 6562)

Defra project officer:
Geoff Gibbs

Publishing organisation
Environment Agency
Horizon House
Deanery Road
Bristol BS1 5AH
Tel: 03708506506
Environment Agency
Original issue: September 2005
Current version: January 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission
of the DEFRA and the Environment Agency.
Executive summary iii
Executive summary

The purpose of this document
This Guide is aimed at Regulators, Developers and Local Authorities to provide
advice on the management of stormwater drainage for developments and in
particular to assist in sizing of storage elements for the control and treatment of
stormwater runoff. The Guide is based on the requirements of this Interim
Procedure which was commissioned by the Environment Agency.

This revision is produced to take account of changes and practices that have
occurred since the document was first produced. The changes include the issue
of PPS25 and the currently on-going development of the National SuDS
Standards. In addition, although the basis for the analysis is the use of IH124,
an additional method of calculation using the Q
MED
estimation equation from the
Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) is also included now.

This Guide may be used to form part of a Flood Risk Assessment to comply
with PPS25 and a Flood Consequence Assessment to comply with TAN 15, but
it does not address issues such as risk of flooding from a watercourse, effects
of changes in floodplain storage or in floodplain conveyance.

This Guide is aimed at providing a way of obtaining typical storage volume
requirements for stormwater control for development sites by using a simple
manual calculation procedure based on look up tables; the whole process is
aimed at avoiding having to reference other documents or use software design
packages. The objective is to allow any individual or organisation to be able to
use a freely available tool to obtain an indication of the size (and therefore costs
and space needed) to meet current stormwater control requirements. It is
stressed that the approach provided here for sizing of stormwater storage is
only to be used at the Planning stage to assist with defining indicative volumes.
Detailed design of drainage systems will always require the use of stormwater
software.

In addition to this paper-based system, a web based tool (www.uksuds.com)
has been produced which is aimed at producing similar results. The information
required by the web tool has been simplified to maximise its usability, and
therefore the results do not exactly replicate this paper-based procedure.
However the use of the web tool is approved by the Environment Agency for
use in planning applications. The web based tool provides the facility to use
both IH124 and the FEH formula in estimating values for Q
BAR
and Q
MED
and
also permits a user defined value to be used.

The use of both formulae is approved in this revision, (as is the Revitalised
Flood Hydrograph Model (ReFH) assuming suitably experienced users are
involved in carrying out the analysis). The storage calculations can use either
method, or a user-defined Q
BAR
value. Growth curve factors are based on
FSSR2 and 14. FSSR 14 can also be used to convert Q
MED
to Q
BAR
when Q
MED

is derived).

Section 1: Introduction iv
The Guide is focused on only the storage aspects of stormwater design and
does not address many other issues which are to be considered when carrying
out drainage design and analysis.

Supporting explanations and examples have been provided to help engineers to
use the method. The illustrations are based on five cities in UK which have a
range of different hydrological and soil characteristics. Comparisons between
the User Guide method and other modelling approaches show that the Guide
method is generally conservative, but sufficiently accurate to provide a
reasonable indication of the storage requirements.

The use of SuDS for stormwater storage
SuDS are aimed at addressing both treatment and hydraulic management of
stormwater runoff. It is stressed that the Floods and Water Management Act
2010 requires the use of SuDS. Although storage can also be provided using
underground storage systems, the Environment Agency very much prefer the
use of surface level, vegetative systems to be used for conveyance and
temporary storage (swales, basins and ponds etc).







v
Glossary

Adoption of sewers The transfer of responsibility for the maintenance
of a system of sewers to a Sewerage Undertaker.

Antecedent conditions The condition of a catchment before a rainfall
event.

Antecedent precipitation The relevant rainfall that takes place prior to the
point in time of interest.

Antecedent Precipitation
Index (API)
Expressed as an index determined by summation
of weighted daily rainfalls for a period preceding
the start of a specific event.

Attenuation Storage Temporary storage required to reduce the peak
flow rate.

Base flow Sustained or dry-weather flows not directly
generated by rainfall. It commonly constitutes flows
generated by domestic and industrial discharge
and also infiltration or groundwater fed flows.

Brownfield site A term used for to denote either the redevelopment
of a previously developed site, or a contaminated
site.

Catchment A defined area, often determined by topographic
features or land use, within which rain will
contribute to runoff to a particular point under
consideration.

Consent Conditional permission granted by the appropriate
public authority to discharge flows to a
watercourse, into the ground or elsewhere.

Contributing area The area that contributes storm runoff directly to
the stormwater system.

Design storm A synthetic rainfall event of a given duration and
return period. It has been derived by statistically
analysing a historical series of rainfall events for a
specific location.

Development The site area which is being considered for the
drainage design. For the purpose of these
analyses, all unmodified public open spaces
should not be included.

vi
Discharge The volume of liquid flowing through a cross
section of conduit per unit of time.

Drainage A collection of pipes, channels and other
engineering works designed to convey stormwater
away from a built-up environment.

Erosion Detachment and movement of soil or sedimentary
deposits by the flow of water, caused by the flow of
water over the ground surface or in a pipe or
channel.

Event (rainfall) Single occurrence of a rainfall period before and
after which there is a dry period.

Extreme event (rainfall) An infrequent large rainfall event

First flush The initial discharge of active sediments and
pollutants which often has higher than the average
concentration of pollutants.

Flood Estimation
Handbook

Fundamental revision and update to Flood Studies
Report (Institute of Hydrology, 1999) for UK flood
prediction.

Flood Risk Assessment Technical review of the effects of a development
on the risk of flooding on that development, and on
adjacent sites downstream and sometimes
upstream as well.

Flood Studies Report Landmark report in UK for flood flow prediction
(Natural Environment Research Council, 1975).

Flow regime The typical variation of discharge of a waterway
usually over an annual or seasonal period.

Frequency The number of occurrences of a certain
phenomenon per unit time.

Gradient The angle of inclination (of pipe) which dictates its
capacity and velocity of flow.

Greenfield/Greenfield
Site
New development, usually on the periphery of
existing urban areas. This creates increased
rainfall-runoff and has an impact on existing sewer
systems and watercourses.

vii
Groundwater Sub-surface water occupying the saturated zone
from which wells and springs are fed. Strictly the
term applies only to water below the water table.

Gully A structure to permit the entry of surface runoff into
the sewer system. It is usually fitted with a grating
and a grit trap.

Head-discharge The relationship between a discharge rate and the
water level causing that discharge.

Hydraulic Control Unit A hydraulic device to control the rate of flow.

Hydrograph A graph showing, for a given point on a stream or
conduit, the discharge, stage, velocity, available
power, or other property (of water) with respect to
time.

Impermeable surface Surface which resists the infiltration of water.

Infiltration The introduction of rainwater runoff into the ground.

Initial loss In hydrology, the rainfall amount before which
surface runoff occurs. It can include interception,
surface wetting, and infiltration.

Intensity-duration-
frequency
The relationship between rainfall intensity (amount
per unit of time), duration of a rainfall event (time
over which the average rainfall intensity occurs)
and frequency (return interval) at which the specific
intensity-duration relationship is expected to recur.

Interception The process by which rainfall may be prevented
from reaching the ground, for example by
vegetation.

Land use Catchments or development areas zones
categorised by economic, geographic or
demographic use.

Long Term Storage Storage of stormwater which is drained slowly (less
than 2 l/s/ha), preferably by infiltration.

Model A series of mathematical equations in a computer
developed and used with the aim of replicating the
behaviour of a system.

viii
Network A collection of connected nodes and links,
manholes and pipes when referred to in the
context of sewers.

Orifice A constriction in a pipeline to control the rate of
flow.

Outfall The point, location or structure where wastewater
or drainage discharges from a pipe, channel,
sewer, drain, or other conduit.

Overflow The flow of excess water from a system when the
capacity of that system is exceeded.

Overland flow The flow of water over the ground, or paved
surface before it enters some defined channel or
inlet.

Peak discharge The maximum flow rate at a point in time at a
specific location.

Percentage runoff The proportion of rainfall which becomes runoff,
usually associated with a specific surface type.

Pervious area Areas of ground which allows infiltration of water,
although some surface runoff may also occur.

Pollution The addition to a natural body of water of any
material which diminishes the optimal use of the
water body by the population which it serves, and
has an adverse effect on the environment.

Rainfall intensity Amount of rainfall occurring in a unit of time,
generally expressed in mm/hr.

Rational Method A simple method, used throughout the world, for
calculating the peak discharge in a drainage
system for pipe sizing.

Receiving waters Water body (river or lake) which receives flow from
point or non-point sources (outfalls).






ix
Regulator (1) A structure installed in a sewer, conduit or
channel to control the flow of water or
wastewater at an intake, or overflow or to
control the water level along a canal, channel
or treatment unit.

(2) The term used in UK to refer to the
Environment Agency and other organisations
which are involved in stipulating or applying
legal requirements to the activities of
organisations.

Return period The reciprocal of the average annual probability of
exceedence of a specific flow value or event.

Runoff Water from precipitation which flows off a surface
to reach a drain, sewer or receiving water.

Runoff coefficient The proportion of total rainfall that appears as total
runoff volume after subtracting depression storage,
infiltration and interception.

Sediment Organic or inorganic solid material originally
carried by water, which has been deposited.

Sewerage Undertaker An organisation with the legal duty to provide
sewerage services in England and Wales.

Simulation The representation of specific conditions during a
specific period for one or more loading conditions
(rainfall) in a drainage system, treatment works,
river, etc., by means of a computer model.

Soakaway An underground hole or gravel filled pit into which
surface water is drained to infiltrate into the
ground.

Soil Moisture Deficit
(SMD)
A measure of soil wetness, calculated by the
Meteorological Office in the UK, to indicate the
capacity of the soil to absorb rainfall.

Storage The impounding of water, either on the surface or
in underground reservoirs.

Stormwater The product of a meteorological event, often of
rainfall, snow or hail, when it forms runoff due to an
inability to permeate into the ground or falls onto
impermeable surfaces.

x
Surface water Water from precipitation which has not seeped into
the ground.

Swale The term given to a grass channel for stormwater
collection with shallow side slopes and which is
normally dry except during rainfall.

Time series rainfall A continuous or discontinuous record of individual
rainfall events generated artificially, or a selection
of real historical events which are representative of
the rainfall in that area.

Treatment Storage Storage provided to enable polluted stormwater to
be improved before discharging to receiving
waters.

Urban drainage Pipe systems and other related structures to serve
an urban environment.

Wallingford Procedure A design and analysis procedure for urban
drainage networks. Produced by HR Wallingford
and the Institute of Hydrology in 1981. Funded by
DoE.

Wash off (of pollutants) The transport of pollutant mass from a surface
during a rainfall event.

Water quality A measure of the chemical, physical and biological
characteristics of a water body or sample.

Watercourse A natural or artificial channel which conveys water.


xi
Abbreviations

ADAS Agricultural Development and Advisory Service

API
5
Antecedent Precipitation Index (over previous 5 days)

CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

CEN Comit Europen de Normalisation (European Committee for
Standardisation)

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association

CWI Catchment Wetness Index from FSR

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

FEH Flood Estimation Handbook (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
(CEH), 1999)

FSR Flood Studies Report (Institute of Hydrology, 1975)

FSSR Flood Studies Supplementary Reports (Institute of Hydrology, 1985)

IDF Intensity Depth Frequency (relationship)

IF Effective Impervious Area Factor

IH Institute of Hydrology (replaced by Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

LTS Long Term Storage

M
5
60 The 5 year 60 minute depth of rainfall

NAPI New Antecedent Precipitation Index

NERC Natural Environment Research Council

PF Porosity Fraction (soil storage depth)

PIMP Percentage Impermeable proportion of a catchment or development
contributing to runoff see PR equation

PPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk,
applicable to England and Wales

PR Percentage Runoff

Q
BAR
An FSR term denoting the Mean Annual Flood flow rate for a river.
This approximates to a return period of 2.3years
xii
Q
MED
A term used in FEH denoting the median annual maximum flow rate
for a watercourse.

ReFH
model
The Revitalised Flood Hydrograph model is the latest FEH rainfall
runoff method for UK design flood estimation (Kjeldsen, 2005)

SAAR Standard Average Annual Rainfall, an FSR parameter, assessed over
a period of years 1941 - 1970

SfA Sewers for Adoption (published by WRc); current version is the 7
th

Edition (2012)

SMD Soil Moisture Deficit

SOIL Soil type classification used by Institute of Hydrology, FSR, 1975 and
the HR Wallingford and Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford Procedure,
1981

SPR Standard Percentage Runoff. Used in FSR and FEH equations

SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems

TSR Time Series Rainfall

UCWI Urban Catchment Wetness Index describes the wetness of the
catchment, usually calculated for the start of a rainfall event

WRAP Winter Rainfall Acceptance Potential (used by the HR Wallingford and
Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford Procedure, 1981)

xiii
Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments -
Interim National Procedure Principles

1. Procedure status. This procedure will be replaced / updated as and
when improved tools are developed. The web site www.uksuds.com
provides a web based approximation to this tool.

2. Procedure philosophy. The principles under-pinning this procedure are
that:
- stormwater runoff discharged from urban developments should
approximate to the site greenfield response over an extended range
of storm frequencies of occurrence (return periods)
- manage runoff on site for extreme events.

This requires:
- the peak rate of stormwater run-off to be limited
- the volume of run-off to be limited
- the pollution load to receiving waters from stormwater runoff to be
minimised
- the assessment of overland flows and temporary flood storage
across the site.

3. Compliance to national guidance. The objective of this procedure is to
assist developers and their designers to conform to PPS25 which
requires the development to be safe, without increasing flood risk
elsewhere and, where possible, to reduce flood risk overall.
Sustainable drainage is the suggested approach to managing flood risk
resulting from surface water runoff from the site.

4. Application of the procedure. This procedure applies to both greenfield
and previously developed sites. It is in conformance with the anticipated
requirements of the SuDS Standards and the Code for Sustainable
Homes. Drainage proposals may be measured against the existing
drainage performance of the site (although it is preferable for solutions to
provide runoff characteristics which are similar to greenfield behaviour).

5. Sites with contaminated land will have particular consent requirements
and affect the drainage techniques that can be used.

6. Use of infiltration. SuDS Standards and Part H of the Building
Regulations require that the first choice of surface water disposal should
be to discharge to infiltration systems where practicable. This should
even be applied where infiltration can only account for a proportion of the
runoff from the design event.

7. Sewers for Adoption. Drainage calculations and criteria, where
appropriate, should comply with the latest edition of Sewers for Adoption,
published by WRc.

xiv
8. Discharge rate criteria. The Environment Agency will normally require
that, for the range of annual flow rate probabilities, up to and including
the 1% annual probability (1 in 100 year event) the developed rate of
runoff into a watercourse should be no greater than the undeveloped rate
of runoff for the same event based on the calculation of Q
BAR
or Q
MED

and the use of FSSR growth curves. Exceptions only apply where it is
not practical to achieve this due to either constraints on the size of the
hydraulic control unit (see point 17), or excessive storage volumes. The
purpose of this is to retain a natural flow regime in the receiving
watercourse and not increase peak rates of flow for events of an annual
probability greater than 1%. Three annual probabilities are used to define
discharge compliance limits though the critical criteria are for the lowest
and highest frequency events; 100% (1 year), 3.33% (30 year) and 1%
(100 year). (Note that in many places elsewhere in this document that
return periods are referred to instead of annual probabilities, as much
historic nomenclature and many formulae use return periods).

8.1 The 100% annual probability (once in one-year event) is the highest
probability event to be specifically considered to ensure that flows to the
watercourse are tightly controlled for frequent events to provide good
morphological conditions.

8.2 The 3.33% annual probability (once in 30 years event) is of importance
because of its linkage with the level of service requirement of Sewers for
Adoption 7
th
edition (SfA7). SfA7 requires that surface water sewers
should be capable of carrying the 3.33% annual probability event within
the system without causing flooding to any part of the site.

8.3 The 1% annual probability (once in 100 years event) has been selected
since it represents the boundary between high and medium risks of
fluvial flooding defined by PPS25 and also recognises that it is not
practicable to fully limit flows for the most extreme events. Also SfA7
recognises that, during extreme wet weather, the capacity of surface
water sewers may be inadequate. SfA7 requires that the site layout
should be such that internal property flooding does not result, by
demonstrating safe above ground flow paths. The return period for this
analysis is not specified, but it is recommended that 1% annual
probability event (i.e. an event with a return period of 100 years) is used.

8.4 Flood flows. Runoff up to the 1% annual probability event should
preferably be managed within the site at designated temporary storage
locations unless it can be shown to have no material impact by leaving
the site in terms of nuisance or damage, or increase river flows during
periods of river flooding. Analysis for overland flood flows within the site
will need to use appropriate duration events which may be different to
critical events for designing stormwater control storage structures.




xv
9. The calculation of greenfield runoff rate. The methods appropriate for
calculation of peak rates of runoff from a greenfield site are constrained
by the data and analysis used to derive the various methods available.
The sizes of most sites are far smaller than the area for which these
equations were produced, therefore the values derived should be
regarded as indicative due to these limitations. Table 1 summarises the
techniques to be used. Discussion on the various methods is provided in
this document and must be referred to.

Table 1 Methods to be used for calculation of greenfield run-off peak
flow rates
Development
size
Method
0 50 ha One of two approaches can be used:

1. The Institute of Hydrology (IH) Report 124 Flood
Estimation for Small Catchments (1994) method can be
used to estimate the greenfield site flow rate, Q
BAR
(the
Mean Annual Flood).
2. The Index Flood, Q
MED
(the median of the set of annual
maximum flood peaks) regression equation that forms
part of the FEH statistical method can also be used
where the appropriate parameters are known or can be
derived/ estimated.

Where developments are smaller than 50 ha, the analysis
for determining the greenfield index flood flow rate should
use 50 ha in the formula and linearly interpolate the flow rate
value based on the ratio of the development area.

FSSR 14 can be used to convert Q
MED
to Q
BAR
.

FSSR 2 and 14 regional growth curve factors can be used to
calculate the greenfield peak flow rates for 1, 30 and 100
year return periods.
50 ha + IH Report 124 or the FEH Q
MED
equation from the statistical
method can be used to calculate the greenfield site peak
flow rates.

FSSR 2 and 14 regional growth curve factors can be used to
calculate the greenfield peak flow rates for other return
periods.

Where the site is hydrologically similar to the catchment in
which it lies, additional FEH techniques can be used to
predict flow peaks. Catchment-scale flow predictions will
then need to be scaled appropriately to the site area.

Where FEH techniques (the statistical method and/or the
ReFH) are used, appropriate data, tools and skills must be
applied.

xvi
10. Volumetric criteria. Theoretically the stormwater runoff volume from a
site should be limited to the greenfield runoff volume for all event
frequencies. However this is technically extremely difficult to achieve and
therefore compliance to two criteria on runoff volume is required.

10.1 Interception. Where possible, infiltration or other techniques are to be
used to try and achieve zero discharge to receiving waters for rainfall
depths up to 5mm.

10.2 Additional runoff due to development. The difference in runoff volume
pre- and post-development for the 100 year 6 hour event, (the additional
runoff generated) should be disposed of by way of infiltration, or if this is
not feasible due to soil type, discharged from the site at flow rates below
2 l/s/ha.

10.3 Where compliance to 100 year volumetric criterion is not provided, as
defined in section 10.2, the limiting discharge for any return period up to
the 100 year event shall not be greater than the mean annual peak rate
of runoff for the greenfield site (Referred to as Q
BAR
in IH Report 124) or
2 l/s/ha, whichever is the greater.

11. Percentage runoff from greenfield sites. The percentage runoff of the
rainfall on a greenfield site can be assumed to be approximately equal to
the SPR value of the soil type of the site. The SPR value can be used
from either the Flood Studies Report (FSR) or the Flood Estimation
Handbook (FEH).

12. Percentage runoff from developments. Calculation of the run-off
volume from the developed site for preliminary assessment and design of
drainage facilities will assume 100% run-off from paved areas and 0%
run-off from pervious areas. This presumes that sites are developed with
a degree of impermeability greater than 50%. Runoff from impermeable
surfaces served by effective infiltration systems can be assumed to
contribute no runoff for storage volumes assessment assuming the
infiltration systems are designed to address the runoff from at least a 10
year event.

13. Detailed design of stormwater runoff. All network design for
stormwater runoff and proof of compliance in meeting peak flow rate
discharge criteria should use appropriate drainage simulation software
tools and runoff models in accordance with current best practice.

14. SuDS for water quality. SuDS units should be used to achieve water
quality improvements and amenity benefits as well as achieving
compliance to these hydraulic criteria. Best practice in achieving water
quality protection should be used.




xvii
15. Climate change factor. Climate change will be taken into account in all
hydrological regions by increasing the rainfall depth by the amount
recommended by the Environment Agency. Current recommendations,
based on UPCP09, are presented in their document Advice to Flood and
Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities (Environment Agency,
2011) which advises an uplift on extreme rainfall intensities of 20% when
designing to 2080s and beyond, for extreme events (ie > 1 in 5 years).
There are also tables within the document that provide regional factors to
be applied to river flows, for assessing flood levels. No allowance for
climate change should be applied to calculated greenfield peak rates of
runoff from the site for any hydrological region. It is recognised that an
increase in rainfall will result in an increase in runoff, but that if the
greenfield runoff formula is increased proportionately, that storage
volumes will remain largely the same and this is not considered to be a
suitable precautionary position.

16. Urban Creep. Urban creep is now an acknowledged issue which results
in an increase in runoff from an estate over time. An allowance should be
made by factoring the impermeability percentage by 1.1 (10% increase)
unless a more precautionary requirement is specified by the local
planning authority.

17. Minimum limit of discharge rate. A practicable minimum limit on the
discharge rate from a flow attenuation device is often a compromise
between attenuating to a satisfactorily low flow rate while keeping the risk
of blockage to an acceptable level. This limit is set at 5 litres per second,
using an appropriate vortex or other flow control device. Where
sedimentation could be an issue, the minimum size of orifice for
controlling flow from an attenuation device should normally be 150mm
laid at a gradient not flatter than 1 in 150, which meets the requirements
of Sewers for Adoption 7
th
Edition.

A second minimum discharge limit based on 1l/s/ha for Q
BAR
is also
applied where soil types produce lower calculated values. This limit is
applied to prevent the size of storage systems becoming unacceptably
large and expensive.

18. Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (LFRMs) or Catchment
Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) may exist for the catchment. These
plans consider the impact of development on flood risk in the catchment
based on existing land use plans published by the Local Planning
Authority and projections of development. Where these explicitly define
stormwater discharge limits for development sites which are relevant for
the proposed development, these discharge limits will take precedence
over the requirements of this document.

xviii
xix
Acknowledgements

Guidance with regard to the contents of this first version of this Guide was
provided by:

Mervyn Bramley Environment Agency
Geoff Gibbs Environment Agency
John Packman CEH
Andy Pepper Consultant to Environment Agency
Mervyn Pettifor Environment Agency
Suresh Surendran Environment Agency

Advice on the latest revision, Version E, was provided by Geoff Gibbs.

Particular thanks must go to UKWIR for allowing the use of FEH rainfall maps
(which were produced for them by the Met Office), which enables this generic
procedure to be applied using FEH rainfall characteristics for any location in the
UK.

xx

xxi
Contents

Executive summary iii
Glossary v
Abbreviations xi
Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments - Interim National
Procedure Principles xiii
Acknowledgements xix
Contents xxi
1 Scope of this User Guide 1
2 Philosophy of current stormwater control requirements 2
2.1 Why is runoff control needed? 2
2.2 Why is IH124 still used for defining the site limiting discharge
rate? 2
2.3 Why has the correlation equation from the FEH statistical
method now been included for defining the site limiting
discharge rate? 3
3 Stormwater design and this document 4
3.1 Volume of stormwater runoff very small rainfall events 4
3.2 Volume of stormwater runoff extreme rainfall events 5
3.3 Rate of stormwater runoff 7
3.4 Non-compliance with providing volume control of runoff 8
3.5 Treatment of stormwater runoff 8
4 Using the storage sizing tool 9
4.1 Greenfield estimation of peak flow rate of runoff 13
4.2 Assessment of attenuation storage volume 15
4.3 Initial sizing of long term storage volume 18
4.4 Initial sizing of Treatment storage volume 19
5 Initial sizing of conveyance systems 20
5.1 Designing for exceedence - temporary storage and flood
routing 20
6 Estimation of greenfield runoff 21
6.1 The principal methods used for estimation of river flow / site
greenfield runoff rates 21
6.2 Statistical FEH model 23
6.3 ReFH hydrograph method 24
6.4 IH 124 peak flow estimation 24
6.5 The ADAS 345 method 25
6.6 Greenfield runoff volume 27
xxii
7 Long Term Storage: Design practicalities and estimation 29
7.1 Estimation of the difference between greenfield runoff and
development runoff 29
7.2 The practicalities of activating Long Term Storage (LTS) 32
References for further guidance on stormwater design and planning 34
Appendices 37
Appendix 1 Figures and graphs 39
Appendix 2 Examples 78
Appendix 3 Methodology used for deriving storage volumes
assessment 101
Appendix 4 Overview of urban runoff models 103


Tables
Table 6.1 Parameters used in calculating greenfield runoff ........................ 27


Figures
Figure 3.1 for Interception runoff.................................................................... 5
Figure 3.2 Schematic illustrating relative runoff volumes before and after
development ................................................................................. 6
Figure 3.3 Schematic illustrating the concept of Long Term storage ............. 6
Figure 3.4 Hydrograph schematic: Interception, attenuation and volume
control ........................................................................................... 8
Figure 4.1 Initial design of stormwater drainage for new developments ...... 11
Figure 4.2 Tool flow chart for estimating storage volumes........................... 12
Figure 6.1 CWI vs SAAR Flood Studies Report........................................ 28
Figure 7.1 Development plan of a modern high-density housing estate ...... 29
Figure 7.2 Difference in runoff volume for developments where all
pervious areas are assumed not to drain to the drainage
network ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 7.3 Difference in runoff volume for developments where all
pervious areas are assumed to drain to the drainage network ... 31
Figure 7.4 Long Term Storage designed to capture all events .................... 32
Figure 7.5 Activation of Long Term Storage from the Attenuation system. .. 33







1
1 Scope of this User Guide

This User Guide is aimed at Developers and Local Authorities to advise on the
requirements for stormwater drainage design and in particular for setting
stormwater discharge limits from a site and to assist in the initial sizing of
storage elements for the control and treatment of stormwater runoff which will
be needed to meet these discharge limits. The reason that the Environment
Agency commissioned this document was to enable the non-drainage expert,
who does not have the appropriate industry standard tools, to obtain a quick
assessment of the principal drainage requirements needed for a proposed
development.

The Guide:
- Provides an easy-to-use manual method for assessing initial storage
volumes for stormwater control for a development site;
- States the current Defra/Environment Agency position on stormwater
management discharge control
- Provides some supporting advice, information on the assumptions used
and some important technical issues.


Stormwater system design, with its emphasis on the use of SuDS and applying
limiting discharge rates to receiving waters or drainage systems, has
implications on both development costs and planning the layout of the site. This
Guide is aimed at helping provide this information, recognising that other
documents should be referred to for more detailed information.

This guide provides a quick manual method for initial sizing of storage for those
who do not have access to industry standard drainage design tools. There is
now also a simplified internet based tool which is based on this approach and
aims to provide similar results www.uksuds.com.

Those using this Guide must recognise its limited objectives and that other
documents should be referred to as appropriate. These include:
- The Code for Sustainable Homes (2010)
- The SuDS Standards (2011)
1

- Guidance on the SuDS Standards (2011)
2

- The SuDS Manual CIRIA C697 (2006)
- The Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems document
produced by the National SuDS Working Group (2004)
- Drainage of Development Sites A Guide (2003)

1
At Consultation stage at the time of issuing this report.
2
Yet to be developed.

This document is official Environment Agency policy on rainfall-runoff
management for developments. This is an Interim national procedure (2011)
version E as further research is taking place on updating best practice methods
for assessing greenfield runoff. Version E has been produced to take into
account changes that have occurred in science and policy since version D was
produced.
2
2 Philosophy of current stormwater control
requirements

The basic principle underpinning the requirements for controlling stormwater
runoff and the use of the greenfield flow rate estimation methods are explained
here.

2.1 Why is runoff control needed?
A development which does not control the runoff from rainfall results in greater
volumes of runoff than the undeveloped site, and which discharges rapidly to
receiving waters if drained using normal piped systems.

The principle being applied is that the post-development site should aim to try
and replicate the un-developed state. Arguments can be made for an alternative
strategy for runoff control to protect against flooding in a catchment, especially
in situations where the catchment is heavily urbanised or there is a Local Flood
Risk Management Strategy in place which defines regional flood risk control
measures based on a detailed hydrological assessment.

There are 3 volume or flow rate criteria which should be met. These are:
- Interception no runoff for up to 5mm of rainfall
- 1 year return period flow control aimed at morphological protection of
receiving streams
- 100 year return period flow and volume control - aimed at flood protection
of those living downstream

2.2 Why is IH124 still used for defining the site limiting
discharge rate?
IH 124 is a document that was issued in 1994 by the Institute of Hydrology. It
was an extension of the FSR work aimed at providing a better estimate of peak
runoff flow rates for small catchments (small in terms of river catchments) than
had been previously developed. It is a correlation equation based on three
parameters, (SOIL, SAAR and AREA) all of which are easily measured /
obtainable. It is therefore very easy to use.

Since then FEH and ReFH have been developed and there is currently more
research being carried out in this topic area. These tools are acknowledged to
often provide better estimates of peak river flow rates than IH124, though none
of the methods can be assumed to provide the right value particularly at the
development or plot scale (often less than 1 ha). However the following reasons
are provided for the current continued use of IH 124:

1. An easy to use and consistent method of approach needs to be applied
nationally.
2. There are copyright issues associated with the FEH parameters, which
means that the FEH tool would have to be purchased if these methods are
to be used.
3
3. The implementation of FEH and ReFH methods must be carried out by
competent hydrologists otherwise the estimates cannot be considered to be
robust.

Most importantly, the critical requirement is to use a method which is:
Objective, fair and practical, and which is effective in providing runoff
flood protection.

Theoretically, any control rule which achieves this objective can be used and
need not necessarily accurately reflect the greenfield runoff characteristics for a
site. Furthermore, it should be noted that setting discharge limits as required by
this document 5mm Interception, 1 year and 100 year control rates will not
result in the runoff from a site replicating the undeveloped state. An accurate
assessment of greenfield runoff is therefore not fundamental to the flood
protection of catchments, it is just an approach which is believed to provide a
consistent, simple and effective method for controlling stormwater runoff.

It is therefore considered important not to relinquish these principles of
simplicity and objectivity by adopting a more accurate formula for estimating
greenfield runoff rates unless the replacement approach also achieves the
fundamental objectives of ease of use, and access by all stakeholders at
minimal cost.

2.3 Why has the correlation equation from the FEH statistical
method now been included for defining the site limiting
discharge rate?
Not withstanding the arguments for the continued use of IH124, it is now
proposed that an estimate of Q
MED
is permitted as this approach largely
complies with the same principles of simplicity and ease of use. In addition,
recent research has shown that it is generally more accurate than IH124.

Although FEH soil parameters are used in this equation (see section 5), these
are available in report IH126 which looks at the classification of soil types and
provides the values for SPRHOST and BFIHOST for all soil categories found on
soil maps.

In principle it is therefore to be used in just the same way as IH124 in that it is a
simple correlation equation which can be applied to site specific parameters. It
is stressed that in allowing the use of this equation that the pooling techniques
and calibrating to flow data is not needed for sites less than 50ha and should
only be carried out by competent hydrologists.

Section 5 in this document details both the Q
MED
estimation equation from the
FEH Statistical method as well as Q
BAR
for IH124, and also provides
suggestions on the use of the parameters. A brief overview and discussion of
other greenfield runoff estimation methods are also provided.




4
3 Stormwater design and this document

This chapter briefly describes the key aspects of stormwater design with respect
to the storage requirements needed to meet criteria related to limiting discharge
from the site, and also water quality. It does not address all aspects of drainage
design. It does not provide detailed guidance on the planning process, though it
is worth stressing that many of the issues associated with drainage should be
addressed at an early stage in the development planning process.

It should be noted that the storage design tools of this Guide and the associated
website are only to be applied at initial planning and design stages and that
detailed computer models would normally be expected to be used for detailed
design of all aspects of the drainage system.

Rainfall runoff from greenfield areas has very different characteristics to
development runoff. These differences can be summarised under three main
categories:
- Volume of runoff
No runoff for small events
Less runoff for large events
- Rate of runoff
Slower, later runoff for all events
- Quality of runoff
Cleaner runoff (BOD, sediment, pathogens, metals, hydrocarbons)

The objectives of the storage criteria are to address these three aspects and to
control the urban runoff to mimic, as practicably as possible, the greenfield
behaviour of the site. To do this, storage is specifically and separately
calculated to address each of these criterion, and the means by which this may
be achieved is briefly explained below.

3.1 Volume of stormwater runoff very small rainfall events
Interception storage
The volume of rainfall runoff is important at each end of the rainfall event
spectrum. Around 50 percent of rainfall events (probably in excess of 70 events
a year in most areas), are less than 5mm and cause no measurable runoff from
greenfield areas into receiving waters. In contrast, runoff from a development
takes place for virtually every rainfall event. This difference means that streams
receive frequent discharges with polluted washoff from urban surfaces
(hydrocarbons, suspended solids, metals etc). Replication of the greenfield
runoff from small events will result in many fewer polluted discharges so limiting
the potentially damaging impact on the receiving environment.

The concept of Interception storage to prevent any runoff from rainfall depths up
to 5mm, should therefore be provided. Certain SuDS features such as Swales
and Pervious Pavements provide runoff characteristics that reflect this
behaviour depending on their design.
5

Figure 3.1 for Interception runoff

3.2 Volume of stormwater runoff extreme rainfall events
Long Term Storage
In extreme rainfall events, the total volume of runoff from a developed site is
typically between 2 and 10 times the runoff volume from the same site in a
greenfield state. It is important to control this additional volume from the
developed site for two reasons. Firstly a large proportion of runoff tends to be
released much more quickly than the greenfield runoff (even where attenuation
storage is provided to address the difference in the rate of runoff). Secondly,
even if this volume was released at the peak rate of the greenfield runoff, due to
the finite storage volume provided by floodplains, flood depths and extents will
be greater. Figure 3.2 schematically illustrates this aspect.

In theory, therefore, the 100 year flood runoff from a site should be controlled to
greenfield volume and rates to ensure the same conditions occur downstream
after development. In practice this is virtually impossible to achieve.

The criterion for Long Term Storage (LTS) is a simple pragmatic approach
aimed at addressing this issue without too much complexity. The 100 year 6 hr
event is used to estimate the runoff volumes both before and after development,
and this volume difference needs to be captured and theoretically prevented
from being discharged at all. In principle, it would therefore be preferable to
control this volume using infiltration on the site, but often this is not feasible.
Perhaps as many as 80% or more of developments do not have the opportunity
to use infiltration methods. If infiltration is not possible, this volume of storage
(LTS) needs to be specifically designed for and discharged at a maximum rate
of 2 l/s/ha. If this option of direct runoff of the Long Term Storage volume is
utilised, the runoff from the attenuation storage to meet the greenfield rate of
discharge (based on the critical duration event which is likely to be
significantly longer than the 6 hour event), needs to be reduced by the same
amount.

6

Figure 3.2 Schematic illustrating relative runoff volumes before and
after development

Figure 3.3 Schematic illustrating the concept of Long Term storage

7
3.3 Rate of stormwater runoff
Attenuation storage
Whatever the event, development runoff through traditional pipe networks, if
allowed unchecked, will discharge into receiving waters at orders of magnitude
faster than the undeveloped site. For significant rainfall events this causes
flashy flow in the river which is likely to cause scour and erosion that may
seriously affect the morphology and ecology of the stream, and for extreme
events this may exacerbate flooding downstream. Both of these aspects are
therefore addressed by applying a limit of discharge from the developed site,
thus requiring attenuation storage.

The design principle is to limit the runoff for events of similar frequency of
occurrence to the same peak rate of runoff as that which takes place from
greenfield sites. There is a basic limitation in this philosophy in that the rate for
any given event will not actually replicate the same rate of runoff, due to the
difference in runoff characteristics between the developed and undeveloped
site. However to achieve an exact replication would be impossible and
attempting to get a relatively good approximation of runoff from any site would
require the use of a continuous rainfall series, advanced modelling and
considerable effort. Even if this effort was made, there is little justification for
this approach as the actual runoff from greenfield sites cannot be sufficiently
accurately predicted.

This equivalence rule is therefore applied at both the 1 year event and the 100
year event using the critical duration storm to find the maximum attenuation
storage volume.

In practice there are two conditions where the greenfield flow rate is not actually
applied to define the limiting discharge rates. These are:

1. The limit of discharges based on Q
BAR
that are less than 1 l/s/ha for
permeable sites as this is seen as being an unreasonable requirement
(producing very large storage volumes). Q
BAR
is then set to 1 l/s/ha;
2. Small sites would require impractically small controls to achieve the
required flow rates where these are calculated to be less than 5 l/s and
therefore in this case a minimum flow of 5 l/s is used.

8

Figure 3.4 Hydrograph schematic: Interception, attenuation and volume
control

3.4 Non-compliance with providing volume control of runoff
There are situations where applying the concept of LTS to a site and ensuring
the drainage system operates to meet this criterion is difficult. In this situation
an alternative peak rate of discharge is applied to the site for sizing the
attenuation storage without using LTS. Instead of using the rates for the 1 year
and 100 year events, the discharge limits are set to the 1 year and Q
BAR

(approximating to the 2.3 year event) flow rates for sizing the storage. This
results in a greater storage volume being required.

Again there is an over-ride where permeable catchments result in a Q
BAR
value
which is less than 2 l/s/ha. In this situation the higher value (i.e. 2 l/s/ha) is used
for events up to the 100 year return period.

3.5 Treatment of stormwater runoff
Stormwater runoff for all events is contaminated to some degree. This is due to
the flush of debris and sediment from paved surfaces being washed off in the
first part of the event together with any sediment deposits in the pipe network.
This is compounded by the fact that this highly concentrated initial flow enters
the receiving water which is still flowing at base flow conditions, thus providing a
minimum level of dilution. Although the Interception criterion should address
much of this pollution, there is a need to deal with the runoff for events larger
than this.

The concept of Treatment Storage is to provide a body of water in which dilution
and partial treatment (by physical, chemical and biological means) of this runoff
can take place. This is effectively the volume of water which remains in ponds
during the dry weather periods between rainfall events. The amount of storage
normally provided is the equivalent volume of runoff of 15 mm of rainfall.



9
It should be stressed that drainage of a site should be designed using the
treatment train concept using appropriate drainage mechanisms throughout the
site. Reliance on only a single pond prior to the outfall is not regarded as good
practice in providing the best water quality protection for the receiving water. In
fact in some instances a final pond may not be needed if water quality issues
and stormwater runoff control are adequately addressed by extensive use of
vegetative drainage systems upstream.

4 Using the storage sizing tool

This chapter provides a simple look-up method for estimating the storage
volumes needed to comply with the discharge limits which the Environment
Agency / Local Planning Authority would normally set for a greenfield site
development.

A website also exists which provides an automated and simplified form of this
tool. www.uksuds.com. A number of simplifications have been made in the web
tool, and therefore there will be some differences found when comparing the
manual method with the web tool. The web tool is much easier to use than this
manual approach, but for those who might not have access to the website, this
method still allows users to estimate the storage volumes needed for any site.

The method provided here has been developed to minimise the need for
technical expertise and avoid the use of computer tools to arrive at approximate
values for stormwater storage volumes. All parameters and factors for any site
can be obtained from the figures and tables provided. Soil parameters should
be based on the use of FSR maps or the Wallingford Procedure maps.

Figure 4.1 provides a flow diagram of the process to follow to obtain the
stormwater storage volumes. There are 4 storage volumes to determine. These
are:
- Interception storage
- Attenuation storage
- Long Term storage
- Treatment storage.

Interception storage may not require explicit provision of storage, but is the
volume of runoff which must be prevented from leaving the site for up to the first
5mm of a rainfall event.

Attenuation storage aims to limit the rate of runoff into the receiving water to
similar rates of discharge to that which took place before the site was developed
(greenfield runoff rate). This can be provided at one or several different
locations using a variety of SuDS or other storage techniques.

Long Term storage is similar to attenuation storage, but aims to specifically
address the additional volume of runoff caused by the development. This is
either infiltrated into the ground or, if this is not possible due to soil conditions,
attenuated and discharged at very low rates of flow to the receiving watercourse
so as to minimise the risk of exacerbating river flooding (see chapter 6 for more
information).
10
Treatment storage aims to ensure the water quality of the stormwater is
sufficiently improved to minimise its impact on the flora and fauna in the
receiving water. This is normally provided as the dry period volume of one or
more ponds.

The calculated volumes estimated using the tool do not take account of head-
discharge characteristics of pond outfalls. There are a number of safety factors
built into the method used in this Guide which should ensure that the storage
volumes are not under sized and it is intended that this tool will provide an
estimate of volume which is within 20% of that determined by detailed design.
However the opportunity to use a range of different SuDS units, all with their
own runoff and storage characteristics, will significantly affect the actual
performance of the drainage system for any site.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the elements of drainage design, showing that there are
two distinct flow paths; firstly the need to deal with the conveyance of
stormwater safely through the site, and secondly the assessment of greenfield
runoff rates and the subsequent estimation of storage volumes.

Figure 4.2 shows how the tool process is structured. Sheets ASV1 to ASV2 are
used to provide an assessment of the greenfield site discharge limits and
attenuation storage volumes. The methodology is based on complying with 3
stages of discharge limits: the 1 year, 30 year and 100 year flow rates.

Calculation pages TV and LTV are used to find the Treatment volume and Long
Term storage volume respectively.
11

Notes: Q
1yr
Peak discharge rate for 1 year return period
At Vol
100yr
The attenuation volume of storage for 100 year return period
LT Vol
100yr 6hr
The Long Term volume of storage for 100 year return period
Figure 4.1 Initial design of stormwater drainage for new developments



12
Greenfield Peak Flow Runoff Analysis
(Go to page ASV1)
Is development >50 ha?
Carry out IH 124 analysis
or use statistical FEH (Chap. 6)
Estimate Long Term Storage
Volume
(Go to LTV)
Long Term Storage Volume
LT Vol
100yr 6hr
Treatment Storage Volume
T.Vol
Greenfield Peak Flow Runoff
Output:
Q
bar
Q
1yr
Q
30yr
Q
100yr
Estimate attenuation storage
volumes using FSR
hydrological zones and factor
for:
FEH
Climate Change
Hydrological Region
(Go to page ASV2)
Carry out analysis using either:
IH 124 method; or
FEH correlation equation;
or
Other FEH techniques
where the site is
hydrological similar to a
gauged catchment and
flow scaling is appropriate
Attenuation storage volumes
At.Vol
Outputs:
Vol
1yr
Vol
30yr
vol
100yr
Estimate Treatment Volume
(Go to TV)
Long Term Storage
Treatment Storage
YES
Attenuation Storage
NO

Figure 4.2 Tool flow chart for estimating storage volumes

13
ASV1
4.1 Greenfield estimation of peak flow rate of runoff
The aim of this first section is to determine the peak discharge rate of the
greenfield site runoff for 1, 30 and 100 year return period events.

Site characteristics

1. Hydrological Region (1 10) ( R)


UK is divided up into 10 hydrological
regions reflecting the different flood
frequency growth curves.
(Appendix 1, Figure A1.1)



2. (SOIL) type (1 5) (S)

Refer to Wallingford Procedure
WRAP map or FSR maps (Appendix
1, Figure A5.1)

3. Development size (A)


ha

The size of the gross development
excluding large parkland areas
being allocated as public open
space which remain unmodified.

4. Area
(A)


ha

Excluding public open space not
modified by the proposed
development

5. Annual Rainfall
(SAAR)


mm

SAAR use either SAAR from FSR
or AAR from FEH (Appendix 1,
Figure A4.1)

6. Soil runoff coefficient
(SPR)

SPR value for SOIL this is not the
FSR index class value for SOIL (1 to
5), but its corresponding runoff
coefficient (SPR) as follows:


SOIL

1

2

3

4

5

SPR

0.10

0.30

0.37

0.47

0.53

Also see note 1 below.

7. Development mean annual peak
flow (1.08 ( )
100
A
0.89
. SAAR
1.17
.
SPR
2.17
)
(Q
BAR
= Q
BAR50 hr
x (A/50))
(Q
BAR
)



l/s

For development sites of 50 ha or
less, use 50 ha when applying the
formula. Subsequently factor the
resulting value by the ratio of the site
area to 50 ha. (i.e. if the site is 10 ha
divide the answer by 5)
For using the equation from the
Statistical FEH see note 4

14
8. Mean annual peak flow
per unit area (Q
BAR
/A)


l/s/ha
For SOIL type 1 and occasionally
type 2 Q
BAR
/A will generally have a
value less than 1. If so use 1 l/s/ha
(see note 2)
9. Minimum limit of discharge
(Q
throttle
) l/s
Minimum discharge
(see note 3)
9.1 1:100 year flow rate per unit area
(Q
throttle
/A) l/s/ha



9.2 Equivalent mean annual peak
flow per unit area
(Q
throttle
/3.5A)
l/s/ha
Use this value as (Q
BAR
/A) if it is
greater than item 8.
10. 1yr, 30yr and 100yr peak
discharge rate of runoff per unit
area
Use the larger of the 2 values of
item 8 and 9.2 for calculating 10.1 to
10.3

10.1

Q
BAR
/A x 0.85 Q
1yr


l/s/ha

10.2

Q
BAR
/A x GC
30
Q
30yr


l/s/ha

10.3

Q
BAR
/A x GC
100
Q
100yr


l/s/ha
GC
30
and GC
100
are the growth
curve ratios Q Q/ for the 30 year
and 100 year events for the relevant
hydrological region.
The 30 and 100 year factors are
found from Appendix 1, Figure A1.2
from FSSR 14.

Note 1 HOST classes for soil also have SPR values. Although derived a little
differently, these values can also be used read chapter 6 (IH Report
126 Hydrology of Soil Types). As the ranges used in FSR soil types
are very coarse it is preferable to use the HOST categories.
(Appendix 1 Figure A12.1)
Note 2 Very low values of Q
BAR
/A result in excessive storage volumes. As
Long Term storage for SOIL type 1 is large, a minimum value of Q
BAR

/A of 1 is to be used.
Note 3 Minimum sizes of an orifice may limit the minimum hydraulic control
flow rate. This allows the derivation of an equivalent value of a Q
BAR

/A.
Note 4 The use of the correlation equation of the FEH Statistical equation
can be used, together with FSSR 14 growth curve factors to convert
Q
MED
to Q
BAR
. See section 5 for the correlation equation.

15
ASV2
4.2 Assessment of attenuation storage volume

Hydrological Region
(R)
Regions 1 10 for runoff growth
factor (Appendix 1, Figure A1.1)

Hydrological rainfall Zone
(M
5
60, r) (Z)
Zones 1 to 8 based on FSR
rainfall characteristics (Appendix
1, Figure A2.1)

Development Area
(A)

Ha
Excluding large public open
space which is not modified and
drained by the development

Proportion of impervious
area requiring
Attenuation storage (o)

Impermeable surfaces served by
direct drainage / total area of
impermeable surface.
(see Note 1)

Greenfield flow rate Q
BAR
/A
per unit area



l/s/ha

From page ASV 1, use the larger
of item 8 or 9.2. See also note 3
on page LTV
Estimate of development (PIMP)
percentage impermeable area


%
For developments where the
PIMP value is less than 50% (i.e.
where pervious area is the main
surface type) a more detailed
study should be made as the
storage estimates may be
undersized or 50% can be used.

7. Attenuation storage
volumes per unit area
(Uvol
1yr
)

(Uvol
30yr
)

(Uvol
100yr
)


m
3
/ha

m
3
/ha

m
3
/ha
Interpolate values based on PIMP
and Q
BAR
/A

(Appendix 1, Figures
A7.1 A7.8)
Use characteristics from item 2
(M
5
60, r).

8. Basic storage volumes
(U.Vol . o A)
(BSV
1yr
)

(BSV
30yr
)

(BSV
100yr
)


m
3


m
3


m
3

Storage units may serve areas of
different densities of
development. If necessary
calculations should be based on
each development zone then
cumulated.

16


9. Climate Change factor
(CC)
Suggested factor for climate
change is 1.2 (see note 2).

10. FEH Rainfall factor
(FF
1yr
)

(FF
30yr
)

(FF
100yr
)






Use factors based on the critical
duration Q
BAR
/A and PIMP
(Appendix 1, Figure A11.1 and
Appendix 1, Figures A6.1.1
A6.3.4).
(See note 3)

11. Storage Volume ratio
(CC/ FF) (SVR
1yr
)

(SVR
30yr
)

(SVR
100yr
)








Calculate item 9 / item 10 then
use Appendix 1, Figures A8.1
A8.8 to obtain storage ratios
12. Adjusted Storage Volumes
(SVR x BSV) (ASV
1yr
)

(ASV
30yr
)

(ASV
100yr
)


m
3


m
3


m
3


Storage volumes adjusted for
Climate Change and FEH rainfall.
Item 11 x item 8.
13. Hydrological Region volume
storage ratio (HR
1yr
)

(HR
30yr
)

(HR
100yr
)







Adjustment of storage volumes
for hydrological region using
Volume Storage Ratio (Appendix
1, Figure A9.1). The values are
based on growth curve factors -
the ratio of growth curve factor of
the region of site with hydrological
region 5 (Appendix 1, Figure
A1.3)
14. Final estimated Attenuation
Storage


Attenuation
Storage
Volumes

(HR x ASV)

At. Vol
1yr

At. Vol
30yr

At. Vol
100yr

m
3


m
3


m
3


Required Attenuation Storage

Note 1 Hard surfaces draining to infiltration units (which are considered to be
effective for extreme events and therefore provide part or all of the
Long Term storage volume) can be assumed to not contribute runoff
for the estimation of Attenuation storage with o being calculated
accordingly. (The assessment of PIMP should still be based on the
total area of hard surfaces to the total area of the development).

Where Long Term storage is being provided as off-line temporary
storage from the Attenuation pond (drained by either infiltration or
direct discharge), o should be a value of 1, but the estimated
Attenuation volume will then be reduced by the value of the Long
Term storage volume.

17
2 The Environment Agency guidance on taking account of future
increases in rainfall intensities under climate change scenarios is to
apply a factor of 1.2 for developments with a design life extending to
2080 and beyond (which is usually applied to residential
developments) (Environment Agency, 2011).

3 Appendix 1, Figure 11 assists in using the appropriate factor which is
a function of the critical duration event. This is necessary to know as
the rainfall depth relationship between FSR and FEH varies with both
return period and duration. Having established the approximate
duration from figure 11, the appropriate duration map (A6.1.1
A6.3.4) can then be used to determine the FEH rainfall factor.

The process is iterative. The following is an illustration of the
procedure.

Refer to 1 yr 12 hr map (Figure A6.1.4) and determine the appropriate
FSR:FEH ratio for the location of the development; lets assume 1.0.
Assuming the development characteristics are:

Q
BAR
= 4 l/s/ha, PIMP = 75, M
5
60 = 14 R0.3

Then using figure A11.1 and referring to the appropriate cell for the
table for an FEH factor of 1.0, the critical duration lies somewhere
between 5 and 10 hours. This means that the map that should be
referred to is the 6 hour 1 year map (Figure A6.1.3). The FEH factor
may then change to 0.9. The process is then repeated to check that
the critical duration is still around 6 hours to confirm that the FEH
factor is 0.9. This process is then repeated for the 30 and 100 year
return period FEH factors.

Maps for a return period of 30 years do not exist use those for 25
years.

FSR / FEH maps are unavailable for durations greater than 12 hours.
Use 12 hours in this situation.
18
LTV
4.3 Initial sizing of long term storage volume
Long term storage is to be provided to cater for the additional runoff caused by
the development compared to the volume that would be contributed from the
site in its greenfield state. This volume must be catered for as either infiltration
storage or in storage with the ability to be discharged at a rate of less than
2 l/s/ha. Designing the drainage system with Long Term storage will result in
less total storage being required than not providing LTS.

Discussion on the equation and practical provision of Long Term storage is
provided in Chapter 7.

1. Development area
(A)

ha

Excluding public open space
which is not modified by the
development
2. Estimate of PIMP (percentage
impermeable area) (PIMP)


%

3. Impermeable area
(A PIMP/100) (AP)

ha

All hard surfaces in the
development
4. Long Term storage factor
(LTF)


Storage volume per unit area per
mm of rainfall (see Figure A10.1
or A10.2) see note 3.

5. Rainfall depth
(RD)

mm
Rainfall depth for 100 year 6
hour event
(Appendix 1 Figure A3.1).

6. Long Term storage volume
(RD LTF AP) (LTVol
100yr 6hr
)

M
3

See note 2



Note 1 Where Long Term storage is being discharged directly to the
receiving water at 2 l/s/ha, the values for Q
30
and Q
100
for attenuation
storage discharge rate should be reduced accordingly. If this is the
case, the calculation for Attenuation storage should be based on
(Q
BAR
/A 0.5) l/s/ha unless this reduces below a value of 1.0 l/s/ha,
in which case 1.0 l/s/ha should be used.

2 LTF is defined such that the equation of item 6 uses rainfall depth in
millimetres and area in hectares.

3 There is a choice of LTF factor based on the assumption as to
whether the pervious area contributes to the 100 year runoff based on
its SPR value. The conservative assumption would be to assume it
does unless the site is designed to minimise the runoff from green
areas (using Figure A10.1). 80% runoff is assumed to occur from
pervious surfaces. Other options can be assumed working from first
principles using the formulae in Chapter 7.


19
TV
4.4 Initial sizing of Treatment storage volume

1. Development area
(A)

ha

Excluding public open space
which is not modified by the
development
2. Estimate of PIMP percentage
impermeable area (PIMP)

%


3. Proportion of impervious area
requiring Treatment storage (|)


(see note 2)

4. Soil runoff coefficient (SPR)




From the Wallingford Procedure
WRAP map or FSR SOIL maps
(Appendix 1, Figure A12.1)

5. 5 year / 60 minute rainfall depth
(M
5
60)


mm

5 year 60 min rainfall depth.
From the Wallingford Procedure
M
5
60 map or FSR rainfall maps
(Appendix 1, Figure A2.1).
6. Treatment volume
6.1 Treatment volume
(England and Wales) (Tv)
T Vol = A.15.PIMP/100


m
3

Treatment volume is calculated
using the formula See note 1
6.2 Treatment storage volume
(Scotland and N. Ireland) (Tv)
T Vol = 9A.M
5
60(SPR/2 +
(1 SPR/2). PIMP/100)


m
3

Treatment volume is calculated
using the formula See note 1

Note
1
The concept of treatment volume is to provide sufficient volume to
provide partial treatment of the stormwater effluent. There are no
specified water quality discharge criteria to comply with. Accepted best
practice in Scotland is based on (CIRIA report C522, 2000) requiring 1
times Tv except in certain circumstances when up to 4 times Tv is
needed. See SEPA guidance. Elsewhere in UK the volume equivalent
to 15mm of rainfall is used.
It should be noted that the emphasis on the importance of ponds to
provide treatment has changed to some degree in favour of
emphasising the need to use vegetative units to provide treatment or
pre-treatment. This therefore has implications on treatment volume
requirements and the need for flexibility in pond sizing.

2 Compliance with the SuDS Manual or the National SuDS Standards, if
different, in terms of providing a treatment sequence of 1, 2 or 3
treatment units, makes any rule of thumb for modifying the sizing of
the treatment volume difficult. It is unlikely that a Tv of less than 10mm
of rainfall runoff from impermeable areas draining to the pond would
be acceptable.

20
5 Initial sizing of conveyance systems

The use of pipes as part of a stormwater system on a site should not be
presumed with the current emphasis on the use of SuDS for all new
developments. Although pipe systems are still commonly used to provide the
conveyance and drainage connectivity for part or all of a site, efforts should be
made to use surface vegetative forms of conveyance.

The reason for needing to do an initial design for a pipe network is to show the
general connectivity arrangement across the site and the methods proposed.

The sizing of the stormwater network is often carried out using the Rational
Method and subsequently checked using hydrograph methods. This can be
done initially by very a simple rule of thumb using a constant rainfall intensity of
35mm/hr. Historically 50mm/hr has been used and provides a more
conservative solution.

Similar rules of thumb for gradients exist for pipe gradients. Pipes must be at
least 150mm in diameter and these should not be laid flatter than 1 in 150. As
larger pipes are required, pipes can be laid at minimum gradients using the
inverse of the pipe diameter, so a 225mm pipe can be laid at 1 in 225 or steeper
and a 300mm pipe at 1 in 300. For pipes larger than 500mm, gradients should
not generally be laid flatter than 1 in 500 due to limitations on construction
accuracy. Tables for the capacity of pipes at all gradients are available from
HR Wallingford.

If swales are used for conveyance, design is rarely a function of conveyance
capacity. Issues such as velocity to protect against erosion and maximise
treatment, and a shape which allows easy maintenance usually define their size
and characteristics. The SuDS Manual should be referred to for design
guidance.

Linear ponds/ vegetative channels are also good alternatives by still providing
treatment, storage, infiltration and conveyance but taking less land. However
there are issues associated with safety and maintenance that need to be
considered.

5.1 Designing for exceedence - temporary storage and flood
routing
Extremely heavy rainfall, either in terms of intensity or total depth, can result in
elements of the drainage system (storage or conveyance) being overloaded;
either intentionally or otherwise. The consequence is that overland flow takes
place within the site and off-site and ponding occurs at low points in the site.

The CIRIA guidance 635 (Designing for Exceedence in urban drainage Good
Practice) should be referred to for more information on this topic, but in principle
design of systems should take these aspects into account. In the case of SuDS
systems, conveyance exceedence is rarely an issue. However due to the sizing
rules for both pipework and gullies, overland flow on roads where these are
used is much more likely to occur for brief periods during intense storms.
Careful consideration of overland flow routing and threshold levels should be
considered at the appropriate design stage.
21
In addition to paved surfaces and the drainage system, flooding from steeper
areas of permeable (unpaved) areas can also generate flooding. Again
consideration of flood routes should also be made for these situations.

Sites are particularly at risk during the construction period, as areas stripped of
topsoil can effectively act as impermeable areas. This has implications for
temporary bunding of stormwater flooding, phasing of housing construction and
temporary storage of flood waters.

The mechanism of runoff when gullies and pipework are overloaded is for the
stormwater to run down roads to low spots. This characteristic can be explicitly
used in drainage design to temporarily utilise suitable temporary holding areas
to retain flood waters.

Unfortunately flooding at certain locations can be exacerbated by the pipe
system itself. Water can exit from gullies, particular where steeper sections
flatten out, thus concentrating floodwater in possibly vulnerable locations.
However at the stage of initial evaluation, identifying these locations is difficult
and they can only be effectively determined during detailed design using
computer models.

Where routing of water is assessed to take place, particular consideration of
floor thresholds and risk to property flooding in these locations needs to be
made.

6 Estimation of greenfield runoff

There has been a continuing debate over the years as to the merits of the
various methods of estimating greenfield runoff. To be strictly correct, the
debate is about which approach is appropriate that gives the most accurate
stream flow for small catchments which is then assumed to also provide the
best estimate of greenfield runoff from a site, usually by linear interpolation. This
chapter and Chapter 2 provide an explanation as to why the use of IH124 is still
thought to be appropriate, and where other methods may be used as
alternatives. The following text provides a brief overview of the main greenfield
runoff estimation techniques and their relative merits and draw-backs.

6.1 The principal methods used for estimation of river flow /
site greenfield runoff rates
It is important to note that the debate on which method is most appropriate for
greenfield runoff assessment has focused on the estimation of flow rate. This
debate has not extended to the estimation of runoff volume which is of equal
importance, both for small rainfall events and large ones. Research has shown
(EDAW/AECOM, 2009) the importance controlling runoff into streams and rivers
to preserve the morphology to natural states and this is not just a function of
peak flow control. Clearly, at present, the criteria on volume control is extremely
simplistic (Interception of the first 5mm, and then, at the other extreme, the use
of the 100 year 6 hour event). When criteria extend eventually to infiltration
volumes and the consideration of the site response to all rainfall events, runoff
volume will receive much greater attention, including the need for a significant
amount of additional research.
22
This chapter first addresses the methods for estimating peak flow and then
discusses runoff volume.

There are many UK guidance documents available on greenfield runoff
estimation. These include:
- Institute of Hydrology Report 124 (Marshall and Bayliss 1994)
- A number of other FSR based runoff equations (FSR 6 parameter
equation - 1975, FSSR 6 - 1978)
- Prudhoe and Young (TRRL LR565)
- Flood Estimation Handbook (Institute of Hydrology 1999)
- ADAS Report 345 (ADAS 1982),
- the Rational Method (Shaw 1994)
- and in Northern Ireland, the Poots & Cochrane formula (Civil Engineering
Branch, Department of Finance, Northern Ireland 1980).

Although there is much debate on the relative merits of each of these methods,
there has been no definitive guidance about which methods give the most
reliable design flood estimates for small catchments and greenfield runoff in the
UK. In general there has been acceptance that there is general preference for
the use of IH124 or FEH methods and that other methods should generally not
be used. (This does not apply to land drainage of fields where ADAS 345 is
probably still the preferred method). However as ADAS 345 is still used by
some, information on this equation is also provided.

In general there has been an acceptance by the water industry that IH124 is
suitable for estimating greenfield runoff since this document and the Interim
SuDS Code of Practice came out in 2004 which aimed to provide a pragmatic
approach to meet the various needs of the water industry and which was
applied consistently across the country. As a result the recommendation is
repeated in several subsequent guidance documents:
- Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - Volume 4, Drainage (Highways
Agency 2006), for catchments larger than 0.4 km
2
,
- Exceedance in Urban Drainage (Balmforth et al. 2006);
- The SuDS Manual (Woods-Ballard et al. 2007);
- Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide (Department for
Communities and Local Government 2010).

However in 2011 a paper Greenfield runoff and flood estimation on small
catchments (draft pending publication in Journal for Flood Risk Management)
was produced by Faulkner. D et al which provided a detailed comparison of
IH124 against both the Q
MED
equation from the statistical FEH method and the
ReFH hydrograph method on a number of small river basins. In summary this
showed that:
- When catchments with SAAR depths of > 800mm were excluded from the
analysis (generally representative of development sites in the UK), IH124
and the FEH statistical equation performed very similarly. ReFH
performed least well;
- When all catchments were considered, the FEH method performed best;
- The ReFH performed very poorly for catchments with high permeability.
23
Further work by Andy Young of Wallingford Hydrosolutions (Estimating flows for
small catchments a review of techniques and future research, unpublished
2011) has shown that IH124 has a bias towards under-prediction for
catchments which are less than 10km
2
. This therefore results in larger storage
volumes than might be required if another method was used. It is worth noting
that all of the above methods tend to underestimate Q
MED
for catchments with
low annual rainfall.

6.2 Statistical FEH model
6.2.1 Q
MED
estimation
This is a simplified summary of this method. The FEH method correlation
formula produces a value for the Index flood (Q
MED
) which is the median of the
set of annual maximum flow peaks and is equivalent to approximately the 1 in 2
year flow rate.

FEH has been produced in a way to enhance the accuracy of estimating flows
by giving the user the opportunity to also incorporate the use of Donor
catchments and Pooled growth curves using information on gauged flows from
catchments of similar characteristics.

Where a catchment is ungauged, the user can either derive a Q
MED
based on
flows from other hydrologically similar catchments, or else derive it from a
correlation formula given below. It would seem that, for very large sites, that
form a substantive part of a catchment, and for which there are reasonable flow
datasets available for hydrologically similar catchments, the first approach could
be considered (assuming the user has access to the FEH tools and a qualified
hydrologist is available to use the tool).

If the catchment in which the site lies is gauged, the site is greater than 50 ha,
and generally has similar soil characteristics and other hydrologically properties,
then it would be appropriate to assess the Q
MED
value against the observed
Q
MED
, scaled by area.

The FEH statistical method correlation formula (revised in 2008) is:

Q
MED
= 8.3062AREA
0.8510
.0.1536
(1000/SAAR)
.FARL
3.4451
.0.0460
BFIHOST^2


The original equation in FEH also incorporated the parameter SPRHOST but
this is no longer used in the equation. FARL is a measurement of water bodies
in the catchment so that their attenuation effects are considered. If the equation
is applied to development sites, it is unlikely that FARL will be relevant so this
term becomes 1.0 and therefore drops out. BFIHOST is a measure of base flow
runoff. For more information on BFIHOST see report IH126 (Hydrology of soil
types: a hydrological classification of the soils of the United Kingdom) or FEH
documentation.

As with IH124, this equation comes with the warning that it should not be used
for catchments less than 50ha in size.

24
The disadvantage of this equation is the need to obtain site specific data for
SAAR and BFIHOST. For users with the FEH software, this data can be
estimated by selecting characteristics of a small catchment close to the site in
question. However, the FEH tool only outputs catchment averaged values for
catchments greater than 0.5 km
2
so site specific characteristics cannot be
generated.

Fortunately every soil class is attributable to the HOST soil categories and this
can be found in IH126, Hydrology of Soil Types: a hydrologically based
classification of soils of the United Kingdom (1995). Therefore if one obtains a
soil map of the site area, the soil class can be found and used to obtain the
value for BFIHOST by referring to chapter 5 of IH126 and using Table 3.4 of the
same document.

6.2.2 Extreme flood flow estimation
Within the FEH tool, growth curves are computed by merging gauged data from
hydrologically similar catchments. This process requires the use of Winfap FEH
a component of the FEH suite of tools which requires implementation by a
skilled hydrologist. The use of such an approach has the benefit of using the
longest flood peak series available.

However, an alternative approach is to use the original growth curves produced
in FSSR 14 (Review of Regional Growth Curves, 1983) (Appendix 1, Figure
1.2). These generally provide a reasonable estimate for all return periods
including 2 years to convert Q
MED
values to Q
BAR
. FSSR 14 gives a range of 2
year factors ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 depending on the hydrological region. A
value of 0.9 is suggested as being sufficient for the purpose of using this
methodology.

6.3 ReFH hydrograph method
The ReFH methodology is not explained here in any detail as it requires the use
of the ReFH tool and its application by a skilled hydrologist.

It is a hydrograph method and therefore has the advantage of providing both
peak flow and runoff volume for any rainfall event.

It should be noted that it significantly under-predicts peak flow rates for
permeable catchments (much more so than IH124) and therefore should not be
used for sites with these characteristics anyway.

6.4 IH 124 peak flow estimation
The document Flood estimation for small catchments (Institute of Hydrology
report no. 124) was published in 1994 and describes further FSR research on
flood estimation for small catchments. The research was based on 71 small
rural catchments. However these catchments are not small relative to typical
developments as these are defined as having areas less than 25 km
2
. The
report advises that the method should not be applied to catchments which are
smaller than 50 hectares. A new regression equation was produced to calculate
Q
BAR(rural)
the mean annual flood for small rural catchments. Q
BAR(rural)
is
estimated from the three variable equation shown below:
25
Q
BAR(rural)
= 0.00108AREA
0.89
SAAR
1.17
SOIL
2.17


Where:
Q
BAR(rural)
is the mean annual flood (a return period in the region of 2.3 years)
AREA is the area of the catchment in km
2

SAAR is the Standard Average Annual Rainfall for the period 1941 to 1970
in mm
SOIL is the soil index, which is an value found from the Flood Studies
Report soil maps or the WRAP map of the Wallingford Procedure

Q
BAR
can be factored by the UK Flood Studies Report regional growth curves to
produce peak flood flows for any return period using FSSR 14.

A particularly poor aspect about the use of IH124 is the estimation of SPR from
the selection of the SOIL category. It is suggested that the FSR soils map is not
used and reference is made to a soils class map of the site. From this there are
two ways forward to obtaining a value for SPR.

The first is the use of IH126 in getting the relationship between soil class and
HOST category and then using Table 3.4 in that document to obtain a value for
SPRHOST. Although one must immediately state that SPRHOST is not the
same as SPR based on the WRAP map classification, this approximation is
likely to be better than using the coarse categorisation of the 5 SOIL categories.
The second approach is still to use the soil class but then to try and apply the
process used in developing the WRAP classes used in FSR (Table 4.5).
However there is little guidance on this and it requires expert judgement in
making the appropriate classification so this is advised against except where
experts are involved and where the value of SPRHOST may be considered to
be inappropriate.

It is suggested that the default approach should be based on the use of
SPRHOST as it is felt that any error based on the difference in principle is
more than compensated for by the improved accuracy of the classification
process.

Growth curves will be required to make predictions of extreme flood peaks and
the available methods are as described in Section 6.2.2 above.

6.5 The ADAS 345 method
The ADAS method is based on limited data (both sites and duration or records)
and measured flows in land drains, so for both these reasons ADAS is strongly
advised against. Also it must be acknowledged that the data was collected for
the purpose of land drainage and support for farming and not for urban drainage
or river flow calculation. However it has one great advantage; it remains the
only field research on flows at the site scale. For this reason it has merit in
being summarised in this report, even though the method is not preferred.

26
The Agricultural and Development Advisory Service (ADAS) report 345 details a
technique which is primarily aimed at providing information to determine the
size of pipes required for field drainage systems. The method is based on
measurements taken from a number of small rural catchments.

The equation to estimate runoff from a site is of the form:

Q = S
T
FA

Where:
Q is the 1 year peak flow in l/s
S
T
is the soil type factor which ranges between 0.1 for a very permeable soil
to 1.3 for an impermeable soil. (This does not directly correlate with
SOIL, and the original MAFF 5 document would need to be referred to for
more information)
F is a factor which is a function of the following catchment characteristics:
average slope; maximum drainage length; average annual rainfall. The
value of F can be obtained from a nomograph included in the ADAS
report
A is the area of the catchment being drained in hectares

The slope of the catchment is used to derive a second coefficient C. The
additional parameters of height, catchment length and Average Annual Rainfall
(AAR) are also needed. The formula to calculate this second coefficient is:

C = 0.0001 L / S

Where:
S = slope
L = catchment length (m)

The slope and length functions are normally dictated by the highest and lowest
points on the site. However where the site has multiple outfalls or very different
gradients across the site, appropriate consideration of these factors needs to be
made.

Guidance on the values of the above variables is given in the ADAS report,
together with a nomograph which can be used to estimate the flow (Appendix 1,
Figure 11 of ADAS 345). It is advised in the report that the method should not
be used for catchments that exceed 30 ha. The predicted peak flow resulting
from the ADAS equation should be taken as being the one year return period
flood and not the mean annual flood for the catchment. Flow rates for higher
return periods can be calculated using the appropriate Flood Studies
Supplementary Report regional growth curves (FSSR 2, FSSR 14).

27
It is generally believed that greenfield runoff calculated for small developments
using the ADAS formula provides relatively conservative values, but that it gives
a useful and consistent rule of thumb for use across the UK for developments of
this nature.

Having derived the value for the 1 year runoff rate (or one of the other return
periods which are also provided), this has then to be factored using a growth
curve for flood return period to determine the 30 and 100 year peak flow rates.
Note that using the 1 year event and factoring it for the 10 year event using
FSSR 14 (Appendix 1, Figure A1.2) is unlikely to give exactly the same answer
as the 10 year curve from the ADAS nomograph.

Table 6.1 summarises all the parameters used.

Table 6.1 Parameters used in calculating greenfield runoff
Parameter Units Comment
Area (A) (A) ha The site, excluding areas of greenfield which are to
remain unmodified.
Soil type (S
T
) (ST) Permeability factor does not directly correlate with
SOIL. Agree values to be used.
Length (L) m Between highest and lowest point of the site.
Slope (S) Defined by length and change in height
F = Coefficient 1
(1 year) (F)
(10 year)
From nomograph.
C = Coefficient 2 (C) From nomograph.
Highest level (H
1
) m Highest point on site
Lowest level (H
2
) m Lowest point on site
Hydrological Regional growth
curve (FSSR 14) 1 10
(HR)
The growth curve applied is that for the relevant
region (Appendix 1, Figure A1.1).
1 year to Q
BAR
use values from FSSR 2 or
approximate using a ratio of 0.85
Standard Average Annual
Rainfall (SAAR)
mm Use either SAAR from FSR map or Wallingford
Procedure map (1941 1970), or FEH AAR (1961
1990) (see Appendix 1, Figure A4.1)

6.6 Greenfield runoff volume
Calculation of the volume for the provision of Long Term storage is based on
the 100 year 6 hour event and a simple formula is available (FSSR 16, The FSR
rainfall-runoff model parameter estimation equations updated) Although FEH /
ReFH also provides methods for assessing this volume, as it is acknowledged
that this design requirement is a very arbitrary (though very important) one, the
proposed approach is perfectly adequate for the present. It should be noted that
although it can also be accused of being a simple and relatively inaccurate
method, it is probably also true that any other method is also likely to have great
difficulty in getting a more accurate value.

It should be noted that this equation again uses SOIL to provide an estimate. It
is suggested that the same refinement of using Soil classes and the use of
SPRHOST would again be useful in getting a more accurate approach (see
Section 6.4)

28
The percentage runoff for a site (PR
RURAL
) is given by the following equation
(FSSR 16):

PR
RURAL
= SPR + DPR
CWI
+ DPR
RAIN


Where:
SPR is the standard percentage runoff which is a function of the five soil
classes S
1
to S
5


SPR = 10S
1
+ 30S
2
+ 37S
3
+ 47S
4
+ 53S
5

DPR
CWI
is a dynamic component of the percentage runoff. This parameter
reflects the increase in percentage runoff with catchment wetness. The
catchment wetness index (CWI) is a function of the average annual rainfall.
The relationship is shown in Figure 6.1.

DPR
CWI
= 0.25 (CWI 125)

.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
400 1000 2000 3000
Annual average rainfall (mm)
Value obtained from SMD station
Median CWI
C
a
t
c
h
m
e
n
t

w
e
t
n
e
s
s

i
n
d
e
x
60
80
100
120
140

Figure 6.1 CWI vs SAAR Flood Studies Report

The DPR
RAIN
is the second dynamic component that increases the percentage
runoff from large rainfall events.

DPR
RAIN
= 0.45(P 40)
0.7
for P > 40 mm

DPR
RAIN
= 0 for P s 40 mm

Where P is the rainfall depth

The derivation of this equation is for extreme events and for catchments which
are larger than those of development sites. Its accuracy therefore is to be
treated with caution. However if account is to be taken of the volumetric effects
of development, this is one of the accepted methods for assessing runoff
volumes. It has the advantage of simplicity and therefore a rapid assessment of
the impact of development can be made with respect to runoff.
29
The key feature of this formula is the important influence of soil type. In practice
it indicates that developments on sandy soils create massive additional runoff,
but development on clays do not. This is obvious, but it has very significant
implications for the cost of developments. Other parameters have very little
influence.

7 Long Term Storage: Design practicalities and
estimation
7.1 Estimation of the difference between greenfield runoff and
development runoff
This section discusses and provides a method for estimating the difference in
runoff between a site before and after its development.


Figure 7.1 Development plan of a modern high-density housing estate
(courtesy of Linden Homes Chiltern Limited)

Examination of the formula in FSSR 16 demonstrates that an approximation to
SPR is valid for extreme events for the respective soil type. Unfortunately this
means that SOIL types 4 or 5 which have SPR values around 50% can show a
higher runoff volume than the post-development situation using the standard
modelling equations (see Appendix 3).

However, careful consideration of the built environment provides some support
for this result. Developments involve the construction of not only buildings and
roads, but also involve the re-contouring of the area. Runoff from pervious
areas may not be possible from back gardens or low areas created by the
development process. Therefore where the pre-development situation
reasonably assumed that the whole catchment contributed to the runoff, this
may no longer be the case once development has taken place. Figure 7.1
shows a housing development plan (designed to comply with current rules on
housing density) which illustrates that much of the green area is to be found in
back gardens behind terraced houses.
30
It is therefore important to be able to differentiate between areas that can and
cannot contribute runoff to the drainage system. Similarly, when using infiltration
systems, the proportion of the paved area that drains directly to a watercourse
may be significantly reduced. These issues, together with the rather complex
and sometimes awkward issues of using the appropriate runoff equation, means
that a simple and easy to use approach to quantify the difference between
runoff volumes before and after development is desirable.

Equation (7.1) has been derived to achieve this. It assumes that extreme events
are being considered, as SPR is only a reasonable assumption for the soil
runoff factor for this situation. It also assumes that only 80% runoff occurs from
paved areas as it is generally recognised that 100% is a conservative
assumption which aims to take into account some pervious runoff element.

( ) ( )
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = SOIL .SOIL
100
PIMP
1 0.8
100
PIMP
10.RD.A. Vol
xs
(7.1)

Where:
Vol
XS
= the extra runoff volume (m
3
) of development runoff over Greenfield
runoff
RD = the rainfall depth for the 100 year, 6 hour event (mm)
PIMP = the impermeable area as a percentage of the total area (values from 0
to 100)
A = the area of the site (ha)
SOIL = the SPR value for the relevant FSR soil type
o = the proportion of paved area draining to the network or directly to the
river (values from 0 to 1)
| = the proportion of pervious area draining to the network or directly to the
river (values from 0 to 1)
0.8 = the runoff factor for contributing paved surfaces

If all the paved area is assumed to drain to the network and all the pervious
areas are landscaped not to enter the drainage system or river, this formula
simplifies to:

|
|
.
|

\
|
= SOIL
100
PIMP
0.8 10.RD.A Vol
xs

(7.2)

But where all pervious areas are assumed to continue to drain to the river or
network the formula becomes:

|
|
.
|

\
|
= .SOIL
100
PIMP
100
PIMP
0.8 10.RD.A Vol
xs

(7.3)

Figures 7.2 and 7.3 illustrate the difference in runoff volume for these two
extremes (fully disconnected / fully connected pervious surfaces) for the five
different soil types for any development density. To obtain a volume all that is
required is to multiply the X axis value by the catchment area and the rainfall
depth.
31
These graphs demonstrate the very great difference in soil type, the importance
of using infiltration to disconnect impermeable areas from the drainage network
and the need to be efficient in designing the general landscape to disconnect
pervious areas.

It is felt that the assumption should be made that all pervious areas continue to
generate runoff for an extreme storm event, unless areas are specifically shown
to have been designed not to contribute because of the topography of the site.
This method of analysis provides a rapid and robust easy-to-use method for
assessing the additional volume of runoff generated by any development for
any large rainfall depth.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of impermeable surface
V
o
l
.
(
m
3
/
h
a
.
m
m
)
SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3 SOIL 4 SOIL 5

Figure 7.2 Difference in runoff volume for developments where all
pervious areas are assumed not to drain to the drainage network

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of impermeable surface
V
o
l
.
(
m
3
/
h
a
.
m
m
)
SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3 SOIL 4 SOIL 5

Figure 7.3 Difference in runoff volume for developments where all
pervious areas are assumed to drain to the drainage network
32
7.2 The practicalities of activating Long Term Storage (LTS)
Long Term Storage (LTS) can be provided to store the additional runoff caused
by the development compared to the volume that would have been contributed
from the site in its greenfield state. The current design rule of using the 100 year
6 hour event to determine this volume is very simple to use. However the
practicalities of designing a drainage system to achieve this element of
stormwater control is not particularly simple and is discussed here.

Perhaps it is worth stressing that any element of reduction of runoff volume
such as topographic management of runoff from indirectly drained areas,
interception storage, use of rainwater harvesting (where they are designed to
achieve stormwater control) and even where ground conditions are poor, but
some use of infiltration can be presumed, will help in minimising the volume
needing to be retained by Long Term Storage on a site.

There are three basic approaches to activating Long Term Storage. These are:

1. Ensure that the drainage system provides sufficient infiltration volume to
capture the 100 year 6 hour volume difference,
2. Design a storage system which comes into effect for all events (effectively
an on-line design) that captures the required volume difference for the 100
year 6 hour event which is specifically designed to empty at a rate of less
than 2 l/s/ha (using land drains or a throttle),
3. Design a storage system which only comes into effect above a storm size
threshold (effectively an off-line design) which captures the required
volume and discharges at the appropriate rate.

The problem with the first is that many sites do not have the soil characteristics
to enable infiltration to provide this volume of stormwater control.

The problem with the second (illustrated by Figure 7.4) is that a significant area
needs to be provided which comes into operation in all events. This results in a
much greater area being required to manage stormwater runoff than option 3.


Figure 7.4 Long Term Storage designed to capture all events

33
The third approach is to fill the attenuation storage system (which is designed to
discharge flows at greenfield rates), which spills water to the Long Term
Storage area. Although this is the most efficient use of land, there are difficulties
in achieving this which requires a specific and careful design process.

The critical duration event for the attenuation system for a site may be less than
6 hours, but is more likely to be a lot longer than this. There are therefore two
design stages required; firstly to determine the storage volume and
arrangement for the attenuation storage system, and then one also needs to
demonstrate that the 100 year 6 hour event will spill the requisite volume to the
Long Term Storage area. This will therefore have to come into effect well before
the attenuation storage system reaches its design capacity.


Figure 7.5 Activation of Long Term Storage from the Attenuation
system.

The activation of Long Term Storage will therefore also need to be checked for
when it comes into effect for the most frequent event. It is likely that this will be
of the order of 5 years. This is still sufficiently rare for say flooding of a football
field or even a car park, but in the case of the car park a maximum depth of
150mm or so would probably be required to avoid damage to vehicles for any
size of event.

Finally there is the issue of public expectation, draining the area and clean up. If
it is a dual use area, it is important that suitable notices exist to inform the public
and that maintenance procedures are in place so as to ensure the community
accept the flooding as part of normal practice. The drain-down of the area may
be by infiltration or by direct throttle control, but any solution must be practical
and robust in coming into effect in a proper manner even though it only has to
operate rarely. As a direct discharge rate must be less than 2 l/s/ha, a simple
throttle will rarely be effective as it would need to be impractically small unless
the Long Term Storage unit served a development larger than about 6ha.


34
References for further guidance on stormwater
design and planning

Several of the following references are referred to in the body of this report.
Others have been included as they are useful documents which are relevant to
drainage design.

ADAS, 1980. MAFF Report 5, Pipe size design for field drainage

ADAS, 1981, MAFF Report 345, The design of field drainage pipe systems

BRE, 1991, Digest 365, Soakaway design

British Standard, 1994, BS EN 752 2, Drain and sewer systems outside
buildings Part 2 Performance requirements

British Standard, 1998, BS EN 752 -3, Drain and sewer systems outside
buildings Part 3 Planning

British Standard, 1998, BS EN 752 -4, Drain and sewer systems outside
buildings Part 4 Hydraulic design and Environmental considerations

British Standard, 2000, BS EN 12056, Gravity drainage systems inside
buildings Part 3 Roof drainage, layout and calculation

CEH 2006, Revised Flood Estimation Handbook, rainfall-runoff method.

CIRIA, 2002, Report C582, Pratt, Wilson, Cooper: Source Control using
constructed pervious surfaces; hydraulic, structural and water quality
performance issues

CIRIA, 2001, Martin, P, et al, Report 523, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
Best Practice Guide

CIRIA, 2000, Martin, P, et al, Report 522, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
Design manual for England and Wales

CIRIA, 2000, Martin, P, et al, Report 521, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
Design manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland

CIRIA, 1996, Report 156, Bettess R, Infiltration drainage Manual of good
practice. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, ISBN 0
86017 457 3.

CIRIA, 1993, Hall, Hockin and Ellis, Design of Flood Storage Reservoirs.
Copas, B. A., 1957, Stormwater Storage Calculation. J. Inst. Public Health
Eng. 56(3) pp137 162.

35
CLG, 2010 (first ed. 2006), PPS25, Planning Policy and Guidance
Development and Flood risk (Replacing PPG25).

DETR, 2000, PPG3, Housing

DOE, 1981, The Wallingford Procedure - Design and analysis of Urban Storm
Drainage. HR Wallingford

DOE, 1981, Volume 4 Modified Rational Method, The Wallingford Procedure.
HR Wallingford

DOE, 2002, Building Regulations part H Drainage and Waste disposal

DOE, 1994, PPG23, Planning and Pollution control

EDAW / AECOM, 2009, Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental
Management (BPEM) Guidelines, Review of the principles, objectives and
targets A Discussion Paper. Prepared for EPA Victoria

Institute of Hydrology, 1999, Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH), 5 volumes,
Reed, Faulkner, Bayliss.

Institute of Hydrology, 1994, IH Report 124, Flood estimation for small
catchments

Institute of Hydrology, 1994, IH Report 126, Hydrology of Soil Types: a
hydrologically based classification of soils of the United Kingdom.

HR Wallingford, 2000, Kellagher, R, The Wallingford Procedure for Europe:
Best Practice Guide to Urban Drainage Modelling

HR Wallingford, D. Barr, 1997, Tables for the hydraulic design of pipes, sewers
and channels. 7
th
edition

HR Wallingford, 2002, Kellagher, R, Report SR591, Overview summary
Storage requirements for rainfall runoff from green field development sites

HR Wallingford, 2002, Kellagher, R, Report SR574, Drainage of development
sites a guide

JBA, 2011, Greenfield runoff and flood estimation on small catchments
Faulkner. D et al

NERC, 1975, Flood Studies Report, by Institute of Hydrology.

NERC, 1977, FSSR 2 The estimation of low return period flows Flood Studies
Supplementary Report, Institute of Hydrology

NERC, 1978, FSSR 6, Flood prediction for small catchments - Flood Studies
Supplementary Report, Institute of Hydrology
36
NERC, 1983, FSSR 14, Review of Regional Growth curves, Flood Studies
Supplementary Report, Institute of Hydrology

NERC, 1985, FSSR 16, The FSR rainfall-runoff model parameter estimation
equations updated - Flood Studies Supplementary report, Institute of Hydrology

Water UK 2012, Sewers for Adoption 7
th
edition, A design and construction
guide for developers published by WRc





37
Appendices



38


39
Appendix 1 Figures and graphs


Figure A1.1 Hydrological regions of UK
40
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2 5 10 25 100 500 1000
Y1
T
Q/Q
5
6/7
4
8
2
1
9
3/10
IRISH

Figure A1.2 Peak flow growth curves of UK (from FSSR 14)


41

Figure A1.3 Growth curve factors

Growth curve
5 1 1
6/7 1.05 1.17
4 1.27 1.38
8 1.27 1.46
2 1.27 1.34
1 1.27 1.42
9 1.33 1.59
3/10 1.4 1.68
Duration (year) 30 100
Growth curve Factor
42
6
4
5
6
2
3
10
1
1 2 3 4 5
8
7
9
4
3
3
2
2
Irish grid
1
National grid
100 75 25
kilometers
50 0
17 mm 14 mm
5 M 60
20 mm
0.4
0.2
0.3 "r"
FSR M 60 + "r" parameters

Figure A2.1 5 year 60 minute rainfall depth parameters of UK
43
6
4
5
6
2
3
10
1
1 2 3 4 5
8
7
9
4
3
3
2
2
Irish grid
1
National grid
100 75 25
kilometers
50 0
M 6 hr - Rainfall depth
100
61 mm
55 mm
60 mm
51 mm
82 mm
70 mm
63 mm
71 mm

Figure A3.1 100 year 6 hour rainfall depths of UK
44
6
4
5
6
2
3
10
1
1 2 3 4 5
8
7
9
4
3
3
2
2
Irish grid
1
National grid
100 75 25
kilometers
50 0
M 12 hr - Rainfall depth
100
77 mm
84 mm
91 mm
103 mm
72 mm
73 mm
63 mm
62 mm

Figure A3.2 100 year 12 hour rainfall depths of UK
45

Figure A4.1 Average annual rainfall (1961 1990) (from FEH)
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
46

Figure A5.1 WRAP map of SOIL type from the Wallingford Procedure
47

Figure A6.1.1 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
48

Figure A6.1.2 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
49

Figure A6.1.3 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
50

Figure A6.1.4 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
51

Figure A6.2.1 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
52

Figure A6.2.2 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
53

Figure A6.2.3 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
54

Figure A6.2.4 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
55

Figure A6.3.1 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
56

Figure A6.3.2 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
57

Figure A6.3.3 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios
Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
58

Figure A6.3.4 FSR/FEH rainfall depth ratios

Reproduced with
permission from UKWIR
59
M
5
60: 14, R:0.2
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.1 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:14, r:0.2)
60
M
5
60: 14, R:0.3
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.2 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:14, r:0.3)
61
M
5
60: 17, R:0.2
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp ,GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.3 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:17, r:0.2)
62
M
5
60: 17, R:0.3
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.4 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:17, r:0.3)
63
M
5
60: 17, R:0.4
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.5 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:17, r:0.4)
64
M
5
60: 20, R:0.2
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha,50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp GC:5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.6 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:20, r:0.2)
65
M
5
60: 20, R:0.3
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.7 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:20, r:0.3)
66
M
5
60: 20, R:0.4
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
1100.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return period (year)
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha,50 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp, GC5
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC Qbar:4l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5 Qbar:6l/s/ha, 75 pimp, GC5

Figure A7.8 Attenuation storage volume as a function of Q
BAR
/A and PIMP (M
5
60:20, r:0.4)
67

M560:14, R:0.2
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.1 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M
5
60:14, r:0.2)
68

M560:14, R:0.3
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.2 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M
5
60:14, r:0.3)
69

M560:17, R:0.2
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.3 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:17, R:0.2)
70

M560:17, R:0.3
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.4 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:17, R:0.3)
71

M560:17, R:0.4
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.5 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:20, R:0.4)
72

M560:20, R:0.2
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5 ,100 pimp

Figure A8.6 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:20, R:0.2)
73

M560:20, R:0.3
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC5, 1y, 50 pimp Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 1y, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 1y, 50 pimp
Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 1y, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 1y, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 1y, 100 pimp

Figure A8.7 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:20, R:0.3)
74

M560:20, R:0.4
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
CC/FF factor
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, GC:5, 100 pimp

Figure A8.8 Attenuation storage volume adjustment factor to allow for climate change and FEH rainfall depth ratios
(M560:20, R:0.4)
75
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Growth curve factor
V
o
l
u
m
e

s
t
o
r
a
g
e

r
a
t
i
o
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 50 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 50 pimp
Qbar:2l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:4l/s/ha, 100 pimp Qbar:6l/s/ha, 100 pimp

Figure A9.1 Attenuation storage growth curve adjustment factor hydrological regions of UK (all hydrological zones)

76
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of impermeable surface
V
o
l
.
(
m
3
/
h
a
.
m
m
)
SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3 SOIL 4 SOIL 5

Figure A10.1 Long Term storage volume based on SOIL type

77
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of impermeable surface
V
o
l
.
(
m
3
/
h
a
.
m
m
)
SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3 SOIL 4 SOIL 5

Figure A10.2 Difference in runoff volume for developments where all pervious areas are assumed to drain to the
drainage network

78
FEH factor: 1.1 Critical durations for each hydrological zone
(hours)
Qbar (l/s/ha) Hydrological Zones
M560:14 M560:14 M560:17 M560:17 M560:17 M560:20 M560:20 M560:20
R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4
2 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 28/48 9/26 30/48 13/32 7/12 36/48 16/36 6/13
4 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 11/30 5/9 14/32 5/13 3/7 15/36 6/16 4/6
6 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 5/19 3/7 7/21 4/7 2/4 10/27 3/10 2/4
FEH factor: 1.0 Critical durations for each hydrological zone
(hours)
Qbar (l/s/ha) Hydrological Zones
M560:14 M560:14 M560:17 M560:17 M560:17 M560:20 M560:20 M560:20
R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4
2 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 30/44 10/32 32/48 13/32 6/11 48/48 15/32 6/13
4 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 11/30 5/10 15/32 5/13 4/6 13/40 7/14 4/6
6 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 6/20 4/8 8/26 4/8 2/4 10/27 5/10 2/4
FEH factor: 0.8 Critical durations for each hydrological zone
(hours)
Qbar (l/s/ha) Hydrological Zones
M560:14 M560:14 M560:17 M560:17 M560:17 M560:20 M560:20 M560:20
R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4
2 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 36/48 14/36 40/48 18/40 7/16 48/48 23/44 9/19
4 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 19/36 7/14 20/40 7/18 4/7 19/44 10/23 4/9
6 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 8/27 4/9 9/30 5/11 2/5 14/32 5/13 3/6
FEH factor: 0.65 Critical durations for each hydrological zone
(hours)
Qbar (l/s/ha) Hydrological Zones
M560:14 M560:14 M560:17 M560:17 M560:17 M560:20 M560:20 M560:20
R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4 R:0.2 R:0.3 R:0.4
2 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 44/48 19/44 48/48 24/48 9/20 48/48 30/48 11/20
4 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 25/44 8/9 27/48 10/24 4/9 34/48 13/32 5/10
6 (50pimp/ 100pimp) 13/30 5/11 19/36 5/15 4/6 20/44 7/21 4/7

Note: This set of tables provides assistance in choosing the correct duration map in figures
A6.1.1 - A6.3.4
See note 3 in section 3.1 for discussion on the use of Figure A11.1.
Figure A11.1 Table of critical durations as a function of Q
BAR
/A and
PIMP for Attenuation Storage analysis











79
HOST/SOIL
CLASS
SPR Value %
(HOST)
SPR Value
SOIL *
1 0.020 0.15 (0.10)
2 0.020 0.30 (0.30)
3 0.145 0.40 (0.37)
4 0.020 0.45 (0.47)
5 0.145 0.50 (0.53)
6 0.338
7 0.443
8 0.443
9 0.253
10 0.253
11 0.020
12 0.600
13 0.020
14 0.253
15 0.484
16 0.292
17 0.292
18 0.472
19 0.600
20 0.600
21 0.472
22 0.600
23 0.600
24 0.397
25 0.496
26 0.687
27 0.600
28 0.600
29 0.600
* Values of SPR for SOIL have been used for deriving Figure A10.1. These SPR values are
based on the SOIL coefficients used in the Wallingford Procedure runoff model. The value in
brackets is the SPR value for SOIL from the Flood Studies Report. The Wallingford Procedure
analysis was carried out by the Institute of Hydrology and resulted in modified SPR values to
obtain the best correlation for the percentage runoff equation for urban drainage.

Note: There is no relationship between the HOST index class and the same index for SOIL
Figure A12.1 SPR Values for SOIL and HOST


80

81
Appendix 2 Examples
This section has been provided to illustrate the level of accuracy of the method
compared with the results that would have been produced using a modelling
approach. Five cities around UK have been used which have a range of
hydrological characteristics.

As the percentage impervious proportion of the catchment and the limiting
discharge rates are important factors, four sets of comparisons are provided.
These are as follows:

Site type 1) Q
BAR
= 6, PIMP = 0.75
Site type 2) Q
BAR
= 6, PIMP = 0.50
Site type 3) Q
BAR
= 2, PIMP = 0.75
Site type 4) Q
BAR
= 2, PIMP = 0.50

The graphs show the Guide method compared with three other results obtained
by modelling.

- The main comparison is between the use of the Guide method against the
use of FEH rainfall characteristics of the city using the Variable UK
Wallingford Procedure runoff model, which is referred to as Method 2.

In addition, comparisons are also provided for two other sets of modelling
assumptions.

- The first is using FEH rainfall, but with the same runoff model (Sewers for
Adoption) used in the Guide (Method 1).
- The second is the use of the same FSR hydrological characteristics as
that of the Guide, but using the Wallingford Procedure variable runoff
model (Method 3).

The parameters used for the Wallingford Procedure variable runoff model are
as follows:

IF = 0.75
NAPI = 1 (SOIL type 2)
NAPI = 10 (SOIL type 4)

Results
The results comparing Method 1 and the Guide method are fairly similar with
the inaccuracy due to the approximation of the rainfall and the errors introduced
due to interpolation.

Methods 2 and 3 use a different runoff model, which generally predicts a slight
reduction in storage volume required. However the conservative assessment
made by the Guide method is considered to be appropriate for the following
reasons:

1. If storage is distributed across the site, the cumulative effects may not be as
effective as a single point of control
82
2. The method of modelling at initial design stage makes a non-conservative
assumption on the use of limiting discharge by not taking account of the
head-discharge relationship.
3. It is better to be conservative in the initial evaluation of cost and space
requirements.

One of the five cities (Manchester) was selected as an example to show the
values used in determining the Attenuation storage. It should be noted that no
reduction in area was made to take account of any area draining to Long Term
storage. This example did not include an analysis of Long Term storage or
Treatment storage as these are relatively self explanatory.

In addition, climate change was not included, as the main objective was to
demonstrate the level of accuracy of the simple tool in this Guide against
computer models at these various locations.

83
ASV2
Assessment of attenuation storage volumes

1. Hydrological Region
(R)
Regions 1 10 for runoff growth factor
(Appendix 1, Figure A1.1)

2. Hydrological rainfall Zone
(M
5
60, r) (Z)
Zones 1 to 8 based on FSR rainfall
characteristics (Appendix 1, Figure A2.1)

3. Development Area
(A)

ha
Excluding large public open space which is
not modified and drained by the development

4. Proportion of impervious
area requiring Attenuation (o)
storage
Impermeable area served by direct drainage /
total area of impermeable surface.
(see Note 1)

5. Greenfield flow rate Q
BAR/
A
per unit area


l/s/ha

From page ASV 1, use the larger of item 8 or
9.2. See also note 3 on page LTV

6. Estimate of catchment (PIMP)
percentage impermeable
area


%
For catchments where the PIMP value is less
than 50% (i.e. where pervious area is the main
surface type) a more detailed study should be
made as the storage estimates may be
undersized.

7. Attenuation storage
volumes per unit area
(Uvol
1yr
)

(Uvol
30yr
)

(Uvol
100yr
)


m
3
/ha

m
3
/ha

m
3
/ha
Interpolate values based on PIMP and
Q
BAR
/A (Appendix 1, Figures A7.1 A7.8)

Use characteristics from item 2 (M
5
60, r).




8. Basic storage volumes
(U.Vol . o A)
(BSV
1yr
)

(BSV
30yr
)

(BSV
100yr
)



m
3


m
3


m
3

Storage units may serve areas of different
densities of development. Calculations
should be based on each development zone
then cumulated.


9. Climate Change factor
(CC)
Suggested factor for climate change is 1.2
(see note 2)

10. FEH Rainfall factor
(FF
1yr
)

(FF
30yr
)

(FF
100yr
)






Use critical duration based on Q
BAR
/A and
PIMP (Appendix 1, Figure A11.1 and
Appendix 1, Figures A6.1.1 A6.3.4).


(See note 3)




10
20/0.
1.0
1.0
2
369
451
198
369
451
198
75
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
84

11. Storage Volume ratio
(CC/ FF) (SVR
1yr
)

(SVR
30yr
)

(SVR
100yr
)








Calculate item 9 / item 10 then use
Appendix 1, Figures A8.1 A8.8 to
obtain storage ratios
12. Adjusted Storage
Volumes (ASV
1yr
)

(SVR x BSV) (ASV
30yr
)

(ASV
100yr
)


m
3


m
3


m
3


Storage volumes adjusted for
Climate Change and FEH rainfall
13. Hydrological Region
volume storage (HR
1yr
)
ratio
(HR
30yr
)

(HR
100yr
)






Adjustment of storage volumes for
hydrological region using Volume
Storage Ratio (Appendix 1, Figure A9.1).
The values are based on growth curve
factors - the ratio of growth curve factor
of the region of site with hydrological
region 5 (Table inset in Appendix 1,
Figure A1.3)
14. Final estimated
Attenuation Storage


Attenuation
Storage
Volumes

(HR x ASV)

At. Vol
1yr


At. Vol
30yr


At. Vol
100yr


m
3


m
3


m
3


Required Attenuation Storage


1.0
1.0
1.14
369
514
198
1.0
1.08
1.12
578
398
198
85
Table A2.1.1 5 example sites (site type 1)- parameters and results of the
User Guide method
User Guide Method
catchment area M5-60 R RP (year) FSR/FEH
Ratio
Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume (m3/ha)
Aberdeen 14 0.2 1 1.1 720 76.91
Aberdeen 14 0.2 30 1 720 204.35
Aberdeen 14 0.2 100 1 720 270.02
Manchester 20 0.3 1 1 360 107.14
Manchester 20 0.3 30 1 360 259.85
Manchester 20 0.3 100 0.9 360 486.14
Newcastle 17 0.3 1 1 360 80.68
Newcastle 17 0.3 30 1.1 360 178.17
Newcastle 17 0.3 100 1 360 283.30
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 1 1.1 180 64.68
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 30 1.1 180 151.41
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 100 1 180 235.76
East London 20 0.4 1 1.1 180 74.97
East London 20 0.4 30 1 180 216.69
East London 20 0.4 100 0.9 180 314.34

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.

Note: FSR/FEH ratio (from the maps of Figures A6.1.1 A6.3.4) is the inverse
of the factor applied to allow for FEH rainfall in this procedure.

Table A2.1.2 5 example sites (site type 1)- parameters and results of
Method 1
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment area RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method 1
Aberdeen 1 900 80.88 0.95
Aberdeen 30 480 158.59 1.29
Aberdeen 100 480 201.52 1.34
Manchester 1 1080 96.29 1.11
Manchester 30 360 242.62 1.07
Manchester 100 240 334.07 1.46
Newcastle 1 720 83.76 0.96
Newcastle 30 360 188.82 0.94
Newcastle 100 240 250.12 1.13
Shrewsbury 1 480 69.51 0.93
Shrewsbury 30 120 178.39 0.85
Shrewsbury 100 120 245.60 0.96
East London 1 120 80.64 0.93
East London 30 120 238.07 0.91
East London 100 120 338.87 0.93

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.
86
Table A2.1.3 5 example sites (site type 1)- parameters and results of
Method 2
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI RP (year) Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide /
Method 2
Aberdeen 2 1 1 720 52.30 1.47
Aberdeen 2 1 30 480 107.09 1.91
Aberdeen 2 1 100 480 138.20 1.95
Manchester 4 10 1 900 67.46 1.59
Manchester 4 10 30 240 188.65 1.38
Manchester 4 10 100 240 271.96 1.79
Newcastle 4 10 1 600 58.86 1.37
Newcastle 4 10 30 240 140.90 1.26
Newcastle 4 10 100 240 194.58 1.46
Shrewsbury 4 10 1 240 49.35 1.31
Shrewsbury 4 10 30 120 135.12 1.12
Shrewsbury 4 10 100 120 194.26 1.21
East London 4 10 1 120 58.58 1.28
East London 4 10 30 120 188.38 1.15
East London 4 10 100 120 278.63 1.13

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.

Table A2.1.4 5 example sites (site type 1)- parameters and results of
Method 3
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological Zones
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI M5-60 R RP
(year)
Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide /
Method 3
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 1 900 65.57 1.17
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 30 480 126.09 1.62
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 100 360 160.68 1.68
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 1 480 77.95 1.37
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 30 240 183.24 1.42
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 100 240 240.99 2.02
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 1 360 57.30 1.41
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 30 240 144.28 1.23
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 100 240 192.39 1.47
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 1 120 47.32 1.37
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 30 120 124.53 1.22
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 100 120 183.88 1.28
East London 4 10 20 0.4 1 240 63.08 1.19
East London 4 10 20 0.4 30 240 157.80 1.37
East London 4 10 20 0.4 100 240 209.64 1.50

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.

87
75 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 1 year- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
Manchester Aberdeen Newcastle Shrewbury East London
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.1.1 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 1 1 year

75 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 30 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle
Aberdeen
Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.1.2 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 1 30 years
88
75 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 100 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.1.3 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 1 100 years

89
Table A2.2.1 5 example sites (site type 2)- parameters and results of the
User Guide method
User Guide Method
catchment
area
M5-60 R RP (year) FSR/FEH
Ratio
Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume (m3/ha)
Aberdeen 14 0.2 1 0.9 360 35.09
Aberdeen 14 0.2 30 0.9 360 87.10
Aberdeen 14 0.2 100 0.9 360 115.58
Manchester 20 0.3 1 0.9 180 48.57
Manchester 20 0.3 30 1 180 145.53
Manchester 20 0.3 100 1.1 180 227.74
Newcastle 17 0.3 1 0.9 180 35.39
Newcastle 17 0.3 30 0.9 180 96.95
Newcastle 17 0.3 100 0.9 180 133.41
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 1 0.9 120 31.03
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 30 0.9 120 86.87
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 100 0.9 120 116.33
East London 20 0.4 1 0.8 120 35.45
East London 20 0.4 30 1 120 120.49
East London 20 0.4 100 1.1 120 184.45

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.


Table A2.2.2 5 example sites (site type 2)- parameters and results of
Method 1
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume (m3/ha) User Guide / Method 1
Aberdeen 1 480 39.92 0.88
Aberdeen 30 240 76.48 1.14
Aberdeen 100 240 98.25 1.18
Manchester 1 360 49.70 0.98
Manchester 30 240 134.26 1.08
Manchester 100 120 188.83 1.21
Newcastle 1 480 43.20 0.82
Newcastle 30 120 100.65 0.96
Newcastle 100 120 137.28 0.97
Shrewsbury 1 120 37.99 0.82
Shrewsbury 30 120 102.72 0.85
Shrewsbury 100 120 142.88 0.81
East London 1 120 45.79 0.77
East London 30 120 137.78 0.87
East London 100 60 201.10 0.92

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.
90
Table A2.2.3 5 example sites (site type 2)- parameters and results of
Method 2
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method 2
Aberdeen 2 1 1 480 25.38 1.38
Aberdeen 2 1 30 240 53.45 1.63
Aberdeen 2 1 100 240 70.49 1.64
Manchester 4 10 1 360 38.22 1.27
Manchester 4 10 30 240 118.56 1.23
Manchester 4 10 100 240 179.91 1.27
Newcastle 4 10 1 480 32.22 1.10
Newcastle 4 10 30 240 83.54 1.16
Newcastle 4 10 100 240 119.44 1.12
Shrewsbury 4 10 1 120 28.26 1.10
Shrewsbury 4 10 30 120 84.43 1.03
Shrewsbury 4 10 100 120 123.82 0.94
East London 4 10 1 120 34.78 1.02
East London 4 10 30 120 122.06 0.99
East London 4 10 100 120 189.76 0.97

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.

Table A2.2.4 5 example sites (site type 2)- parameters and results of
Method 3
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological Zones
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI M5-60 R RP
(year)
Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method
3
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 1 60 32.51 1.08
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 30 360 66.97 1.30
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 100 240 87.48 1.32
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 1 240 45.83 1.06
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 30 360 115.16 1.26
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 100 240 155.99 1.46
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 1 240 32.64 1.08
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 30 240 86.32 1.12
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 100 240 118.14 1.13
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 1 120 27.53 1.13
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 30 120 76.43 1.14
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 100 120 103.03 1.13
East London 4 10 20 0.4 1 120 37.49 0.95
East London 4 10 20 0.4 30 120 100.58 1.20
East London 4 10 20 0.4 100 120 135.81 1.36

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 6 l/s/ha.

91
50 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 1 year- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
Manchester Aberdeen Newcastle Shrewbury East London
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.2.1 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 2 1 year

50 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 30 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.2.2 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 2 30 years
92
50 PIMP, 6l/s/ha, 100 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.2.3 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 2 100 years


93
Table A2.3.1 5 example sites (site type 3)- parameters and results of the
User Guide method
User Guide Method
catchment
area
M5-60 R RP (year) FSR/FEH
Ratio
Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
Aberdeen 14 0.2 1 0.9 720 185.88
Aberdeen 14 0.2 30 1 720 392.28
Aberdeen 14 0.2 100 1 720 482.54
Manchester 20 0.3 1 1 720 198.54
Manchester 20 0.3 30 1 720 397.63
Manchester 20 0.3 100 1.1 720 576.41
Newcastle 17 0.3 1 1 720 146.64
Newcastle 17 0.3 30 1 720 325.29
Newcastle 17 0.3 100 1 720 420.77
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 1 1 720 106.53
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 30 1 720 253.12
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 100 1.1 720 328.63
East London 20 0.4 1 0.9 720 117.41
East London 20 0.4 30 1.1 720 330.73
East London 20 0.4 100 1.1 720 425.87

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.

Table A2.3.2 5 example sites (site type 3)- parameters and results of
Method 1
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume (m3/ha) User Guide / Method 1
Aberdeen 1 2880 182.55 1.02
Aberdeen 30 2880 344.15 1.14
Aberdeen 100 2880 426.75 1.13
Manchester 1 2880 212.63 0.93
Manchester 30 2880 431.61 0.92
Manchester 100 2160 547.54 1.05
Newcastle 1 2880 171.25 0.86
Newcastle 30 1440 327.17 0.99
Newcastle 100 1440 412.06 1.02
Shrewsbury 1 2880 133.66 0.80
Shrewsbury 30 1080 269.03 0.94
Shrewsbury 100 900 344.04 0.96
East London 1 600 128.93 0.91
East London 30 480 325.42 1.02
East London 100 480 441.19 0.97

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.
94
Table A2.3.3 5 example sites (site type 3)- parameters and results of
Method 2
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method 2
Aberdeen 2 1 1 2880 130.86 1.42
Aberdeen 2 1 30 2880 262.86 1.49
Aberdeen 2 1 100 2160 337.58 1.43
Manchester 4 10 1 2880 166.97 1.19
Manchester 4 10 30 2880 372.69 1.07
Manchester 4 10 100 2880 500.08 1.15
Newcastle 4 10 1 2880 130.62 1.12
Newcastle 4 10 30 1440 266.91 1.22
Newcastle 4 10 100 1440 350.22 1.20
Shrewsbury 4 10 1 2160 98.64 1.08
Shrewsbury 4 10 30 1080 213.40 1.19
Shrewsbury 4 10 100 900 283.71 1.16
East London 4 10 1 480 96.04 1.22
East London 4 10 30 480 267.17 1.24
East London 4 10 100 480 412.72 1.03

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.

Table A2.3.4 5 example sites (site type 3)- parameters and results of
Method 3
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological Zones
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI M5-60 R RP
(year)
Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method
3
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 1 2880 158.98 1.17
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 30 2880 282.62 1.39
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 100 2160 343.76 1.40
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 1 2880 154.48 1.29
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 30 1440 308.20 1.29
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 100 1080 390.24 1.48
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 1 2160 111.73 1.31
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 30 1080 244.62 1.33
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 100 1080 315.89 1.33
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 1 480 78.22 1.36
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 30 360 190.33 1.33
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 100 360 250.14 1.31
East London 4 10 20 0.4 1 480 102.46 1.15
East London 4 10 20 0.4 30 480 235.74 1.40
East London 4 10 20 0.4 100 480 305.72 1.39

For all models:
- PIMP= 75 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.

95
75 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 1 year- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.3.1 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 3 1 year

75 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 30 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
Manchester Aberdeen Newcastle Shrewbury East London
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.3.2 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 3 30 years
96
75 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 100 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.3.3 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 3 100 years


97
Table A2.4.1 5 example sites (site type 4)- parameters and results of the
User Guide method
User Guide Method
catchment
area
M5-60 R RP (year) FSR/FEH Ratio Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
Aberdeen 14 0.2 1 0.9 720 96.11
Aberdeen 14 0.2 30 1 720 209.57
Aberdeen 14 0.2 100 1 720 265.93
Manchester 20 0.3 1 1 720 103.66
Manchester 20 0.3 30 1 720 228.18
Manchester 20 0.3 100 1.1 720 339.74
Newcastle 17 0.3 1 1 720 78.55
Newcastle 17 0.3 30 1 720 185.33
Newcastle 17 0.3 100 1 720 245.19
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 1 1 360 59.59
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 30 1 360 149.69
Shrewsbury 17 0.4 100 1 360 197.03
East London 20 0.4 1 0.9 360 65.26
East London 20 0.4 30 1 360 173.85
East London 20 0.4 100 1 360 256.98

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.

Table A2.4.2 5 example sites (site type 4)- parameters and results of
Method 1
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume (m3/ha) User Guide / Method 1
Aberdeen 1 2880 93.44 1.03
Aberdeen 30 1440 174.90 1.20
Aberdeen 100 1440 219.49 1.21
Manchester 1 2880 111.16 0.93
Manchester 30 1440 230.21 0.99
Manchester 100 1440 300.03 1.13
Newcastle 1 2160 87.95 0.89
Newcastle 30 900 179.79 1.03
Newcastle 100 720 230.89 1.06
Shrewsbury 1 1440 68.96 0.86
Shrewsbury 30 480 153.34 0.98
Shrewsbury 100 480 201.76 0.98
East London 1 480 72.00 0.91
East London 30 480 191.63 0.91
East London 100 240 268.22 0.96

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.
98
Table A2.4.3 5 example sites (site type 4)- parameters and results of
Method 2
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI RP (year) Critical duration (min) Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method 2
Aberdeen 2 1 1 2880 74.26 1.29
Aberdeen 2 1 30 2160 159.06 1.32
Aberdeen 2 1 100 2160 211.78 1.26
Manchester 4 10 1 2880 106.52 0.97
Manchester 4 10 30 2880 259.55 0.88
Manchester 4 10 100 2880 362.81 0.94
Newcastle 4 10 1 2880 79.41 0.99
Newcastle 4 10 30 1440 176.05 1.05
Newcastle 4 10 100 1080 241.61 1.01
Shrewsbury 4 10 1 1440 58.51 1.02
Shrewsbury 4 10 30 480 141.09 1.06
Shrewsbury 4 10 100 480 196.53 1.00
East London 4 10 1 480 59.62 1.09
East London 4 10 30 480 184.42 0.94
East London 4 10 100 480 274.75 0.94

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.

Table A2.4.4 5 example sites (site type 4)- parameters and results of
Method 3
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological Zones
catchment
area
Soil Type NAPI M5-60 R RP
(year)
Critical duration
(min)
Cumulative Volume
(m3/ha)
User Guide / Method
3
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 1 2880 94.14 1.02
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 30 2160 176.47 1.19
Aberdeen 2 1 14 0.2 100 1440 219.71 1.21
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 1 2880 97.13 1.07
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 30 1080 211.98 1.08
Manchester 4 10 20 0.3 100 1080 279.19 1.22
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 1 1440 68.23 1.15
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 30 900 162.40 1.14
Newcastle 4 10 17 0.3 100 900 218.13 1.12
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 1 360 48.15 1.24
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 30 360 127.26 1.18
Shrewsbury 4 10 17 0.4 100 360 172.32 1.14
East London 4 10 20 0.4 1 360 64.66 1.01
East London 4 10 20 0.4 30 360 160.93 1.08
East London 4 10 20 0.4 100 360 215.47 1.19

For all models:
- PIMP= 50 %
- Q
BAR
= 2 l/s/ha.


99
50 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 1 year- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.4.1 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 4 1 year

50 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 30 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
Manchester Aberdeen Newcastle Shrewbury East London
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.4.2 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 4 30 years
100
50 PIMP, 2l/s/ha, 100 years- Storage volume ratios relative User Guide / check methods for 5 cities
East London Shrewbury Newcastle Aberdeen Manchester
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Example location
S
t
o
r
a
g
e

v
o
l
u
m
e

r
a
t
i
o

(
m
3
/
h
a
)
Check Method 1- SfA runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 2- W.P. New PR runoff model, FEH rainfall
Check Method 3- W.P. New PR runoff model, FSR Hydrological zones

Figure A2.4.3 Check comparison of Attenuation Storage Volume for
site type 4 100 years



101
Appendix 3 Methodology used for deriving storage
volumes assessment

This section provides a summary of the approach used to derive the data in the
various graphs and figures which have been produced for this Guide.

A3.1 Modelling
A large number of models were created and run to derive actual calculated
values of storage volumes. For the eight hydrological rainfall zones, three
values of Q
BAR
(2 l/s/ha, 4 l/s/ha and 6 l/s/ha) were assumed for a development
of 1ha. For each development two values of PIMP (proportion of contributing
impermeable area) 50% and 100% were built. Soil is immaterial in these models
as a runoff of 100% is assumed for the hard surfaces and 0% from pervious
surfaces. Thus a total number of 48 models were built. If four types of soil were
individually considered, the number of models would have been 192. As Figure
A4.1 illustrates, the runoff assumptions used in Sewers for Adoption were
thought to provide a precautionary set of results, thus avoiding having to
consider soil type at this initial stage of storage volume assessment.

Clearly every site will have unique values of PIMP, Q
BAR
and other parameters.
The graphs have therefore been devised to allow interpolation of the values and
so provide a value for the storage needed.

Throttle values for each value of Q
BAR
were calculated for three return periods; 1
year, 30 year and 100 year and applied to each model. The 1 year event was
first run, and the storage volume determined. This volume was then added to
the model and then run with the 30 year event with 2 throttles (the 1 year and
the remainder for the 30 year). The same process was then followed for the 100
year event.

This analysis was carried out for hydrological region 5 (which has the highest
flow rate growth curve, FSSR 14). A selection of models from each of the Q
BAR

families were then rerun using the lowest growth curve 3/10 to compare the
difference in predicted volume. This allowed the development of a storage
volume correction factor (Appendix 1, Figure A9.1) for all regions. A check was
made using region growth curve 4 to be sure that the method was generic for all
curves.

A more important correction factor needed to be developed for modifying the
storage to compensate for the difference in rainfall from that used for the eight
FSR rainfall zones. This is primarily to address the fact that the eight rainfall
areas are based on FSR characteristics (see the discussion in the next section)
and that FEH rainfall should really be used across the country. However it also
allows the introduction of factors for climate change or compensation to take
account of the actual FSR rainfall depth rather than the generalised parameter
values used for that area. The development of these curves for each of the
eight rainfall zones were carried out by rerunning most of the models again
three times, each time by factoring the rainfall hyetographs by 0.9, 1.2 and 1.5
times respectively. The results were examined and curves simplified (to avoid
too many lines on the graphs) to produce the correction factor graphs for rainfall
depth.
102
A3.2 Rainfall
The method of approach of using FSR parameters when FEH rainfall should be
used needs explanation. FEH is a digital tool with every point (1 sq. km) in the
country having its own rainfall parameters defining rainfall depth for any
duration and return period. This makes it virtually impossible to have a generic
approach. FSR, by contrast is well known, but, more importantly, it has two
parameters (M
5
60 and rainfall ratio r) which allows the derivation of rainfall
depth for any return period and duration. To avoid excessive work, no
differentiation was made between England and Scotland (which is a distinction
made in FSR and the Wallingford Procedure). Table A4.3 shows, for a range of
return periods and durations, that the differences are less than 5%.

To convert to FEH rainfall, (and possibly to also cater for the actual FSR rainfall
depths and climate change factor), maps have been provided which show the
difference between the FSR rainfall depths and FEH values for a range of return
periods and durations (Appendix 1, Figures A6.1.1 to A6.3.4). The event
duration adds a degree of uncertainty as the critical duration for any site will
increase as the rainfall is factored (upwards). Some of these durations are in
excess of the durations that currently exist on the rainfall ratio maps and even if
the critical duration is 12 hours or less, choosing the correct duration map can
only be found specifically for each site (with its own characteristics) by
modelling. The simple rules provided will therefore only be approximate in their
accuracy, and the degree of error introduced will be a function of the rate of
change of the rainfall factor across the range of durations at that specific site.
However it is believed that this does not introduce inaccuracies sufficient to
invalidate the method.

103
Appendix 4 Overview of urban runoff models

A4.1 Runoff assumptions and criteria used
An explanation of the runoff assumptions and criteria used in developing this
method will assist in understanding the level of accuracy that this tool provides
together with a general appreciation of the tools currently available to the
industry with regard to drainage design. This section is written to provide an
overview and more detailed knowledge will require inspection of other
documents which are given in the references in chapter 8.

There is a range of runoff models used in UK, including a number of empirical
formulae for deriving attenuation storage, the most well known example being
the COPAS (1957) formula. However there are three types universally used in
the UK. These can be itemised broadly as:
- Simple fixed percentage runoff models
- Statistical percentage runoff models
- Statistical peak flow estimation models.

The important models used under each category are briefly explained and their
usefulness discussed.

A4.2 Simple fixed percentage runoff models
The Rational Method approach to drainage usually uses a simple assumption of
the percentage runoff contributing from each surface type. The Water Industry
manual Sewers for Adoption 7
th
ed. (2012) specifies that 100% runoff should
be assumed for paved surfaces and 0% from pervious areas. The choice of
these values can be criticised, but these assumptions are both pragmatic and
fairly safe, providing a simple approach to drainage design. These assumptions
are very reasonable for the purpose that they were originally intended to
address, which was the design of a drainage system under pipe-full conditions
using 1, 2, or 5 year return periods. The assumption of no runoff from pervious
surfaces is less appropriate for extreme events, particularly long duration
rainfall, which is needed for storage assessment. However comparison with the
more complex and accepted variable Wallingford Procedure runoff model
(described in the next section), as illustrated in Figure A4.1, shows that these
assumptions still generally provide a reasonably cautious approach, particularly
for sites with a high proportion of hard surfaces. It can also be seen that where
the contributing hard surface proportion is around 50% that more runoff can be
predicted from the variable runoff model for certain site and event
characteristics. Therefore it is recommended that the use of the runoff model for
Sewers for Adoption should not be used for developments with values of PIMP
less than 50% and that for PIMP values in this area that a degree of caution is
exercised particularly where SOIL types 4 or 5 are applicable.

The proportion of runoff from the variable runoff model depends on the rainfall
depth and soil type, so four comparison graphs are shown with each graph
showing the range of results for SOIL types 1 to 4 for two hydrological rainfall
zones (14/0.3 and 20/0.2) for 1 year and 100 year events. It should be noted
that these rainfall characteristics are the extremes of the spectrum available.
The lower bound results (from M
5
60 of 14mm, and rainfall ratio of 0.3) will not
104
be dissimilar to the results for the hydrological zone of 20, 0.4 which covers
most of South and East England. The values for NAPI are considered to be
reasonably cautious, but an official national position on the design values for
NAPI has yet to be determined. Tables A4.1 and A4.2 summarise all the
relevant parameters for the graphs.

For information the rainfall depths for the hydrological zones for 6 and 12 hours
across the country for the 100 year return period are shown on Figures A3.1
and A3.2 in Appendix 1 and also summarised in Table 5.3 for a range of
durations. The table also summarises the differences between rainfall depths
for England and Wales to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The procedure in this
Guide is based on the England and Wales rainfall, which is a conservative
assumption.

Table A4.1 Parameters used in the New PR equation for Figure A4.1
Soil types IF
PF
(mm)
Initial NAPI
(mm)
PIMP
1
2
3
4
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
200
200
200
200
1
3
10
20
(50 100)
(50 100)
(50 100)
(50 100)

Table A4.2 Rainfall events used in Figure A4.1
Graph
Duration
(hr)
Return period
(yr)
Rainfall zones
(M
5
60, ratio r)
1 6 1 14, 0.3 & 20, 0.2
2 24 1 14, 0.3 & 20, 0.2
3 6 100 14, 0.3 & 20, 0.2
4 24 100 14, 0.3 & 20, 0.2

105
Table A4.3 100 year rainfall depths for various durations comparing England and Wales with Scotland and Northern
Ireland

Duration 1h 4h 12h 18h
FSR
parameters
England/W
ales
Scotland/N
Ireland
% diff
England/W
ales
Scotland/N
Ireland
% diff
England/W
ales
Scotland/N
Ireland
% diff
England/W
ales
Scotland/N
Ireland
% diff
20/0.4 40.51 38.7 4.47 57.37 53.68 6.43 72.21 67.9 5.97 78.36 73.89 5.70
20/0.3 40.51 38.7 4.47 62.5 58.62 6.21 83.99 79.47 5.38 93.13 88.78 4.67
20/0.2 40.51 38.7 4.47 70.55 66.31 6.01 103.04 99.15 3.78 117.37 114.58 2.38
17/0.4 34.16 33.33 2.43 49.66 46.51 6.34 62.91 59.02 6.18 68.42 64.26 6.08
17/0.3 34.16 33.33 2.43 54.44 50.87 6.56 73.47 69.13 5.91 81.72 77.22 5.51
17/0.2 34.16 33.33 2.43 61.43 57.61 6.22 90.71 86.28 4.88 103.79 99.94 3.71
14/0.3 27.7 27.78 0.29 45.39 42.84 5.62 62.33 58.46 6.21 69.56 65.35 6.05
14/0.2 27.7 27.78 0.29 51.99 48.61 6.50 77.49 73.04 5.74 89.12 84.65 5.02




106
A4.3 Statistical Percentage runoff models urban

Statistical runoff models are being classified in this context to mean the use of a
correlation equation to define the proportion of runoff. In UK there are only two
urban runoff models that are widely used across the UK and these are both
referred to as Wallingford Procedure runoff models. This discussion is provided
here for information as detailed design of drainage systems should be carried
out using one or other of the Wallingford Procedure models. It should be
stressed that the initial assessment of storage in this Guide is based on the
runoff model from Sewers for Adoption.

The phrase The Wallingford Procedure - is regularly encountered by those
seeking to obtain consent for proposed drainage systems. The Wallingford
Procedure originated in 1981 when HR Wallingford, with assistance from the
Institute of Hydrology, completed a DoE funded project by producing a
document of five volumes and a range of software called the WASSP suite of
programs. This was called The Wallingford Procedure. This suite of
programs, which included a simulation programme, is now long obsolete and
have been replaced over time by new products which do the same thing in a
much improved way.

Thus when authorities ask for the Wallingford procedure to be applied, this is
now generally taken to mean the use of a simulation tool together with the UK
calibrated runoff model. Current versions of drainage simulation software are
effectively applying this same technique to network design and analysis and are
considered as complying with the Wallingford Procedure.

There are now two versions of the runoff model used in the software and both
are still in use throughout UK. A very brief summary is given here, but for more
in-depth information, reference should be made to the Wallingford Procedure for
Europe (2000) or the CIRIA report Drainage for development sites a guide
(2003).

The fixed UK runoff model
The first runoff model is referred to as the fixed UK runoff model (or the Old
runoff model), and the second as the variable UK runoff model (or New runoff
model).

The fixed runoff model assumes losses are constant throughout a rainfall event
(percentage runoff does not increase as the previous surfaces get wetter) and is
defined by the equation:

20.7 - UCWI 0.078 + SOIL 25.0 + PIMP 0.829 = PR

where:
PR = percentage runoff
PIMP = percentage impermeability
SOIL = an index of the water holding capacity of the soil
UCWI = Urban Catchment Wetness Index.
107
The PR equation was derived by statistical analysis from data from 33
catchments. It should be noted that the equation is entirely statistical and takes
no account of ground contouring.




108
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
PIMP
%
P
R
6hr, 14/0.3 Soil 1 Soil 4 6hr, 20/0.2, Soil 1 Soil 4
Parameters
Return period = 1 yr
Duration = 6 hours
IF = 0.75
PR = 200mm
Soil 1, API30 = 1
Soil 4, API30 = 20
fixed PR

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
PIMP
%
P
R
24hr, 14/0.3 Soil 1 Soil 4 24hr, 20/0.2 Soil 1 Soil 4
Parameters
Return period = 1yr
Duration = 24 hours
IF = 0.75
PR = 200mm
Soil 1, API30 = 1
Soil 4, API30 = 20
fixed PR

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
PIMP
%
P
R
6hr,14/0.3 Soil 1 Soil 4 6hr, 20/0.2, Soil 1 Soil 4
Parameters
Return period = 100yrs
Duration = 6 hours
IF = 0.75
PR = 200mm
Soil 1, API30 = 1
Soil 4, API30 = 20
fixed PR

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
PIMP
%
P
R
24hr,14/0.3 Soil 1 Soil 4 24hr, 20/0.2 Soil 1 Soil 4
Parameters
Return period = 100yrs
Duration = 24 hours
IF = 0.75
PR = 200mm
Soil 1, API30 = 1
Soil 4, API30 = 20
fixed PR


Figure A4.1 Comparison of PR between the variable Wallingford Procedure runoff model and Sewers for Adoption
109
The Variable UK runoff model
The variable UK PR equation was developed jointly by HR Wallingford, the
Water Research Centre and the Institute of Hydrology with support from North
West Water plc. It was designed as a replacement to the fixed UK PR equation.
Although it was developed several years ago, choice as to which equation
should be used is still being debated and is not discussed here, but the key
point being that both are still generally accepted.

The new equation was designed primarily to overcome some of the difficulties
experienced in practical application of the fixed runoff model, namely:
- The old equation defines PR as being a constant throughout a rainfall
event irrespective of catchment wetness. Clearly for long duration storms,
lower losses towards the end of the event may be significant in terms of
urban drainage design for storage.
- Problems have been encountered in applying the PR equation to partially
separate drainage systems and to areas with low PIMP and low SOIL
values.

The new model was produced in the form:

PF
NAPI
* PIMP) IF* - (100 + PIMP IF* = PR

where:
IF = effective impervious area factor
PF = moisture depth parameter (mm)
NAPI = 30 day antecedent precipitation index

This equation divides PR into two elements. First, the impervious area runoff is
obtained by using an effective contributing area factor, IF. After initial losses on
impervious surfaces, remaining losses are given as a constant fraction of
rainfall volume. Recommended values of IF are indicated in Table 5.4. One of
the principal features of this equation (and a possible drawback) is that
engineers have to choose a value.

Table A4.4 Recommended values of IF

Surface Condition Effective impervious area factor, IF
POOR 0.45
FAIR 0.60
GOOD 0.75

The losses on pervious surfaces and also non-effective impervious areas are
represented by the second term of the equation. The first part of this term
represents the total percentage of the area occupied by pervious and non-
effective impervious surfaces. The losses from this area are dependent on the
function NAPI/PF.

110