124 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

Fabricated fittings are hydraulically superior.

5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 125
Hydraulic Design
CHAPTER 5 of Storm Sewers
The hydraulic design of a sewer system may have to take into account the
effect of backwater (the limiting effect on flows that a downstream sewer
has on upstream sewers), surcharging, inlet capacity and all energy losses
in the system. Whether each, or all, of these factors have to be considered
depends on the complexity of the sewer system and the objectives of the
analysis (i.e., is the sizing of the system preliminary or final?). Further-
more, the degree of analysis will also depend on the potential impact should
the sewer system capacity be exceeded. For example, would surcharging
result in damages to private property due to the foundation drains being
connected to the system or is the depth of flooding on a roadway important
because emergency vehicles depend on safe access along the street. By
defining the above factors the user may then select the level of analysis
which is required.
This section will outline two methods using hand calculations. Both meth-
ods assume that all flows enter the sewer system, i.e., that the inlet capac-
ity of the system is not a limiting factor. In addition, a listing of various
computer models which may be used in the analysis or design of sewer
systems is provided.
Flow charts and nomographs such as those presented in Chapter 4 pro-
vide quick answers for the friction head losses in a given run of straight
conduit between structures (manholes, junctions). These design aids do
not consider the additional head losses associated with other structures and
appurtenances common in sewer systems.
In most instances, when designing with common friction flow formulae
such as the Manning equation, the hydraulic grade is assumed to be equal
to the pipe slope at an elevation equal to the crown of the pipe. Considera-
tion must therefore also be given to the changes in hydraulic grade line due
to pressure changes, elevation changes, manholes and junctions. The de-
sign should then not only be based on the pipe slope, but on the hydraulic
grade line.
A comprehensive storm sewer design must therefore proceed on the ba-
sis of one run of conduit or channel at a time, working methodically through
the system. Only in this way can the free flow conditions be known and the
hydraulic grade controlled, thus assuring performance of the system.
Making such an analysis requires backwater calculations for each run of
conduit. This is a detailed process which is demonstrated on the following
pages. However, it is recognized that a reasonable, conservative “estimate”
or “shortcut” will sometimes be required. This can be done and is also
demonstrated on pages 134 through 138.
When using the backwater curve approach the designer should first es-
tablish the type of flow (sub-critical or supercritical) in order to determine
the direction his calculations are to proceed.
— Super critical flow - designer works downstream with flow.
— Sub-critical flow - designer works against the flow.
— Hydraulic jump may form if there is super and sub-critical flow in the
same sewer.

BACKWATER ANALYSIS
Given is a flow profile of a storm drainage system (see Figures 5.1 and
126 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

5.2) where the hydraulic grade is set at the crown of the outlet pipe. Hydro-
logical computations have been made and preliminary design for the ini-
tial pipe sizing has been completed.
In order to demonstrate the significance of form losses in sewer design,
a backwater calculation will be performed in this example with helical cor-
rugated steel pipe.

Solution
1) Draw a plan and surface profile of trunk storm sewer.
2) Design discharges, Q are known; Areas, A are known; Diameters of
pipe, D have been calculated in preliminary design.
3) Calculate the first section of sewer line. Note: Normal depth is greater
than critical depth, yn > yc; therefore, calculations to begin at outfall
working upstream. At “point of control” set design conditions on pro-
file and calculations sheet:
Station 0 + 00 (outfall)
Design discharge Q = 7.0 m3/s (9)
Invert of pipe = 28.2 m (2)
Diameter D = l800 mm (3)
Hydraulic grade elevation H.G. = 30 m (4)
Area of pipe A = 2.54 m2 (6)
Velocity = Q V = 2.8 m/s (8)
A
Note: (1) Numbers in parentheses refer to the columns on Table 5.2.

Compute:
a) ‘K’ value (7): K = (2g) n2 (Derived from Manning-Chezy Formula)

b) [ ]/
‘Sf’ value (12): S f = K
V2
2g
R4/3

The friction slope (Sf) may also be estimated from Table 5.1 for a given
diameter of pipe and with a known ‘n’ value for the expected flow Q.
Sf (12) is a “point slope” at each station set forth by the designer. There-
fore, the friction slope (Avg. Sf) (13) for each reach of pipe L (14), is the
average of the two point slopes Sf being considered.
V2
c) Velocity Head (l0): Hv =
2g
d) Energy grade point, E. G. (11) is equal to H. G. (4) plus the velocity
head (10).
e) Friction loss (15): Multiply Avg. S f (13) by length of sewer section, L
(14) = Hf (15).
f) Calculate energy losses: Hb, Hj, Hm, Ht, using formulae in text.
g) Compute new H. G. (4) by adding all energy loss columns, (15) thru
(19) to previous H. G.
Note: If sewer system is designed under pressure (surcharging) then
energy losses must be added (or subtracted, depending on whether you
are working upstream or downstream) to the energy grade line, E. G.
h) Set new E. G. (20) equal to E. G. (11)
Table 5.1 Energy-loss solution by Manning’s formula for pipe flowing full
2
-2
2/3
(ARn ) x 10
Area Hydraulic
Diameter (m2) Radius (m)
(mm) A R R2/3 AR2/3 n = 0.012 n = 0.015 n = 0.019 n = 0.021 n = 0.024
150 0.02 0.038 0.112 0.002 3677 5746 9219 11262 14710
200 0.03 0.050 0.136 0.004 793 1239 1988 2428 3172
250 0.05 0.063 0.157 0.008 214 377 605 739 965
300 0.07 0.075 0.178 0.013 91.2 143 229 279 365
400 0.13 0.100 0.215 0.027 19.7 30.7 49.3 60.2 78.7
500 0.20 0.125 0.250 0.049 5.98 9.35 15.00 18.32 23.93
600 0.28 0.150 0.282 0.080 2.262 3.535 5.672 6.929 9.049
700 0.38 0.175 0.313 0.120 0.994 1.554 2.493 3.045 3.977
800 0.50 0.200 0.342 0.172 0.488 0.762 1.223 1.494 1.951
900 0.64 0.225 0.370 0.235 0.260 0.407 0.652 0.797 1.041
1000 0.79 0.250 0.397 0.312 0.148 0.232 0.372 0.454 0.594
1100 0.95 0.275 0.423 0.402 0.089 0.139 0.224 0.273 0.357
1200 1.13 0.300 0.448 0.507 0.056 0.088 0.141 0.172 0.224
1300 1.33 0.325 0.473 0.627 0.037 0.057 0.092 0.112 0.146
1400 1.54 0.350 0.497 0.764 0.025 0.039 0.062 0.076 0.099
1500 1.77 0.375 0.520 0.918 0.017 0.027 0.043 0.052 0.068
1600 2.01 0.400 0.543 1.091 0.012 0.019 0.030 0.037 0.048
1700 2.27 0.425 0.565 1.282 0.009 0.014 0.022 0.027 0.035
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS

1800 2.54 0.450 0.587 1.494 0.006 0.010 0.016 0.020 0.026
1900 2.83 0.475 0.609 1.725 0.005 0.008 0.012 0.015 0.019
2000 3.14 0.500 0.630 1.978 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.015
2200 3.80 0.550 0.671 2.550 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.009
2400 4.52 0.600 0.711 3.217 0.0014 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006
2700 5.72 0.675 0.769 4.404 0.0007 0.0012 0.0019 0.0023 0.0030
3000 7.07 0.750 0.825 5.832 0.0004 0.0007 0.0011 0.0013 0.0017
3300 8.55 0.825 0.880 7.520 0.0003 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
3600 10.17 0.900 0.932 9.484 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006

To find energy loss in pipe friction for a given Q, multiply Q2 by the figure under the proper value of n.
AR2/3 n 2
Manning Flow Equation: Q = ( ) x S1/2 Energy Loss = S = Q2 ( )
n AR2/3
127
Table 5.2 Hydraulic calculation sheet
128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2
Invert D H.G. Sec- A K V Q V E.G. Sf Avg. Sf L Hf Hb Hj Hm Ht E.G.
Station m mm m tion m2 m/s m3/s 2g m m/m m/m m m m m m m m
0 + 000.000 28.200 1800 30.000 0 2.54 0.01130 2.8 7.0 0.39 30.390 0.0127 0.0127 33.5 0.424 30.390
0 + 033.528 28.624 1800 30.424 2.54 0.01130 2.8 7.0 0.39 30.814 0.0127 0.0127 4.7 0.059 0.056 30.814
0 + 038.222 28.740 1800 30.540 2.54 0.01130 2.8 7.0 0.39 30.930 0.0127 0.0127 37.4 0.473 30.930
0 + 075.590 29.212 1800 31.012 2.54 0.01130 2.8 7.0 0.39 31.402 0.0127 0.0266 12.3 0.061 0.132 31.402
0 + 077.876 29.805 1400 31.205 1.54 0.00950 4.5 7.0 1.05 32.255 0.0406 0.0406 30.5 1.238 32.255
0 + 108.356 31.043 1400 32.443 1.54 0.00950 4.5 7.0 1.05 33.493 0.0406 0.0406 30.5 1.238 0.053 33.493
0 + 138.836 32.334 1400 33.734 1.54 0.00950 4.5 7.0 1.05 34.784 0.0406 0.0299 13.1 0.092 1.085 34.784
0 + 141.900 33.711 1200 34.911 1.13 0.00785 3.1 3.5 0.49 35.401 0.0191 0.0191 35.0 0.669 35.401
0 + 176.900 34.380 1200 35.580 1.13 0.00785 3.1 3.5 0.49 36.070 0.0191 0.0351 13.5 0.123 1.299 36.070
0 + 180.421 36.402 1600 37.002 0.28 0.00636 3.5 1.0 0.64 37.492 0.0511 0.0511 35.5 1.814 0.032 37.492
0 + 215.892 38.248 1600 38.848 0 0.28 0.00636 3.5 1.0 0.64 39.338 0.0511 39.338

2
4/3
n = Variable K = 2g(n2) Sf = K (V2g) /R
⌺Hfriction = 6.191 ⌺Hform = 2.657
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 129

i) Determine conduit invert (2). In the example we are designing for full
flow conditions; therefore, H. G. (4) is at crown of pipe and invert (2) is
set by subtracting, D (3) from H. G. (4).
j) Continue to follow the above procedure taking into account all form
head losses.
k)Complete profile drawing; showing line, grade and pipe sizes. This saves
time and usually helps in spotting any design errors.

Energy Losses
Station 0 + 033.528 to 0 + 038.222 (Bend)

[ ] V2 I

0
Hb = Kb 2g , where Kb = 0.25
90

I , central angle of bend = 30o

0

30
Kb = 0.25 90 = 0.1443

Hb = 0.1433 (0.39) = 0.056 m

Station 0 + 075.590 to 0 + 077.876 (Transition)

Ht = 0.2 [ V 12
2g
V 22
2g ] ,
Expansion
V1 > V2

= 0.2 (1.05 - 0.39)

= 0.132 m
Station 0 + 108.356 (man hole)

Hm = 0.05 [ ] V2
2g

= 0.05 (1.05) = 0.053m

Station 0 + 138.836 to 0 + 141.900 (Junction)

3
30o
1 2

Q1 = 3.5 cms Q2 = 7.0 cms Q3 = 3.5 cms

A1 = 1.13 m2 A2 = 1.54 m2 A3 = 1.13 m2
D1 = 1200 mm D2 = 1400 mm D3 = 1200 mm
I = 30o
0
130 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

• P = • M (Pressure plus momentum laws)

( )( A1 + A 2
) Q 22 Q 12 Q32 cos I

0
Hj + D1 — D2 = — —
2 A 2g A 1g A 3g

(Hj + 1.2 — 1.4) ( 1.13 + 1.54

2
=) (7.0) 2
(1.54) (9.81)

(3.52
1.13 (9.81) )( 3.52 cos 30o
1.13 (9.81) )
1.335 Hj — 0.2 (1.335) = 3.243 — 1.105 — 0.957
1.335 Hj — 0.267 = 1.181
Hj = 1.085 m

Fittings and elbows are easily fabricated in all sizes.

5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 131

Station 0 + 176.900 to 0 + 180.421 (Junction)

3
70o

1 2

70o
4

Q1 = 1.0 m3/s Q2 = 3.5 Q3 = 1.5 Q4 = 1.0

A1 = 0.28 m2 A2 = 1.13 A3 = 0.64 A4 = 0.28
D1 = 600 mm D2 = 1200 D3 = 900 D4 = 600
03 = 70ϒ 04 = 70o

(Hj + D1 — D2) ( A1 + A2
2 ) Q2
= A 2g
2

Q 12 Q 32 cos 03 Q 42 cos 04
A1g A3g A 4g

(Hj + 0.6 — 1.2) ( 0.28 + 1.13

2 )
=
(3.5)2
(1.13) (9.81)
(1.0)2
(0.28) (9.81)
(1.5)2cos 70o (1.0)2cos 70o
(0.64) (9.81) (0.28) (9.81)
0.705 Hj — 0.6 (0.705) = 1.105 — 0.364 — 0.123 — 0.125
0.705 Hj — 0.423 = 0.493
Hj = 1.299 m
Station 0 + 215.892 (manhole)

Hm = .05 ( )V2
2g
= 0.5 (0.64)

= 0.032 m

Total friction Hf throughout the system = 6.191 m

Total form losses = 2.657 m

In this example, the head losses at junctions and transition could also have
been accommodated by either increasing the pipe diameter or increasing
the slope of the pipe.
This backwater example was designed under full flow conditions but
could also have been designed under pressure; allowing surcharging in the
manholes, which would have reduced the pipe sizes. Storm sewer systems,
in many cases, can be designed under pressure to surcharge to a tolerable
level.
 0 + 215.892
M.H.
1.0
m 3/s
0 + 180.421
1.0 m3/s 70o

1.5 m3/s
Figure 5.1 Plan and profile for storm sewer
3.5 m3/s 30o

0 + 141.900 3.5 m3/s

0 + 138.836
7.0 m3/s

0 + 108.356
M.H.
FLOW

0 + 077.876
0 + 075.590
7.0 m3/s

0
+
0 + 038.222 EC

000
.00
0 + 033.528 BC

0
Flow
Chan
nel
MODERN SEWER DESIGN 132
 M.H.
0 + 215.892
0 + 180.421
0 + 176.900
M.H.

0 + 141.900
0 + 138.836
GROUND

0 + 108.356
SURFACE
.37 m
0 + 033.528
0 + 000.00

0 + 038.222

0 + 077.876
0 + 075.590
E.G.

H.G.
.30 m
H.G.L. at
Crown
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS

600 mm CPS 1200 mm CPS 1400 mm CPS 1800 mm CPS

.23 m
0 + 245 0 + 210 0 + 175 0 + 140 0 + 105 0 + 070 0 + 035 0
junction junction Transition
133

Figure 5.2 Plan and profile for storm sewer

134 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

METHODS OF DETERMINING EQUIVALENT HYDRAULIC

ALTERNATIVES
A method has been developed to aid the designer in quickly determining
equivalent pipe sizes for alternative material, rather than computing the
backwater profiles for each material.
The derivation shown below allows the designer to assign representative
values for loss coefficients in the junctions and length of average reach
between the junctions, and develop a relationship for pipes of different
roughness coefficients. In this manner the designer need only perform a
detailed hydraulic analysis for one material, and then relatively quickly
determine conduit sizes required for alternative materials. The relation-
ships for hydraulic equivalent alternatives in storm sewer design may be
derived from the friction loss equation.
The total head loss in a sewer system is comprised of junction losses and
friction losses:
HT = H j + Hf

V2
where: Hj = Kj
2g
Q2
= Kj
A2 2g
Q 2 16
= Kj
≠2 D4 2g
where:

2n 2 LV 2 13 n 2 LQ2 (16)
Hf = = for K f = 2n 2
R4/3 2g 2g ≠ 2 D16/3

HT = Hj + Hf

16Q2 K j 13 n 2 LQ2 (16)

= +
2g ≠2 D4 2g ≠ 2 D16/3

=
8Q2
g ≠2 [ Kj D4/3 + 13 n2 L
D 16/3
]
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 135

Thus, for comparison of concrete and steel:

8Q2
g≠ [ K j (D c)4/3 + 13(n c)2 L
(D c)16/3 ] =
8Q2
g≠ [ Kj (Ds)4/3 + 13(n s) 2 L
(Ds)16/3 ]
The flow Q for each conduit will be the same, therefore the relationship
simplifies to:
K j (Dc)4/3 + 13(nc)2 L K j (D s) 4/3 + 13(n s)2 L
=
(Dc)16/3 (Ds)16/3

Average values for conduit length between manholes (L), and junction
loss coefficient (K j), must next be selected. Representative values may be
derived for the hydraulic calculations that will have already been performed
for one of the materials.
In this example the average conduit length is 90 metres with an average
junction loss coefficient of 1.0. With the selected L, n and Kj values the
equations are determined for a series of pipe diameters. The results are
shown in Table 5.3. These figures are then plotted on semi-log paper, from
which hydraulically equivalent materials may be easily be selected. (Fig-
ures 5.3 and 5.4)

Combination increaser, manhole and elbow in one length of pipe.

136 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

Table 5.3 Methods of determining equivalent alternatives

Junction and Friction Losses

Kj = 1.0 L = 90m
Smooth Pipe Annular CSP Pipe Helical CSP Pipe
n = 0.012 n = 0.024 n var. (see Table 4.9)
Diameter D4/3 + 0.168 D4/3 + 0.674 D4/3 + 1170 n2
(mm) D16/3 D16/3 D16/3
n values
200 1525.30 4226.21 1525.30 0.012
250 529.86 1351.46 486.12 0.011
300 227.03 537.74 245.01 0.013
400 61.39 128.38 95.04 0.019
500 22.79 43.17 26.61 0.015
600 10.28 17.99 13.50 0.018
700 5.29 8.68 6.71 0.018
800 3.00 4.66 3.98 0.02
900 1.82 2.71 2.43 0.021
1000 1.17 1.67 1.52 0.021
1200 0.55 0.74 0.68 0.021
1400 0.29 0.37 0.35 0.021
1600 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.021
1800 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.021
2000 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.021
2200 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.021
2400 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.021
Note: Pipe diameter in metres in above equations.

Philadelphia Airport, 16 x 26mm fiber-bonded, full bituminous coated and full paved
CSP with semi-corrugated bands with O-ring gaskets, provides storm drainage for
airport— 5800 m of 2000mm, 2200mm, 2400mm, 2700mm diameters, 14 - 16 gauge,
2 - 3m of cover.
 10000

1000

EXAMPLE:
Given: 0.8m diameter CSP,
hydraulically equivalent to 0.7m
100 diameter smooth pipe

10

D16/3
D4/3 + C
CSP
1
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS

Smooth pipe
0.1

0.01

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Diametre in metres
137

Figure 5.3 Equivalent alternatives with annular CSP where C = 13n2 L

 10000
138

1000

EXAMPLE:
Given: 0.9m diameter CSP,
hydraulically equivalent to 0.8m
100 diameter smooth pipe

10

D16/3
CSP

D4/3 + C
1

0.1

Smooth pipe

0.01

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Diametres in metres
MODERN SEWER DESIGN

Figure 5.4 Equivalent alternatives with helical CSP (n variable) where C = 13n2 L
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 139

DESIGN OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES

System Layout
The storm drainage system layout should be made in accordance with the
urban drainage objectives, following the natural topography as closely as
possible. Existing natural drainage paths and watercourses such as streams
and creeks should be incorporated into the storm drainage system. Thus
the storm design should be undertaken prior to finalization of the street
layout in order to effectively incorporate the major-minor drainage con-
cepts.
Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and drawings of existing serv-
ices are required before a thorough storm drainage design may be under-
taken.
Existing outfalls within the proposed development and adjacent lands
for both the minor and major system should be located. Allowances should
be made for external lands draining through the proposed development both
for present conditions and future developments.
The design flows used in sizing the facilities that will comprise the drain-
age network are based on a number of assumptions. Flows that will occur
under actual conditions will thus be different from those estimated at the
design stage; “the designer must not be tempted by the inherent limitations
of the basic flow data to become sloppy in the hydraulic design.”(1) Also
the designer should not limit his investigation to system performance un-
der the design storm conditions, but should assure that in cases where sewer
capacities are exceeded such incidents will not create excessive damage.
This requirement can only be practically achieved if the designer real-
izes that a dual drainage system exists, comprised of the minor system and
the major system. Utilizing both systems, the pipe system may be provided
for smaller, more frequent rainfall events, and an overland system for ex-
treme rainfall events.
In the layout of an effective storm drainage system, the most important
factor is to assure that a drainage path both for the minor and major sys-
tems be provided to avoid flooding and ponding in undesirable locations.
Minor System
The minor system consists chiefly of the storm sewer comprised of inlets,
conduits, manholes and other appurtenances designed to collect and con-
vey into a satisfactory system outfall, storm runoff for frequently occur-
ring storms (2 to 5 year design).
Storm sewers are usually located in rights-of-way such as roadways and
easements for ease of access during repair or maintenance operations.
Major System
The major drainage system will come into operation when the minor sys-
tem’s capacity is exceeded or when inlet capacities significantly control
discharge to the minor system. Thus, in developments where the major
system has been planned, the streets will act as open channels draining the
excess storm water. The depth of flow on the streets should be kept within
reasonable limits for reasons of safety and convenience. Consideration
should be given to the area of flooding and its impact on various street
classifications and to public and private property.
Typical design considerations are given in Table 5.4.
140 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

Table 5.4 Typical maximum flow depths

Storm Return Frequency (Years)

Location* 5 25 40
Walkways, Minor surface flow As required for As required for
Open spaces up to 25mm deep overland flow outlets overland flow outlets
on walkways
Minor, Local and 1m wide in gutters or 100mm above crown 200mm above crown
Feeder Roads 100mm deep at low
point catch basins
Collector and Minor surface flow up to crown 100mm above crown
Industrial Roads (25mm)
Arterial Roads Minor Surface flow 1 lane clear up to crown
(25mm)
*In addition to the above, residential buildings, public, commercial and industrial buildings
should not be inundated at the ground line for the 100 year storm, unless buildings are
flood-proofed.

To prevent the flooding of basement garages, driveways will have to

meet or exceed the elevations corresponding to the maximum flow depth
at the street.
The flow capacity of the streets may be calculated from the Manning
equation, or Figure 5.5 may be used to estimate street flows.
When designing the major system it should be done in consideration of
the minor system, with the sum of their capacities being the total system’s
capacity. The minor system should be first designed to handle a selected
high frequency storm, (i.e., 2-year) next the major system is designated for
a low frequency of flood storm, (i.e., 100-year). If the roadway cannot
handle the excess flow, the minor system should be enlarged accordingly.

Multiple inline storage installation.

 Slope – percent
0
0.5
1
2

1.5
2.5
3
3.5
4

1 5m
right
of w a y - 8m P
2 0m avem
right ent (2
%Blvd
15m
of wa
y-9 )
rig m P
h t of w
avem
ent (2
%Blvd
ay -
8m )
Pa v e
10

15 men
m t (4%
r ig Blvd
ht
of )
wa
20 y -
m 8m
rig Pa
ht vem
of
w en
Figure 5.5 Hydraulic capacity of roadways

ay t (6%
- 9 Blv
m d)
Pa
vem
en
t (4%
Blv
d)
2

0m
20

ri gh
t of
w
ay
-9
m
Pave
m
en
t (6
%
Bl
vd
)

30
Street
line

Capacity – (m3/s)
Blvd.
150mm

40
W.L.

n = 0.013
Pavement
Major system

50
Blvd.
n = 0.05
Street
line

Note: Blvd. = Boulevard

60
141 5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS
142 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

HYDRAULIC DESIGN EXAMPLE OF MINOR-MAJOR SYSTEM

Description of Site
The site for this design example is shown on Figure 5.6.
The site is about 15 hectares in size consisting of single family and semi
detached housing as well as a site for a public school. The site slopes gen-
erally from west to east, where it is bounded by a major open water course.
To accommodate the principles of the “minor-major’’ storm drainage sys-
tems, the streets have been planned to conform as much as possible to the
natural contours of the lands. Where sags in roadways between intersec-
tions could not be avoided, overflow easements or walkways have been
provided to permit unobstructed surface runoff during major storms, as
shown on Figure 5.7.

Selected Design Criteria

Minor System
Based on a reasonable level of convenience to the public, a two-year de-
sign curve is considered adequate as a design basis for the minor system
within this development.

Storm Sewer installation involved 1300 m of full bituminous coateded full paved
pipe arch.
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 143

School Green
Belt

Green
Belt

Figure 5.6 Site plan with route of surface runoff

144 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

W
ate
rco
urs
e

Culvert

Green
Belt
Drainage Area
of Design Example
Storm Sewer Section

School

Culvert

Green
Belt

Headwall

Overflow
Easement

Overflow
Easement

Figure 5.7 Storm drainage areas

Major System
The major (or overflow) system will be checked together with the minor
system against a 100-year storm intensity. The combination of these two
systems shall be able to accommodate a 100-year storm runoff.

Minor System
For the limited extent of area involved, designing on the principles of the
minor-major drainage concept without gravity connections to foundation
drains permits considerable tolerance in the degree of accuracy of runoff
calculations such that the rational formula Q = k•C•i•A is considered ad-
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 145

equate. The values for the two year rainfall intensity curve obtained from
local records are shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Rainfall intensity duration frequency

Time 2 Year Return 100 Year Return

(Min) (mm/hr) (mm/hr)
5 105 262
10 72 179
15 57 146
20 48 122
25 42 109
30 37 97
35 34 89
40 30 81
45 28 74
50 26 69
55 24 64
60 22 59
65 21 55
70 19 51
75 18 47
80 16 44
85 15 41
90 13 39
95 12 38
100 11 33
125 10 32
150 9 25
175 7 23
200 7 22

The following steps should be followed in the hydraulic design of the

minor system:
1. A drainage area map should be prepared indicating the drainage limits
for the site, external tributary areas, location of imported minor system
and carryover flows, proposed minor-major system layout and direction
of surface flow.
2. The drainage area should be divided into sub-areas tributary to the pro-
posed storm sewer inlets. In this case the inlet shall be located at the
upstream end of each pipe segment.
3. The coverage of each sub-area should be calculated.
4. The appropriate runoff coefficient should be developed for each sub-
area. The example has been simplified in that impervious areas discharg-
ing to grass areas have been given a runoff coefficient equal to the grassed
area runoff coefficient. The runoff coefficient in this example has been
determined based on 0.20 for grassed areas and areas discharging to grass
such as roof, patios and sidewalks) and 0.95 for impervious surfaces
(streets and driveways), which for this site results in an average runoff
coefficient of 0.35 for all the sub-areas.
5. The required capacity of each inlet should be calculated using the ra-
tional method, with the initial time of concentration and the corres-
ponding intensity. In this example,
Tc = 10 minutes.
i = 72 mm/hr (2-year storm) (Table 5.5).
Inlets will be located at the upstream manhole for each length of con-
duit.
146 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

6. Commencing at the upstream end of the system, the discharge to be

carried by each successive segment in a downstream direction is calcu-
lated. The initial time of concentration is 10 minutes at the most up-
stream inlet. Added to this value is the required travel time in the con-
duit to the next inlet. The resulting time of concentration is then used to
determine a new intensity at that point.
Also, a weighted area x C value must be determined at each succes-
sive inlet.
At a confluence of two or more conduits, the longest time of con-
centration is selected and the procedure continues downstream. The above
computations are summarized in Table 5.6.
7. With computed discharges at the upstream end of each pipe segment, a
tentative pipe size to accommodate friction losses only is selected using
the friction flow charts in Chapter 4. In this design example, a helical
68mm x 13mm CSP with variable roughness coefficient (Table 4.9) has
been selected as the conduit material. The corresponding velocities for
the expected flow are determined to calculate the pipe flow time. This
time added to the upstream time of concentration results in the new time
of concentration for the downstream segment as described in Step 6.
Design velocities in storm sewers should be a minimum of 1.0 m/s when
flowing half full to full to attain self cleaning velocities and to prevent
deposition, to a maximum of 4.5 m/s to avoid erosive damage to the
conduit.

Recharge trench installation showing junction box.

5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 147

Culvert design technology and open-channel flow design are increasingly applied to
urban storm water management. Triple structural plate pipe-arches enclose stream
under roadway, and industrial land development.

Note: If upon completion of the hydraulic design (and backwater cal-

culations), the times of concentrations have varied enough to alter the
discharges, new flow values should be determined. In most cases the
slight variance in the Tc will not significantly affect the peak flows.
8. As the preliminary design proceeds downstream, some account must be
made for the manhole and junction losses. Certain rules of thumb may
be used before the detailed hydraulic analysis. In this design example
the following manhole drops were assumed:
15 mm for straight runs
45 mm for 45ϒ junctions
75 mm for 45ϒ to 90ϒ junctions
Also crowns of incoming and outgoing pipes at manholes were kept
equal where the increase in downstream diameter met or exceeded the
above manhole drops.
The preliminary minor system design is shown in Table 5.6 with the
tentative pipe sizes and manhole drops.
9. The hydraulic analysis should next be performed on the proposed minor
system to ensure that it operates as expected. The hydraulic grade is set
at the crown of the outlet conduit, with hydraulic calculations proceed-
ing upstream. The energy loss equations shall be used following the same
procedure as in the Hydraulic section. The detailed hydraulic calcula-
tions are computed for each station, on pages 153 and 154, with the
results summarized in Table 5.7. In this example the initial pipe sizes
did not change, but rather manhole drops were adjusted to account for
the junction losses. If junction losses would have resulted in the eleva-
tion of the pipe crown exceeding the minimum cover criterion, then the
148 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

hydraulic grade line may have been lowered by increasing the pipe
size. The hydraulic grade line may be permitted to exceed the crown
where some surcharging in the storm system can be tolerated.
10. The designer may now estimate the required pipe sizes for a minor
system for an alternative conduit material or roughness coefficient.
There is no need to perform a detailed hydraulic analysis for the alter-
native conduit, but rather use the method of “Equivalent Alternatives”
as described earlier in this chapter. In this example the average length
of conduit is estimated to be 90m with an average manhole junction
loss coefficient of 1.0. The alternative conduit will have constant n =
.012. Therefore the alternative material may be determined. The re-
sults are summarized in Table 5.8.

Large storm drain projects under runways at a major airport.

5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 149

Increasers are easily fabricated for correct field location.

Pipe-arch sewer installation in a residential area satisfying minimum headroom

requirement; however it has adequate capacity and strength.
Table 5.6 Preliminary storm sewer design
150

Inverts Time
Length
Location Runoff (Entry: 10 Min.)
Total Total Intensity of Size Fall M.H. Up Down Actual
M.H. M.H. Area Section Trunk I Q Pipe Pipe Slope Drop Stream Stream Cap. Vel. Sect. Accum.
From To (ha) C A x C A x C A x C (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m) (mm) % (m) (mm) (m) (m) Q(m3/s) (m/s) Min. Min.
1 2 0.74 0.35 0.26 0.26 72 0.05 90 200 0.84 0.76 231.590 230.830 0.05 1.03 1.47 11.47
2 3 1.10 0.35 0.39 0.65 67 0.12 80 300 1.30 1.04 75 230.755 229.715 0.12 1.71 0.77 12.24
3 4 1.04 0.35 0.36 1.01 65 0.18 81 400 0.98 0.79 75 229.640 228.850 0.18 1.58 0.85 13.09
4 5 0.83 0.35 0.29 1.30 62 0.22 93 400 1.50 1.30 75 228.775 227.475 0.22 1.96 0.79 13.88
6 7 1.06 0.35 0.37 0.37 72 0.07 90 200 1.70 1.53 231.610 230.080 0.07 1.47 1.04 11.04
7 8 – – – – – 0.07 90 200 1.70 1.53 75 230.005 228.475 0.07 1.47 1.04 12.08
8 9 1.50 0.35 0.53 0.90 66 0.16 75 300 2.20 1.65 45 228.430 226.780 0.16 2.23 0.56 12.64
10 11 1.80 0.35 0.63 0.63 72 0.13 90 300 1.40 1.26 230.360 229.100 0.13 1.77 0.86 10.86
11 12 0.71 0.35 0.25 0.88 69 0.17 83 300 2.40 1.99 15 229.085 227.095 0.17 2.32 0.60 11.46
12 13 0.42 0.35 0.15 1.03 67 0.19 81 400 1.10 0.89 75 227.020 226.130 0.19 1.68 0.80 12.26
5 9 0.43 0.35 0.15 1.45 60 0.24 81 500 0.76 0.62 75 227.400 226.780 0.24 1.47 0.92 14.80
9 13 0.53 0.35 0.19 2.54 58 0.40 81 600 0.62 0.50 150 226.630 226.130 0.41 1.41 0.96 15.76
13 14 2.28 0.35 0.80 4.37 56 0.67 150 600 1.70 2.55 75 226.055 223.505 0.68 2.32 1.09 16.85
14 15 0.55 0.35 0.19 4.56 55 0.69 150 600 1.80 2.70 15 223.490 220.790 0.70 2.39 1.06 17.91
15 16 2.35 0.20 0.47 5.03 53 0.74 35 700 1.20 0.42 75 220.715 220.295 0.74 1.99 0.28 18.19
16 Outfall – – – 5.03 53 0.74 150 800 0.68 1.02 75 220.220 219.200 0.74 1.61 1.58 19.77

Q = Flow
A = Area in Hectares
C = Coefficient of Runoff
I = Intensity of Rainfall for Period in mm/hr
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 151

Installing 1,800mm diameter CSP to be used as an underground detention chamber

for stormwater runoff.
Table 5.7 Hydraulic calculation sheet
152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Invert D H.G. Sec- A K V Q V2 E.G. Sf Avg. Sf L Hf Hb Hj Hm Ht E.G.
M.H. m mm m tion m2 m/s m3/s 2g m m/m m/m m m m m m m m
Outlet 219.200 800 220.000 0 0.50 0.00636 1.473 0.74 0.111 220.111 0.0060 220.111
16 220.149 800 220.949 0 0.50 0.00636 1.473 0.74 0.111 221.060 0.0060 0.0060 150 0.900 0.033 0.016 221.060
15 220.593 700 221.293 0 0.38 0.00636 1.924 0.74 0.189 221.482 0.0123 0.0092 35 0.322 0.022 221.482
14 223.478 600 224.078 0 0.28 0.00636 2.442 0.69 0.304 224.382 0.0243 0.0183 150 2.745 0.025 0.015 224.382
13 227.428 600 228.028 0 0.28 0.00636 2.371 0.67 0.287 228.315 0.0229 0.0236 150 3.540 0.034 0.376 228.315
9 228.912 600 229.512 0 0.28 0.00636 1.415 0.40 0.102 229.614 0.0081 0.0155 81 1.256 0.008 0.220 229.614
5 229.586 500 230.086 0 0.20 0.00441 1.223 0.24 0.076 230.162 0.0054 0.0068 81 0.551 0.007 0.016 230.162

12 228.994 400 229.394 0 0.13 0.00385 1.513 0.19 0.117 229.511 0.0097 0.0163 81 1.320 0.01 0.036 229.511
11 230.798 300 231.098 0 0.07 0.00332 2.406 0.17 0.295 231.393 0.0310 0.0204 83 1.689 0.015 231.393
10 233.182 300 233.482 0 0.07 0.00332 1.840 0.13 0.173 233.655 0.0182 0.0246 90 2.214 0.17 233.655

8 230.579 300 230.879 0 0.07 0.00332 2.265 0.16 0.261 231.140 0.0274 0.0178 75 1.335 0.031 0.001 231.140
7 233.927 200 234.127 0 0.03 0.00283 2.229 0.07 0.253 234.380 0.0389 0.0332 90 2.988 0.26 234.380
6 237.678 200 237.878 0 0.03 0.00283 2.229 0.07 0.253 238.131 0.0389 0.0389 90 3.501 0.25 238.131

4 230.708 400 231.108 0 0.13 0.00385 1.752 0.22 0.156 231.264 0.0129 0.0092 93 0.856 0.166 231.264
3 231.593 400 231.993 0 0.13 0.00385 1.433 0.18 0.105 232.098 0.0087 0.0108 81 0.875 0.01 232.098
2 232.737 300 233.037 0 0.07 0.00332 1.700 0.12 0.147 233.184 0.0154 0.0121 80 0.968 0.074 0.002 233.184
1 234.551 200 234.751 0 0.03 0.00283 1.592 0.05 0.129 234.880 0.0198 0.0176 90 1.584 0.13 234.880
2
n = Variable Sf = K (V2g) /R4/3 K = 2g(n2)
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 153

Detailed Hydraulic Calculations for Step No 10 in Minor System Design

M.H. 16 0 = 45ϒ
From Figure 4.13 K = 0.3

Hb = K ( )
V
2g
2
= 0.3 x 0.11 = 0.033m

Ht = 0.2 ( 2g)
V 12 V2
— 2
2g
= 0.2 x (.19 — .11) = 0.016m

M.H. 15 Ht = 0.2 ( 2g)

V12 V2
— 2
2g
= 0.2 (.30 — .19) = 0.022m

10
M.H. 14 Kb = 0.25 = 0.083
90

Hb = Kb ( )
V2
2g
= 0.083 x .30 = 0.025m

Hm = 0.05
( ) V2
2g
= 0.05 x .30 = 0.015m

20
M.H. 13 Kb = 0.25 = 0.117
90

Hb = Kb ( )
V2
2g
= 0.117 x (.29) = 0.034m

( )
(Hj + D 1 — D 2)
A1 + A2
2
=
Q 22
gA 2
—
Q 12
gA1
—
Q 32
gA3
cos 0

0 = 90ϒ cos 90ϒ = 0

(Hj + 0.6 — 0.6) ( 0.28 + 0.28

2 ) =
(0.67)2
9.81 (0.28)
—
(0.4)2
9.81 (0.28)
Hj = 0.376m

M.H. 9 Hb = Kb
( )(V2
2g
= 0.25
10
90 ) x 0.10 = 0.008m

0 = 90ϒ cos 90ϒ = 0

2 (
(Hj + 0.5 — 0.6) 0.20 + 0.28 ) =
(0.4)2
9.81 (0.28)
—
(0.24)2
9.81 (0.20)
Hj = 0.220m

M.H. 5 0 = 90ϒ
154 MODERN SEWER DESIGN

()(
Hb = Kb
)
V2
2g
= 0.25 10
90
x 0.08 = 0.007m

(
H t = 0.2 ) V12
2g
V2
— 2
2g
= 0.2 (.16 — .08) = 0.016m

M.H. 12
(
H b = 0.25
) 10
90
x .12 = 0.010m

H t = 0.2 (.3 — .12) = 0.036m

M.H. 11 H m = 0.05 ( ) V2
2g
= 0.05 (.3) = 0.015m

M.H. 10 K = 1.0
Hm = K () V2
2g
= 1.0 (.17) = 0.17m

M.H. 8
(
H b = 0.25 20
90 ) (.26) = 0.031m

H m = 0.1 ( V 22
2g
V2
— 1
2g ) = 0.1 (.26 — .25) = 0.001m

M.H. 7 0 = 90ϒ
From Figure 4.13 K = 1.04

H b = 1.04 (.25) = 0.260m

M.H. 6 K = 1.0
Hm = K ()V2
2g
= 1.0 (.25) = 0.250m

M.H. 4 0 = 90ϒ
From Figure 4.13 K = 1.04

H b = 1.04 (.16) = 0.166m

M.H. 3 H t = 0.2 ( V 22
2g
V2
— 1
2g ) = 0.2 (.15 — .10) = 0.010m

M.H. 2 0 = 60ϒ
From Figure 4.13 K = 0.49

H b = 0.49 (.15) = 0.074m

H t = 0.1 ( ) V 22
2g
V2
— 1
2g
= 0.002m

M.H. 1 K = 1.0
Hm = K () V2
2g
= 1.0 x 0.13 = 0.13
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 155

Table 5.8 Equivalent alternative n = .012

Location
M.H. M.H. Pipe Size
Street From To mm
1 2 200
2 3 300
3 4 400
4 5 400
6 7 200
7 8 200
8 9 300
10 11 300
11 12 300
12 13 400
5 9 500
9 13 600
13 14 600
14 15 600
15 16 700
16 Outfall 800

Major System
Various manual methods can be used to estimate the major system flows.
As a preliminary estimate, designers often apply the Rational formula, us-
ing the rainfall intensity for a 100 year storm and a C factor 60 percent to
85 percent higher than what would be used for a 2-year or 5-year storm.
The increase in value is basically to allow for a change in the antecedent
moisture condition. Except in special circumstances, a C factor above 0.85
need not be used.
In this design example the C factor of 0.35 used for the design of the
minor system will be increased to 0.60, an increase of about 70 percent.
The results are shown in Table 5.9.
In cases where this method results in flows in excess of the acceptable
roadway capacity, a more detailed method should be applied, such as the
SCS Graphical Method or a suitable hydrological computer model.
If properly laid out the major system can tolerate the variability in flows
estimated by the various methods. A minor increase in the depth of surface
flow will greatly increase the capacity of the major system, without neces-
sarily causing serious flooding. The designer must also consider the re-
maining overland flow accumulated at the downstream end of the develop-
ment; adequate consideration must be given for its conveyance to the re-
ceiving water body. This may involve increasing the minor system and
inlet capacities or providing adequate drainage swales.
Table 5.9 Major system flows for 100 year storm
156

Runoff
Total Time of Intensity Total Runoff Sewer* Major System Road Surface
Location Area Section Concentration I Q Capacity (overland flow) Grade Capacity**
MH to MH (ha) C AxC AxC min. (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) % (m3/s)
1-2 0.74 0.60 0.44 0.44 10.0 179 0.22 0.07 0.15 2.00 5.15
2-3 1.10 0.60 0.66 1.10 11.5 174 0.53 0.11 0.42 2.00 5.15
3-4 1.04 0.60 0.62 1.72 12.8 160 0.76 0.14 0.63 2.00 5.15
4-5 0.83 0.60 0.50 2.22 14.2 151 0.93 0.14 0.79 1.90 5.09

6-7 1.06 0.60 0.64 0.64 10.0 179 0.31 0.11 0.21 2.00 5.15
7-8 – – – – 11.5 169 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 5.41
8-9 1.50 0.60 0.90 1.54 13.0 159 0.67 0.14 0.53 2.00 5.15

10-11 1.80 0.60 1.08 1.08 10.0 179 0.53 0.13 0.41 1.85 4.96
11-12 0.71 0.60 0.43 1.51 11.5 169 0.70 0.14 0.57 2.00 5.15
12-13 0.42 0.60 0.25 1.76 12.0 160 0.78 0.12 0.66 2.20 5.41

5-9 0.43 0.60 0.26 2.48 15.7 142 0.98 0.12 0.85 2.00 7.79
9-13 0.53 0.60 0.32 3.62 17.1 136 1.36 0.12 1.24 2.00 7.79
13-14 2.28 0.60 1.37 6.75 18.4 130 2.41 0.22 2.19 2.50 8.78
14-15 0.55 0.60 0.33 7.08 20.9 120 2.34 0.23 2.11 2.00 7.79
15-16 2.35 0.60 1.41 8.49 23.4 113 2.65 0.23 2.43 0.50 3.96
16-Outfall – – – 8.49 24.0 112 2.62 0.23 2.39 0.50 3.96
*Assuming sufficient inlet capacity
**Refer to Figure 5.5
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 157

Foundation Drains
To establish the groundwater level, piezometer measurements over a 12
month period were taken, indicating the groundwater table would be safely
below the footing elevations for the proposed buildings, minimizing the
amount of inflow that can be expected into the foundation drains.
The municipal requirements include detailed lot grading control, thus
further reducing the possibility of surface water entering the foundation
-
drains. Accordingly a flow value of 7.65 x 10 5 m3/s per basement is used.
See the discussion on Foundation Drains in Chapter 2 of this text. For de-
tailed calculations see Table 5.10.

Computer Models
There is a wide range of computer models now available for analyzing
sewer networks. The complexity of the models varies from straightforward
models which use the rational method to estimate the peak flow to compre-
hensive models which are based on the continuity and momentum equa-
tions and are capable of modeling surcharge, backwater, orifices, weirs
and other sewer components.
Table 5.11 lists several of these models and their capabilities.

Smooth-lined CSP storm sewer being installed.

Table 5.10 Foundation drain collector design sheet
158

Unit Flow Total

From To Area Density Total Cum. Per Unit Flow Length Gradient Pipe Dia. Capacity Velocity
Location M.H. M.H. (ha) (per ha) Units Units (m3/sx10-5) (m3/sx10-3) (m) % (mm) (m3/s) (m/s)
Crescent ‘G’ 1A 2A 1.20 2 18 18 7.65 1.38 119 0.98 200 0.031 1.12
Crescent ‘G’ 2A 3A 0.72 2 11 29 7.65 2.22 94 1.51 200 0.037 1.37
Crescent ‘G’ 3A 4A 1.49 2 22 51 7.65 3.90 152 0.50 200 0.022 0.79
Crescent ‘G’ 4A 5A 0.60 2 9 60 7.65 4.59 93 0.55 200 0.023 0.82
Crescent ‘G’ 1A 6A 1.52 2 23 23 7.65 1.76 152 1.39 200 0.036 1.28
Crescent ‘G’ 6A 7A 0.93 2 14 37 7.65 2.83 90 2.25 200 0.040 1.67
Crescent ‘G’ 7A 8A 0.58 2 9 46 7.65 3.52 105 1.31 200 0.035 1.28
Street ‘F’ 9A 10A 1.54 3 30 30 7.65 2.30 137 1.20 200 0.034 1.21
Street ‘F’ 10A 11A 0.85 3 17 47 7.65 3.60 133 1.20 200 0.034 1.21
Street ‘A’ 5A 8A 0.63 3 13 106 7.65 8.11 82 1.81 200 0.041 1.52
Street ‘A’ 8A 11A 0.51 3 10 116 7.65 8.87 75 4.34 200 0.063 2.31
Street ‘A’ 11A 13A 0.94 3 19 135 7.65 10.30 133 1.42 200 0.036 1.34
Source: Paul Theil Associates Ltd.
MODERN SEWER DESIGN
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 159

Table 5.11 Computer models – Sewer system design and analysis

SWMM-Transport5
SWMM-Extran5

WASSP-SIM6
HVM Dorsch3
CE Storm2

ILLUDAS4
Model Characteristics
Model Purpose:
Hydraulic Design • • • •
Evaluation/Prediction • • • •
Model Capabilities:
Pipe Sizing • • • •
Weirs/Overflows • • • •
Surcharging • • •
Pumping Stations • • •
Storage • • •
Hydraulic Equations:
Linear Kinematic Wave • •
Non-Linear Kinematic Wave • •
St. Venant’s – Explicit •
St. Venant’s – Implicit •
Ease of Use:
High • •
Low • • • •

REFERENCES
1. Wright, K.K., Urban Storm Drainage Crite- 5. Huber, W.C. Heaney, J.P. and Cunningham,
ria Manual, Volume 1, Wright-McLaughlin B.A., Stormwater Management Model (SWMM
Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 1969. Version IV) Users Manual, U.S.
2. Dept. of the Army, CE Storm Users Manual, Envioronmental Protection Agency, 1986.
Construction Engineering Research Labora- 6. Wallingford Storm Sewer Package (WASSP),
tory, Champaign, Illinois, 1985. Users Guide, Hydraulics Research Laboratory,
3. Hydrograph Volume Method of Sewer Sys- Wellingford, UK, 1984.
tem Analysis, HVM Manual, Dorsch Consult
Limited, Federal Republic of Germany, 1987.
4. Terstriep, M.L., Stall, J.B., Illinois Urban
Drainage Area Simulator (ILLUDAS), Illi-
nois State Water Survey, Bulletin 58, Urbana,
Illinois, 1974.