Section – 10

Design of Road Surface Drainage

 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 DESIGN OF ROAD SURFACE DRAINAGE 10-1

10.1 Introduction 10-1

10.2 Hydrology 10-1

10.3 Major / Minor Drainage System 10-2

10.3.1 Minor System 10-2
10.3.2 Major System 10-2

10.4 Pavement and Shoulder Drainage 10-2

10.1.1 Road Pavement 10-2
10.1.2 Road Geometry 10-5

10.5 Roadside Drains 10-6

10.5.1 Kerbs and Channels (Gutters) 10-7
10.5.2 Other Roadside Drains 10-9

10.6 Flow Depth and Width Limitations 10-10

10.7 Surface Inlets and Outlets 10-13

10.7.1 Introduction 10-13
10.7.2 Gully Pit Inlets 10-13
10.7.3 Other Inlet Types 10-15
10.7.4 Factors of Safety 10-16

10.8 Conduit Flow 10-16

10.8.1 Introduction 10-16
10.8.2 Design Principles 10-17
10.8.3 Freeboard at Inlets and Junctions 10-23
10.8.4 Pipe Capacity 10-23
10.8.5 Head Loss at Inlets 10-23
10.8.6 Bend Losses 10-24
10.8.7 Obstruction Losses 10-25
10.8.7 Branch Losses 10-26
10.8.8 Expansion and Contraction Losses 10-27
10.8.9 Hydraulic Grade Line for Pipes Running Partially Full 10-28
10.8.10 Pipes and Pipelaying 10-29
10.8.11 Minimum Cover over Pipes 10-30
10.8.12 Pipe Grading Limits 10-30

10.9 Computer Modeling 10-31

10.10 Worked Example 10-33

10.11 References 10-46

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page i
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 10-1: Puddle Depth Formula ............................................................................................................ 10-5
Figure 10-2: Gutter Flow Characteristics..................................................................................................... 10-7
Figure 10-3: Flows in Triangular Channels.................................................................................................. 10-9
Figure 10-4: Major / Minor Flow Paths ...................................................................................................... 10-11
Figure 10-5: Typical Section of Road Reserve.......................................................................................... 10-11
Figure 10-6: Typical Side Entry Pit ............................................................................................................ 10-15
Figure 10-7: Side Entry Pit Inlet Capacity on Grade.................................................................................. 10-15
Figure 10-8: Colebrook-White Chart........................................................................................................... 10-18
Figure 10-9: Hydraulics for a Single Pipe Reach....................................................................................... 10-19
Figure 10-10: Hydraulic Grade Line Design Method 1 .............................................................................. 10-21
Figure 10-11: Hydraulic Grade Line Design Method 2 .............................................................................. 10-22
Figure 10-12: Bend-Loss Coefficient ......................................................................................................... 10-25
Figure 10-13: Obstruction Loss Coefficient ............................................................................................... 10-26
Figure 10-14: Branch Losses..................................................................................................................... 10-27
Figure 10-15: Expansion and Contraction Loss Coefficients .................................................................... 10-28
Figure 10-16: HGL for Pipes Partially Full ................................................................................................. 10-29

LIST OF TABLES
Table 10-1: Typical Texture Depths for New Pavements 10-3
Table 10-2: Typical Pavement Crossfall Values 10-6
Table 10-3: Surface Flow Limits 10-12
Table 10-4: Minimum Freeboard Recommendations for Gully Inlets and Manholes 10-23
Table 10-5: Recommended Values for Surface Roughness 10-23
Table 10-6: Entrance Loss Coefficients 10-24
Table 10-7: Pressure Loss Coefficients at Mitred Fittings 10-24
Table 10-8: Jointing Requirements for Pipes – Normal Conditions 10-29
Table 10-9: Recommended Minimum Spacing of Multiple Pipes 10-29
Table 10-10: Recommended Minimum Cover Over Pipes 10-30
Table 10-11: Table of Acceptable Pipe Grades for Pipes Flowing Full 10-30
Table 10-12: Permissible Velocities for Pipes and Box Sections 10-31
Table 10-13: Design Rainfalls and Statistics 10-35
Table 10-14: Runoff Coefficients 10-35
Table 10-15: Calculation of Minor Flowrates at Pits 10-38
Table 10-16: HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 2 10-42
Table 10-17: HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 3 10-43
Table 10-18: Frequency Factors for Rational Method Runoff Coefficients 10-45

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page ii
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

SYMBOLS used in SECTION 10

A = cross sectional area of flow (m2)

A = clear opening of the grate (m2) ie. total area minus area of bars
A = clear opening of the opening (m2)
D = water film depth above top of pavement texture (mm)
d g, d p = greatest gutter and pavement depths (m)
dc = the depth of water on the road crown (m)
d = average depth of ponding (m)
F = flow correction factor
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.807m/s2)
hf = head loss in a pipe due to friction (m)
hs = head loss at bend, obstruction or structure (m)
I = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
K = pressure change coefficient (or pit loss coefficient) (dimensionless)
L = length of drainage path (m)
L = inlet width (m)
L = length of pipe reach
N = Manning roughness coefficient
n g, n p = corresponding Manning’s roughness coefficients
P = perimeter length of the pit excluding the section against the kerb
Q = maximum discharge (m3/s)
Qi = inlet flowrate (m3/s)
R = Hydraulic Radius (A/Wetted perimeter)
S = slope of drainage path (%)
Sf = friction slope (or hydraulic gradient) (m/m)
So = longitudinal slope (m/m)
T = average pavement texture depth (mm)
Vo = velocity of flow in the downstream pipe (m/s)
Vo2 / 2g = velocity head (m)
Zg and Zp are the reciprocals of the gutter and pavement cross-slopes (m/m).

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page iii
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10 DESIGN OF ROAD SURFACE DRAINAGE

10.1 Introduction
Road surface drainage must be designed to cater for runoff from the pavement surface and any adjacent
areas. The drainage system should ensure the safety and convenience of road users and prevent
uncontrolled flooding of adjacent properties. It should also permit drainage of the pavement materials.

With respect to vehicle operation and road surface drainage there are a number of issues:

• Aquaplaning (or Hydroplaning) – A film of water over a road surface can result in the loss of
friction between a vehicles tyre and the road. Depending upon the degree to which friction loss
occurs (ie. partial aquaplaning or full aquaplaning) a vehicle may totally lose control of traction.
Aquaplaning only occurs at higher speeds (80 km/h and greater) when the vehicle weight and tyre
tread pattern cannot shed water from beneath the tyre contact area.

• Spray – Vehicle spray during and immediately after rain events reduces visibility of other vehicles,
pedestrians, road furniture (eg. road signs) and also pavement markings. Spray also significantly
reduces the amenity for pedestrians on the road verges.

• Roadway capacity – Water encroaching into travel lanes will affect roadway capacity. For single
lane two way roads, vehicle speeds and therefore road capacity will reduce with increasing depth
of water across roads. The capacity of the road will continue to decline until the water level
reaches a stage where the road is completely closed. Depending upon crossfalls, lanes would be
progressively closed on multi lane roads as depths rise.

The relative importance of a road and rate in which flooding subsides will influence the
requirements for road drainage.

• Vehicle stability – During major storm events vehicle stability and public safety become key
issues. Stability of vehicles in floodwaters is a function of water depth and also velocity.

10.2 Hydrology
In designing road surface drainage estimated peak flows are required for a number of different recurrence
intervals:

• Frequent Storms – must be considered for depth of flow on road pavements to ensure that there is
no loss in stability of vehicles (aquaplaning). The effect of thin films of water over roads becomes
increasingly critical as vehicle speeds increase. Aquaplaning is normally only considered for
frequent storms. As rainfall intensity increases for more severe storms, driver visibility and also
traffic speeds will tend to reduce thereby also reducing the possibility of aquaplaning. It becomes
increasingly difficult to drive in rainfall intensities greater than 100 mm/h.

• Minor Storms – stormwater structures need to be located at suitable spacing along roads to
prevent nuisance flooding and inconvenience to both motorists and users of road verges.

• Major Storms – major storms must be considered to ensure that flows are conveyed safely during
these rare events. Vehicle stability must be considered during major storms.

There are a range of methods available to predict flows for the different ARI’s and storm durations. In
designing road drainage for small catchments the most commonly used method is the Rational Method. A
detailed methodology for determining flows is presented in Chapter 3.0.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-1
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.3 Major / Minor Drainage System

In designing a drainage network the level of flood immunity required by the various components of the
system need to be established. It is normally not economical for pipe systems, for instance, to have
sufficient capacity to convey major storm events (ie. 100 year ARI storm). In these major storm events it is
normally assumed that some controlled flooding will be permitted.

A balance needs to be established between the average annual benefits from a drainage network against
the average annual costs due to flooding, installation and maintenance of the system. To achieve this
balance of flood immunities a design approach whereby different components are sized for different storm
intensities has been developed which is termed the major / minor drainage system.

10.3.1 Minor System

The minor system is sized to limit inundation by floodwaters during more common storm events. The minor
drainage system is designed to prevent nuisance flooding and permit virtually uninterrupted usage of roads
and surrounding areas by vehicles and pedestrians.

It is recommended that a 5 year ARI design storm be adopted for sizing the minor drainage system. In some
instances such as at inner city locations or in town centres a 10 year ARI design storm may be adopted to
provide a higher level of protection in these more populated and important areas.

10.3.2 Major System

The major system is designed to convey less frequent major storm events without loss of life or significant
property damage. Normally major events are conveyed by a combination of the minor (piped) system and
overland flowpaths. In particular situations due to site constraints it may be necessary to convey the entire
flow from a major storm event via an underground system.

A 100 year ARI design storm is recommended for designing the major system. It is acknowledged that in
some locations this will not be practical or economical. A reduced flood immunity of 1 in 20 or 1 in 50 years
could be considered in these instances.

10.4 Pavement and Shoulder Drainage

The analysis of flow depths on pavements is an important design consideration for vehicle stability in high
speed environments and also carriageway widths available for traffic. Flow depths are influenced by both
the surface type (eg. Surface texture) and also the shape or grade.

10.1.1 Road Pavement

(a) Surface Texture

The surface texture plays a key role in determining braking and lateral friction co-efficients. The texture and
tyre tread pattern will also affects the water pressure between the road tyre and pavement.

An analysis of a pavement surface can be conducted on two levels; the microtexture surface which refers to
the texture of the components of the wearing surface and the macrotexture surface which refers to the
roughness of the actual wearing surface.

Microtexture – Irregularities on the surfaces of aggregates which make up the wearing course assist in
providing friction during wet periods by thinning or delaying the formation of water films. Normally crushed
rock is specified in asphaltic concrete wearing courses to ensure that a number of freshly fractured particle
faces are available to provide tyre traction. Aggregates which are prone to polishing should be avoided as
skid resistance will decrease as irregularities on the aggregate surfaces are worn smooth.

Microtexture can also be affected by surface contaminants such as oils that bind to aggregates. When light
rain occurs after a prolonged dry period a marked decrease in skid resistance is usually noted. This reduced
friction prevails until the surface has been washed clean by the rain or other mechanisms.
Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004
Page 10-2
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Macrotexture – The macrotexture of the pavement surface provides channels to disperse water from
beneath the tyre surface. The extent to which this is achieved will influence the water pressure that builds up
between the tyre and road surface. Higher pressures, particularly at high speeds will result in full or partial
aquaplaning. Aquaplanning will also be influenced by tyre pressure and tyre wear although these are
beyond the control of the designer.

A range of pavement surfaces can be provided. A flush seal with large size stone provides a deep
macrotexture with good pavement drainage and little loss in traction with increasing speed. The larger size
stone however will increase road noise. Dense graded asphalt results in a much shallower macrotexture. In
critical areas where an asphalt surface is required with good surface drainage, a stone mastic or open
graded asphalt can be specified. Both of these mixes are much more pervious than dense graded asphalt
and permit movement of water down from the road surface into the asphalt layer.

Table 10-1 below shows indicative texture depths for a range of different pavement wearing courses.

Table 10-1: Typical Texture Depths for New Pavements

Source: Main Roads, 2002

Texture Depth (mm)

WEARING COURSE SURFACE
(Refer Note 1)
Dense graded asphalt, 10 mm or larger 0.4 – 0.8
Dense graded asphalt, 7 mm 0.3 – 0.5
Open graded asphalt (Refer Note 2) > 0.9
Stone mastic asphalt (Refer Note 2) > 0.7
Fine gap graded asphalt 0.2 – 0.4
Slurry surfacing 0.4 – 0.8
Tyned concrete 0.4 – 0.6
Exposed aggregate concrete > 0.9
Hessian dragged concrete 0.3 – 0.5
Broomed concrete 0.2 – 0.4
Grooved concrete 1.2
Spray seals, 10 mm or larger > 1.5
Spray seals, 7 mm 0.6 – 1.0
Grooved concrete 1.2

Notes:

1. Texture depths indicated are for new pavements.

2. As high as 2 mm when new, but clogs up and needs cleaning.

(b) Water Depth

Water film depths over roads need to be minimized especially at critical areas where braking or corning
occurs and friction demands are high such as at:

• Intersection or locations where vehicles may be queued or lane changes occur such as at exit or
entry ramps;

• Horizontal curves which have a significantly lower design speed to the speed environment of
adjacent sections of roads;

• Areas of wide pavement;

• High speed roundabouts; and

• Superelevation transitions.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-3
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Research has shown that for vehicles traveling below about 80 km/h with tyres in good condition, full
aquaplaning is not likely to occur (NAASRA, 1986). Increasing flow depths on pavements reduce friction
coefficients with the greatest reduction occurring up to 4 mm. With flow depths greater than 4 mm, full
aquaplaning may occur depending upon vehicle speed and tyre condition.

In low speed environments (say 60 km/h) aquaplaning is generally not an issue and designers should
predominantly concentrate on ensuring flow widths are acceptable along kerbs.

The following criteria should be adopted with respect to water depths (Main Roads, 2002):

Design Speed less than 80 km/h

• Water film depth in wheel paths should not be greater than 5 mm for a one year ARI storm;
• Pavement texture depth should be 0.2 mm minimum.

Design speed greater than 80 km/h

• The desirable maximum water depth for a rainfall intensity of 50 mm should be 2.5 mm with an
absolute maximum water film depth of 2.5 mm;

• Pavement texture depth should desirably be a minimum of 0.4 mm.

Water film depths on pavement surfaces can be calculated using equation 10.1 below:

0.103 T 0.11 L0.43 I 0.59

D= −T (10.1)
S 0.42
where:

D = water film depth above top of pavement texture (mm)

T = average pavement texture depth (mm) *
L = length of drainage path (m)
I = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
S = slope of drainage path (%)

* Texture depth is commonly measured either by a ‘sand patch’ or ‘silicon putty’ technique. A known volume
of sand or putty is spread over the pavement so that the material is to the level of the top of the protruding
aggregate particles. The texture depth is then calculated as the volume divided by the area of coverage.

(c) Wheel Rutting

During a pavements design life wheel ruts may form which alter the original surface drainage patterns. The
prevailing road crossfall, longitudinal grade and rut width and depth will influence the potential for a rut to
hold water. When wheel ruts start to hold water aquaplaning and spray may result in reduced or total loss of
control of vehicles depending upon the speed.

Assuming an average rut width of 760 mm, the puddle depth would be calculated as in Figure 10-1 below.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-4
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-1: Puddle Depth Formula

Source: Main Roads, 2002

Notes:

1. Crossfall in this equation is measured at right angles to the road centerline.

2. No allowance has been made for grade.

Deep wheel ruts at critical areas such as curve transitions and sag vertical curves should be removed by
maintenance.

10.1.2 Road Geometry

Road geometry including the longitudinal grade and transverse crossfall will influence length of flow paths
and also the speed at which excess rainfall will shed from the travel lane surface. The most effective method
of reducing the depths of flows on road pavements is by limiting the length of flow paths.

There are a number of features which require close attention to drainage requirements such as flat grades or
very wide pavements in gore areas. At these key locations the road geometry may be dictated by the
drainage requirements and suitable grades induced to ensure adequate drainage.

(a) Longitudinal Grades

Flat grades in areas which are kerbed need to be carefully considered. The kerbs will effectively pond
excess runoff if suitable longitudinal grades to pits are not achieved. In places it may be necessary to force
grades whereby the road gradient does not follow the flat natural surface grade.

In kerbed sections generally a minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5% should be adopted. Large radius sag
vertical curves should not join flat grades otherwise long flat spots in kerblines will result.

In sags, additional pits should be provided as flows will naturally pond at these locations and there is always
a risk that an inlet may become blocked.

(b) Crossfall

Typical pavement crossfall values are presented in Table 10.2. These values are generally minimum values
for straights. At curves, superelevation may exceed the values below and reference should be made to the
Road Design Manual.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-5
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-2: Typical Pavement Crossfall Values

Source: NAASRA, 1986

Type of Surface Traffic Lane (%) Shoulder (%)

Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 – 3.0 2.5 – 4.0
Surface Seal 3.0 – 4.0 3.0 – 4.0
Unsealed Gravel 3.5 – 4.0 4.0 – 5.0

It is normal practice to provide two-way crossfall or crowned crossfall on roads to decrease the length of
flowpaths on the pavement surface. In roads with divided carriageways each comprising several lanes this
approach can also be used. Crown lines should follow lane lines. Diagonal or wandering crown lines are
undesirable. Crown lines which do not align with lanes are normally difficult to construct. They result in a
poor visual appearance and also have a poor ride quality.

Drainage from one carriageway of a divided carriageway road should not be permitted to drain onto the
lower carriageway. Suitable median drainage via a depressed median or kerbing should be provided.

(c) Ramp Exits and Entries

Wide pavements contributing to sheet flow across travel lanes often occur at gore areas and taper lengths of
exit and entry ramps. Introducing a crown line at these locations can reduce flow path lengths.

For instance at ramp tapers on the high side or outside of a curve, a crown could be introduced between the
ramp and the through lanes. This approach is only applicable on large radius curves and a check should be
undertaken to ensure that any adverse crossfall is within acceptable limits.

For ramp tapers on the low side or inside of curves a possible solution is the use of a grated trench slotted
pipe extending down the gore area to intercept flow from the main carriageway.

(d) Superelevation Transitions

Superelevation transitions are normally the most critical locations to consider flow depths. The development
of superelevation results in long flow paths which curve from one edge of the pavement to the other and
back. Pavement contours of these areas should be plotted to determine the flow path lengths and
associated water depths.

To reduce the length of flow paths in these locations the designer can either:

• Increase the rate of rotation in developing the superelevation subject to satisfactory appearance
(Main Roads, 2002); or

• Reduce the width of contributing pavement.

10.5 Roadside Drains

Road side drains capture water either from the road pavement surface or the adjacent verge or both. The
selection of an appropriate form for roadside drains will be influenced by the following considerations:

• Road location – Roads in urban centers tend to be kerbed. Kerbing provides a barrier between the
road pavement and adjacent verge. This barrier is particularly important in areas with high volumes
of pedestrians. Kerbing also helps to define vehicle paths especially at intersections.

• Verge levels – Provision of a kerb permits a higher verge level. With the verge located at the top of
the kerb a degree of flood protection occurs with water ponding on the road surface.

• Containment – In certain areas such as high fill embankments which have erodible soils,
containment of road surface runoff may be desirable.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-6
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

• Water Cycle – Table drains permit a more natural approach to stormwater management. Infiltration
can occur through the base of table drains. Grassed table drains can also filter pollutants from
road surface runoff.

Roadside drains should usually have a minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5% (ACT Government, 1994).
Flatter grades will tend to cause problems with wide flow paths and siltation.

10.5.1 Kerbs and Channels (Gutters)

(a) Description

Most urban roads are bordered by kerb and gutter. The kerb and gutter systems collect runoff from the road
surface and adjacent verges and direct the flow longitudinally to stormwater pits or other suitable outlets.

Capturing runoff in a kerb and gutter section also assist in limiting possible inflow to pavement materials and
the road subgrade.

The profile of the gutter section is normally steeper than the pavement crossfall. Pit inlet capture increases
with depth of flow and hence cross slope. Gutter crossfalls normally vary between 1 in 12 and 1 in 20
(Institute of Engineers Australia, 1987).

(b) Hydraulic Design

In determining the depth of flow and width for a kerb and gutter there are a number of different formulae
available with different accuracies. The Izzard formulae below presents Manning’s equation modified for
triangular sections.

Figure 10-2: Gutter Flow Characteristics

Source: Institute of Engineers, Australia, 1987

Izzard Equation (Refer Figure 10-2 for locations of parameters)

Q = QABC – QDBF + QDEF - QGEH

= 0.375 F{(Zg/ng).(dg 8/3 – dp 8/3) + (Zp/np).(dp 8/3 – dc 8/3)} . So ½ (10.2)

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-7
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

where:

Q = the total flow (m3/s), estimated by dividing the section as shown and applying the equation of
Izzard for a single crossfall or cross slope

Q = 0.375 F d 8/3 So ½ Z/n

F = flow correction factor (0.9 for simple triangular sections and 0.8 for gutter sections of the type
shown above

Zg and Zp are the reciprocals of the gutter and pavement cross-slopes (m/m)

ng and np are the corresponding Manning’s roughness coefficients

dg and dp are the greatest gutter and pavement depths (m)

dc is the depth of water on the road crown (m)

So is the longitudinal slope (m/m).

Figure 10-3 below presents a simplified anemograph for the calculation of flows in triangular channels.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-8
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-3: Flows in Triangular Channels

Source: Main Roads, 2002

10.5.2 Other Roadside Drains

Other longitudinal roadside drains can take the form of table drains, catch drains and depressed median
drains. Table drains and catch drains are more common in rural situations however certain there use in
urban areas will be required at times.

These types of drains commonly have a dish or triangular cross section. In areas with grades less than
0.5%, a concrete lining may be required to prevent siltation. In steeper sections where velocities from design
flows exceed about 2 m/s lining with rock, concrete or erosion matting is recommended to avoid scouring.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-9
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Manning’s equation (Eq. 10.3) can be utilised for the hydraulic design of table drains, catch drains and
depressed medians.

Q = (A R 0.667 So 0.5) / n (10.3)

where:

Q = maximum discharge (m3/s)

A = cross sectional area of flow (m2)
R = hydraulic radius (A/wetted perimeter)
S = longitudinal slope (m/m)
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient.

(a) Table Drains

Table drains are located on the outside of road shoulders to collect water from the road surface and convey
it to a transverse culvert or watercourse. Where the distance between culverts or watercourses is great,
turnouts may be required which re-direct the flow in a controlled manner away from road formation.

The cross section of a table drain can vary depending upon the required capacity, prevailing slope stability
and vehicle safety requirements. Table drains are designed to be traversed by an errant vehicle. The drain
slope closest to the road shoulder should desirably be no steeper than 1 in 4 (NAASRA, 1986).

The invert of a table drain should desirably be lower than the road subgrade level to permit the pavement
layers to drain naturally. In areas where this is not possible the use of subsoil drains may be necessary.

(b) Catch Drains

Catch drains have a similar function to table drains but are located at the tops of cuttings or adjacent to
embankments. Catch drains are excavated into the natural surface and by diverting flow from adjacent high
ground to protect either the cutting face or toe of embankment.

In some locations a catch drain could be substituted for a bank or berm. In this instance earth is placed
against the natural surface to deflect runoff.

Catch drains should generally be at least 0.3 m deep to limit the possibility of the drain becoming blocked
and ineffective (NAASRA, 1986).

(c) Depressed Median Drain

Where a suitable median width is provided for dual carriageway roads generally greater than 5.0 m, a
depressed median drain can be provided. Open median drains should have gentle side slopes to enable
recovery space in the event a vehicle leaves the carriageway. Sufficient depth must be provided at the invert
for the catchment area noting the head required to enter any structures.

10.6 Flow Depth and Width Limitations

As described previously the major / minor approach to road drainage is recommended. Under this approach
the drainage system, which includes kerb and gutters, pits and pipes, is designed for minor storm events.
The minor drainage system addresses nuisance flooding from a 5 year ARI storm event. In critical locations such
as major urban centers a higher degree of protection may be appropriate whereby the minor system is sized
for a 10 year ARI event.

After analysing the minor system a check is then made for major storm events such as a100-year flood. This
check is conducted to ensure that safety requirements for stability of vehicles and pedestrians are met and
that adjacent properties are provided with appropriate flood protection.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-10
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

The concept of a major / minor system is presented in Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5.

Figure 10-4: Major / Minor Flow Paths

Source: Institute of Engineers, Australia, 2001

Figure 10-5: Typical Section of Road Reserve

Source: Institute of Engineers, Australia, 2001

Maximum permissible flow path widths and depths during minor and major storms are presented in
Table 10.3 below. A combination of pavement shape and spacing of pit inlets will achieve the required
widths. Pits and desirable spacings are discussed further in the following section.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-11
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-3: Surface Flow Limits

Source: QUDM, 1994

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-12
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.7 Surface Inlets and Outlets

10.7.1 Introduction
After roadside drains have captured surface runoff from the road or verge, regular inlets to a piped system or
alternatively outfalls to open channels or waterways are required. These inlets or outfalls can take a variety
of shapes, the geometry of which will influence the hydraulic performance. The upstream flow depth and
velocity in the roadside drain will also affect capture rates.

If a drainage network has sufficient inlet capacity the associated piped system will be underutilized and
ponding of water on travel lanes may occur. Flooding of adjacent properties can also occur without
adequate inlet capacity.

10.7.2 Gully Pit Inlets

(a) Types of Inlets

There are three main types of gully pit inlets:

• Kerb or side entry openings – These types of opening are located in the kerb face. The
performance of the inlet is influenced by the depth of flow at the opening (the gutter may be
depressed at the inlet to improve performance), length of the opening and also the velocity of flow
in the gutter immediately upstream from the pit. In some instances, particularly on steep grades, a
deflector slab is located in the gutter to re-direct flows to the kerb opening. A deflector slab
comprises a series of corrugations in the gutter angled towards the opening. Inlet capacities of
side entry pits can also be improved by extending the kerb inlet or depressing the kerb.

• Grated opening – These types of inlets perform well being able to directly intercept flows over a
range of grades. The main disadvantage with grates is that depending upon the pollutant loadings
there is a possibility of the grate blocking and the pit becoming totally ineffective. Organic material
such as grass and leaves, or gross pollutants such as plastic can quickly block an inlet. Grated
openings should be avoided in locations where high levels of gross pollutants pollutant are
expected. Selection of grate types must consider hydraulic efficiencies, and pedestrian and cyclist
safety.

• Combination kerb opening and grate – These types of pits combine the two types of inlets
described above. Often the grate of a combination pit is utilised to gain access to the structure for
cleaning and maintenance.

(b) Location of Pits

Pits need to be spaced to ensure that limits on flow widths and depths are achieved. The process of locating
pits is normally undertaken in two phases. Pits are firstly placed at all critical locations. These locations can
be determined independent of hydraulic calculations. These locations include:

• Low points in road side drains. At trapped low points or sags it is normally good practice to provide
additional pits to allow for more extreme events and also to allow additional capacity in the event of
blockages;

• Superelevation transitions to ensure flow from one roadside drain does not cross the carriageway
to the adjacent drain / gutter;

• In advance of pedestrian crossings;

• In advance of intersections or other important access points; and

• At locations for maintenance purposes such as at changes in direction or maximum spacing for
cleaning purposes (a 100 m maximum spacing is normally adopted for these reasons).

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-13
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

After pits have been detailed at these areas a hydraulic analysis should be conducted to ascertain where
flow volumes are unacceptable and an additional inlet is required. Some refinement of pit locations should
be conducted at this stage to ensure that pits are spaced with regular intervals.

(c) Hydraulic Performance

As discussed previously, hydraulic performance including the inlet capacity is a function of the geometry of
the inlet and also the flow regime in the road side drain.

Capturing 100% of the runoff from the contributing catchment to each pit is normally uneconomical. For pits
on grade, a twofold increase in the size of pit may only result in a slight increase in capture of runoff.

Generally the inlet capacity of pits at low points is far greater than structures on grade. In areas of steeper
grades for instance, a percentage of the gutter flow may be permitted to bypass pits with the ultimate capture
of 100% of the flow being at a sag in the gutter.

A range of performance charts are available for different pit types, road grades and crossfalls. In the
absence of specific performance charts the following equations can be utilised.

For a grated opening at a sag:

Qi = 1.66 P d 1.5 for d < 0.43 m (10.4)

or

Qi = 0.67 A (2g d) 0.5 for d > 0.43 m (10.5)

where:

Qi = inlet flow (m3/s)

P = perimeter length of the pit excluding the section against the kerb
d = average depth of ponding (m)
A = clear opening of the grate (m2) ie. total area minus area of bars
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.807 m/s2).

For an undepressed kerb inlet at a sag:

Qi = 1.66 L d 1.5 (for ponding up to 1.4 h) (10.6)

or

Qi = 0.67 A (2g {d – h/2}) 0.5 (for ponding greater than 1.4 h) (10.7)

where:

Qi = inlet flow (m3/s)

P = perimeter length of the pit excluding the section against the kerb
d = average depth of ponding (m)
L = inlet width (m)
A = clear opening of the opening (m2)
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.807 m/s2)
h = height of the inlet (m).

Source: Institute of Engineers, Australia, 2001

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-14
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

A typical side entry pit is shown in Figure 10-6 with inlet capacity curve presented in Figure 10-7. Pit detail is
shown in Drawing SD-DI-01 of the Standard Drawings for Urban Infrastructure.

Figure 10-6: Typical Side Entry Pit

Source: ACT Government, 1994

Figure 10-7: Side Entry Pit Inlet Capacity on Grade

Source: ACT Government, 1994

10.7.3 Other Inlet Types

There are two other commonly used types of inlets used for roadside drains; median inlets and direct inlets.

(a) Median Inlets

Median Inlets are located in the invert of a depressed median at suitable locations to ensure that the capacity
of the median is not exceeded and runoff spills onto roads. Median pits normally take the form of a grated pit

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-15
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

however the spacing between bars can be significantly larger than that for a pit located at the kerb. The
wider grate spacing will prevent the grate from clogging by larger particles.

The most economical design of median pits is usually to provide 100% capture at each structure. A berm
can be provided downstream from a median inlet to permit the necessary ponding above the structure to
accept the flow. All slopes around the structures should be 1 in 6 or flatter for safety of errant vehicles
(NAASRA, 1986).

(b) Direct Inlets

Direct inlets to chutes, such as on embankments, can be achieved by flaring kerbs and depressing the
gutter. Care needs to be taken in designing direct inlets and chutes to ensure that no uncontrolled flow onto
the face of an embankment occurs. Particular attention should be given to changes in direction and grade.

Chutes can be either open like half round pipe) or enclosed. Chutes must be adequately stacked to prevent
movement that could spill water onto the embankment. A suitable energy dissipater must be provided at the
outlet to chutes to return channels to sub-critical flow.

10.7.4 Factors of Safety

It is prudent in designing surface inlets and outfalls to include safety factors. Safety factors reduce the
theoretical inlet capacity to take account of actual conditions that may occur during the structures service life.
Water borne debris and poor maintenance practices for instance may result in a drainage system having
insufficient inlet capacity.

As a guide the following safety factors could be used:

• Side Entry Pits: adopt 80% of theoretical inlet capacity

• Grated Pits: adopt 60% of theoretical inlet capacity.

A higher safety factor is used for grated pits due to their higher likelihood of blockage.

10.8 Conduit Flow

10.8.1 Introduction
Excess surface runoff after entering pits or other surface inlets is conveyed via conduits to the ultimate point
of discharge such as a channel or a river. Conduits may comprise pipes or box culverts.

Conduits must be designed to have sufficient capacity to convey runoff from the design storm.

(a) Methodology

In designing a road drainage system the following steps should be undertaken:

1. Develop a preliminary layout for the drainage system. This layout would detail pipe networks and
major flow routes. Catchment areas should be determined and measured.

2. Estimate minor system design flowrates for pits and pipes at key locations using suitable methods
such as the rational method or computer models. In determining discharges at junctions of pipes,
flows need to be calculated using the appropriate time of concentration.

3. Pit inlet types should be specified. Inlet capacities and acceptable bypass flows need to be
determined.

4. Major flow paths need to be assessed. Major flow rates need to be determined and compared with
estimated capacities of roadways and other major flow routes.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-16
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

5. Hydraulic calculations will determine pipe sizes and invert levels. Initial pipe sizing should be
conducted using pipe capacity charts such as Colebrook-White charts. Allowances need to be
provided for pipe cover and minimum slope requirements.

6. A hydraulic grade line check is undertaken working upstream from controlling or receiving water
levels.

10.8.2 Design Principles

(a) Hydrology

Flows at the upstream end of all conduits must be estimated. The most common hydrological method used
is the rational method. This method is simplistic yet is normally sufficiently accurate for subsequent pipe
sizing of small catchments.

Dependent upon the nature of catchment areas it may be necessary to calculate two flows by the rational
method; full area flow and the partial area flow. The time of concentration most commonly used is the full
area time, which is the duration for runoff to travel the longest flow path to the catchment outlet. In many
cases however, a partial area effect occurs whereby a higher flow can be calculated with the rational method
by considering the flow from the lower part of the catchment which has a time of concentration less than the
full area travel time.

This effect may occur where the lower reaches of a catchment are impervious (ie paved) and the upper
reaches pervious. The runoff response will be far quicker from the impervious areas and may result in a high
peak flow.

When partial area calculations are preformed they are compared against the full area peak flow and the
larger adopted for the subsequent detailed design of the drainage network.

(b) Pipe and Structure Losses

Losses in energy occur in pipes and structures due to a range of issues including friction and changes in flow
direction.

Losses due to friction in pipes are commonly expressed in the form of Equation 10.8. As flows increase in a
pipe the head losses or hydraulic gradient also increase.

hf = Sf . L (10.8)

where:

hf = head loss in a pipe due to friction (m)

Sf = friction slope (or hydraulic gradient) (m/m)
L = length of pipe reach.

A Colebrook-White chart is presented in Figure 10-8 from which hydraulic gradients can be determined for a
known pipe size and flow.

Losses due to bends, obstructions, or structures may be expressed as a function of the velocity of flow in the
pipe immediately downstream of the bend, obstruction or structure as shown in Equation 10.9.

hs = K . Vo2 / 2g (10.9)

where:

hs = head loss at bend, obstruction or structure (m)

K = pressure change coefficient or pit loss coefficient (dimensionless)
Vo = velocity of flow in the downstream pipe (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.807 m/s2)
Vo2 / 2g = velocity head (m)
FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage
Page 10-17
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-8: Colebrook-White Chart

(c) Hydraulic Grade Line

In the detailed design and analysis of pipe networks the hydraulic grade line (HGL) is utilised. The HGL is
drawn on drainage profiles and represents the pressure head at various points along a pipe network as
depicted in Figure 10-9. The HGL can be visualised as the effective water level to which water would rise if
an open topped vertical pipe were installed at the particular point of interest.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-18
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

The velocity of flow and accordingly the discharge capacity of a pipe is a function of the hydraulic grade
(slope of the HGL) not the actual pipe grade. A pipe can be located at any level or grade below the HGL
without varying the flow capacity. Minimum grades should however be met to ensure self cleansing occurs
during frequent storms less than the design storm. Pipe grades may be flattened to provide cover under
roads, or clearance to other services without sacrificing flow capacity, provided sufficient head is available.

Pressure head is normally lost in pipes and structures due to friction and turbulence. The form of the HGL is
therefore a series of downward sloping lines over pipe lengths with steeper or vertical drops at manholes.

The level and grade of the HGL varies depending upon flow. Higher flows result in higher losses and
consequently steeper grades on the HGL. A HGL plotted on a drainage profile should correspond to the
design storm adopted for the piped system. If the HGL is at the obvert of a pipe, the pipe is considered to be
running full. The higher the HGL is above the obvert of a pipe dictates the pressure in the line. Conversely,
when the HGL is below the obvert of the pipe it is flowing part full and the water surface in the pipe
corresponds to the HGL level.

The HGL and Water Surface Level (WSL) must be below the surface level or inlet level at pits or structures,
otherwise the system will surcharge. Generally the pipe system should be designed so that during the
design storm the HGL is at least 150mm below the level of inlets (Institute of Engineers Australia, 2001).

Figure 10-9: Hydraulics for a Single Pipe Reach

Source: QUDM, 1994

Pipeline design is most conveniently carried out by working upstream from the outlet. The estimated water
surface level at the outlet must be determined for the design storm and the HGL downstream of the outlet
assigned this level. Calculations are then carried out up the pipe system to determine the rise in HGL.

The head loss at the outlet structure is added to the elevation of the receiving water level. To this figure the
calculated pipe loss is added to arrive at the HGL immediately downstream of the next structure. The
process is then repeated for each structure and pipe up the line.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-19
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Checks need to be undertaken at structures to ensure the HGL immediately upstream of the pit is not higher
than the ground surface level. If the HGL is higher the pit will surcharge and larger pipes need to be
specified.

(d) Summary of the Design Method

Flow charts presented in Figures 10-10 and 10-11 contain steps involved in the design method. Notes in
each case elaborate the flow charts.

Notes on Fig. 10-10

1. The downstream H.G.L. should be derived from the tailwater level in the receiving waters or from the
H.G.L. calculated in the structure downstream.

2. The pipe size selected becomes Do for the next structure upstream.

3. In this case 150 mm freeboard has been allowed above the W.S.E. This limit may need to be modified
to suit other constraints including the hydraulics of upstream or lateral pipes.

4. The performance of a reach is dependent on the characteristics of the other reaches. Accordingly, the
most economic design is not that which optimises each reach but that which performs best overall.

Notes on Fig. 10-11

1. The upstream W.S.E. should not be higher than the surface level less 150 mm.

2. Conditions may be such that regardless of the outlet diameter this condition cannot be satisfied. To
avoid excessive looping check this first.

3. The final hydraulic grade line level at the downstream pit may be set at levels other than that specified
provided that outfall conditions are known.

4. The performance of a reach is dependent on the characteristics of the other reaches. Accordingly the
most economic design is not that which optimises each reach but that which performs best overall.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-20
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-10: Hydraulic Grade Line Design Method 1

(from downstream to upstream)
Source: QUDM, 1994

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-21
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-11: Hydraulic Grade Line Design Method 2

(from upstream to downstream)
Source: QUDM, 1994

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-22
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.8.3 Freeboard at Inlets and Junctions

Recommended values of freeboards for gully inlets and manholes are presented in Table 10-4. Where the
channel is depressed at a gully inlet the freeboard should be measured from the theoretical or projected
invert of the channel. Where an inlet is located on grade the freeboard should be measured at the centreline
of the gully inlet chamber. It it is necessary for the H.G.L. to be above the top of a manhole or junction
structure, a bolt-down lid should be provided.

Table 10-4: Minimum Freeboard Recommendations for Gully Inlets and Manholes
Source: QUDM, 1994

Situation Recommendation
Gully Inlet on Grade Freeboard = 150 mm below invert of kerb and
channel.
Gully Inlet in Sag Freeboard = 150 mm below invert of kerb and
channel.
Field Inlet Freeboard = 150 mm below top of grate or lip of
inlet.
Manhole or Junction Structure Freeboard = 150 mm below top of lid.

10.8.4 Pipe Capacity

Flow capacity of a pipe can be worked out by Manning’s formula. The values recommended for the surface
roughness to be used in the Manning’s formula are presented in Table 10-5.

Table 10-5: Recommended Values for Surface Roughness

Source: QUDM, 2004

Type of Pipe Manning’s n

Reinforced Concrete 0.013
Fibre Reinforced Concrete 0.013
UPVC 0.011

10.8.5 Head Loss at Inlets

The head loss is expressed as a function of the velocity head defined by V2/2g (m), where as V is the
velocity of flow (m/s) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2). The head loss is obtained by multiplying
the velocity head by a loss coefficient. Table 10-6 presents the entrance loss coefficients for different types
of pipes in varying conditions.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-23
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-6: Entrance Loss Coefficients

Source: QUDM, 1994

Type of Structure and Design of Entrance Coefficient Kc

Concrete Pipe
Projecting from fill, socket end (groove end) 0.2
Projecting from fill, square cut end 0.5
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls
Socket end of pipe (groove end) 0.2
Square edge 0.5
Rounded 0.2
Mitred to conform to fill slope 0.7
End section conforming to fill slope 0.5
Corrugated Metal Pipe
Projecting from fill (no headwall) 0.9
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls square edge 0.5
Mitred to conform to fill slope 0.7
End section conforming to fill slope 0.5
Reinforced Concrete Box
Headwall parallel to embankment (no wingwalls)
Square edged on 3 edges 0.5
Rounded on 3 edges to radius of 1/12 barrel dimension 0.2
Wingwalls at 30° to 75° to barrel
Square edged at crown 0.4
Crown edge rounded to radius of 1/12 barrel dimension 0.2
Wingwalls at 10° to 25° to barrel
Square edged at crown 0.5
Wingwalls parallel (extension of sides)
Square edged at crown 0.7

10.8.6 Bend Losses

Pipes have to be deflected in certain circumstances to obviate the cost of junction structures and to satisfy
functional requirements. These deflections or bends are associated with head losses.

Head loss in a bend is also based on the velocity head defined in Section 10.8.5. The difference is the loss
coefficient. Figure 10-12 presents the coefficient of bend loss, Kb. TTr (Fig. 10-12) should be regarded as
the radius of curvature as shown in the figure.

For mitred fittings, the pressure loss coefficients in Table 10-7 are recommended.

Table 10-7: Pressure Loss Coefficients at Mitred Fittings

Source: QUDM, 1994

Type Kb
90° double mitred bend 0.47
60° double mitred bend 0.25
45° single mitred bend 0.34
22½° single mitred bend 0.12

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-24
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-12: Bend-Loss Coefficient

Source: QUDM, 1994

10.8.7 Obstruction Losses

Obstruction losses, also called penetration losses, may be caused by a transverse crossing conveying water
or sewerage. Such crossings are normally avoided in view of the possibility of blockage by debris and
damage to the service. Manholes are highly recommended if such a crossing becomes inevitable.

The head loss coefficient for obstruction losses Kp is a function of the blockage ratio. Figure 10-13 presents
the design chart for the determination of this obstruction-loss coefficient.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-25
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-13: Obstruction Loss Coefficient

Source: QUDM, 1994

10.8.7 Branch Losses

A branch line is sometimes provided without constructing a junction structure. This is another type of
connection which must be avoided wherever possible.

If braches can not be avoided, adequate allowance of head loss must be made. Head loss coefficient for the
branch line (KL) and main line (Ku) should be determined to use with the velocity head to assess the head
loss. Figure 10-14 provides the necessary information based on the nomenclature shown in the sketch
below the charts.

The charts in Figure 10-14 must be used with the condition that the diameter of the branch line should not be
greater than 50% of the diameter of the main line. In case a lager branch line is required, a manhole must
be installed.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-26
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-14: Branch Losses

Source: QUDM, 1994

Branch Line Nomenclature

10.8.8 Expansion and Contraction Losses

Sudden expansion and contraction in pipes is associated with the loss of head. Sudden transitions of pipe
cross-sections should be avoided. In case the pipe flow areas have to undergo a sudden change, suitable
allowance for the head loss due to sudden expansion or contraction is required. Figure 10-15 presents
charts for calculation of the respective coefficients.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-27
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-15: Expansion and Contraction Loss Coefficients

Source: QUDM, 1994

10.8.9 Hydraulic Grade Line for Pipes Running Partially Full

For pipes flowing partially full, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) approximately corresponds to the water
surface line. Upstream of a manhole the position may be different even though the pipe downstream of it is
flowing partially full. Figure 10-16 presents the indicative sketch of the HGL variation over the manhole.

The HGL is determined starting at point ‘S’ (CASE A, Fig. 10-16) if the calculated HGL immediately
downstream of the structure is lower than the obvert level of the pipe. If the calculated HGL is at or above
the obvert level of pipe (point S1), CASE B of Fig-10-16 applies. In both cases, the head loss at each
transition calculated for determining HGL through the manhole and in the pipe upstream.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-28
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-16: HGL for Pipes Partially Full

Source: QUDM, 1994

10.8.10 Pipes and Pipelaying

It is recommended that rubber ringed spigot and socket jointed pipes be generally used for all sizes of pipe in
unstable ground, pipes laid in sand, or where pipe movement is possible such as on the side of fills or at the
transitions from the fill to cut. These should also be used where the normal groundwater level is above the
pipe obvert or the design HGL is above the obvert level by 1.5 m or more. Table 10-8 presents the jointing
requirements for pipes.

Table 10-8: Jointing Requirements for Pipes – Normal Conditions

Source: QUDM, 1994

Pipe Size
Joint Type
(mm)
Up to 600 Spigot and Socket, Rubber Ring Joint
675 and above Flush Jointed, External Rubber Band or
Approved Equivalent

Multiple pipes if used, should be paced sufficiently to allow adequate compaction of the fill between the
pipes. Table 10-9 presents the recommended clear spacing between the pipes of various sizes.

The recommended minimum spacing may need modifications to satisfy to satisfy structural considerations
especially when laid at depth, under traffic loads or for pipes greater than 1800 mm in diameter.

The clear spacing may be reduced to 300 mm for all diameters, subject to specific structural requirements,
where lean mix concrete vibrated in place or cement stabilized sand is used to back fill.

Table 10-9: Recommended Minimum Spacing of Multiple Pipes

Source: QUDM, 1994

Diameter of Pipes Recommended Minimum Clear Spacing

(mm) (mm)
Up to 600 300
675 to 1800 600

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-29
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.8.11 Minimum Cover over Pipes

Recommended minimum covers over pipes are presented in Table 10-10. In special cases, the cover may
be reduced by using stronger pipe, special bedding, concrete protection or a combination of these.

Table 10-10: Recommended Minimum Cover Over Pipes

Source: QUDM, 1994

Minimum Cover (mm)

Location Rigid Type Pipes e.g. Flexible Type Pipes e.g.
concrete, F.R.C. Plastic or thin metal
Residential private property,
300 450
and parks not subject to traffic
Private property and parks
450 450
subject to occasional traffic
Footpaths 450 600
Road pavements and under
600 600
kerb and channel

10.8.12 Pipe Grading Limits

Recommended grade limits for pipes are presented in Table 10-11. These grade limits are based on:

1. Maximum velocity for pipe flowing full of 6.0 m/s.

2. Minimum velocity for pipe flowing full of 1.0 m/s.
3. n = 0.013 for all cases.

Following notes apply to Table 10-11:

1. The Maximum Grade requirement applies to both the pipe grade and the hydraulic grade.

2. The Minimum Grades apply to the pipe grade only.

3. Where a pipe is flowing less than half full for the design ARI, it is permissible to exceed the above
maximum grades provided that the velocity limits specified in Table 10-12 are not exceeded.

Table 10-11: Table of Acceptable Pipe Grades for Pipes Flowing Full
Source: QUDM (1994)

Pipe Diameter Max. Grade Min. Grade

(mm) (%) (%)
300 20.0 0.50
375 15.0 0.40
450 11.0 0.30
525 9.0 0.25
600 7.5 0.20
675 6.5 0.18
750 5.5 0.15
900 4.5 0.12
1050 3.5 0.10
1200 3.0 0.10
1350 2.5 0.10
1500 2.2 0.10
1650 2.0 0.10
1800 1.7 0.10
1950 1.5 0.10
Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004
Page 10-30
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Pipe Diameter Max. Grade Min. Grade

(mm) (%) (%)
2100 1.4 0.10
2250 1.3 0.10
2400 1.2 0.10

10.8.13 Permissible Flow Velocities

Flow velocities in pipes should be kept within permissible limits to ensure self cleansing and prevention of
erosion and scour. The range of permissible velocities in pipes and box sections is presented in Table 10-12.

Table 10-12: Permissible Velocities for Pipes and Box Sections

Absolute Desirable Desirable Absolute

Flow Condition Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
Partially full 0.7 1.2 4.7 7.0
Full 0.6 1.0 4.0 6.0

Where calculations indicate that the flow velocities are likely to exceed the absolute maximum limits,
construction of a man hole with a drop is recommended. The drop dissipates energy to restore the flow
velocities to the acceptable levels.

10.8.14 Structural Aspects of Pipelines and Manholes

Pipes have to be designed for loads they are subjected to. Loads on the pipes include:

a) Fill over the pipes. The load from the fill is a function of height of the fill, type of the fill material and
installation conditions;
b) Normal traffic loads;
c) Construction traffic loads; and
d) Other or abnormal load conditions.

The load bearing capacity of the pipes is a function of:

a) The pipe strength;

b) The type of bedding; and
c) The pipe diameter.

The structural design of the pipe is governed by the height of the fill, type of the bedding, type of the fill
material, pipe diameter, installation conditions and traffic loads. General factors included in pipes and pipe
laying and minimum cover over pipes have been treated in Sections 10.8.10 and 10.8.11 respectively.
Specific structural design issues have been treated in the Bridge Design Manual.

10.9 Computer Modeling

Due to the repetitive nature of the hydraulic design of pipe networks the process lends itself to computer
based techniques. Simple spreadsheets can be developed to assist designers. A number of computer
software programs are also available for the design and analysis of pipe systems.

Most programs include both a hydrological module to estimate flows at nodes, such as pit inlets, pipe
junctions and outfalls, and also a hydraulic module to analyse pipe network capacities.

The utilization of computer based design and analysis tools can have a number of advantages including:

• reductions in time required to design and analyse drainage networks;

• elimination of calculation errors;
• greater flexibility to try different pipe and pit configurations; and
FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage
Page 10-31
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

• permits sensitivity analyses.

The complexity of computer programs varies considerably. More complex models would generally only be
warranted in very complex drainage networks with very flat grades where slight inaccuracies may be critical.

Computer programs can be divided into three main categories in order of complexity:

1. Rational Method Programs: These programs utilise the rational method for hydrological
calculations. Sizing of pipes is then based on the calculated peak flows.

Commonly used programs include XP-RAT2000 by XPSoftware. XP-RAT2000 performs rational

formula hydrology and hydraulic grade line computations. Rainfall intensities are calculated from
flexible user defined IFD tables. A variety of conduit shapes can be selected along with overflow
paths and surface flow redirections. Node and loss data can be entered quickly and accurately
using the tabular data interface.

Results for individual pipe reaches show flow, velocity, HGL, and freeboard. Optimised designs
are generated through the combination of the overland and subsurface flows.

XP-RAT2000 allows designers to create drainage networks as a layer on top of electronic base
maps or photos.

2. Simulation Programs with Steady-Flow Pipe Hydraulics: These types of programs generate
hydrographs from given storm rainfall patterns and route these through a pipe system designing
pipe and overland flowpaths.

One of the many programs of this type is DRAINS which was co-developed by Watercom and
Dr Geoffrey O'Loughlin, developer of the ILSAX program.

DRAINS provides a much enhanced successor to the ILSAX program which has been widely used
for urban stormwater system design and analysis in Australia and New Zealand. Although the
ILSAX program is now outdated, it may still be useful as a model that is available from the public
domain and runs on all DOS-system PCs. The ILSAX program is available for download from
http://www.eng.uts.edu.au/~simonb/Ilsax/ILSAX.htm.

DRAINS provides a Windows graphical interface. Users can draw drainage system components
such as sub-catchments, pits, pipes and overflow routes. Right clicking on a component will
display a pop-up menu from which you can choose to enter data or view results in various formats.
Design rainfall patterns can be entered separately. Results such as runoff hydrographs are
displayed graphically and can be pasted into other Windows programs such as spread sheets and
word processors. The DRAINS program will perform hydraulic grade line analyses, design
stormwater drainage systems and produce summary graphs and tables, and pipe long section
drawings.

Another package of this type is XP-SWMM2000 by XPSoftware. The program permits the choise
of a range of hydrological models including Laurenson, EPA, Time Area, Rational, SCS, and
SBUH. XP-SWMM2000 has a hydraulic routing algorithm, utilizing the St Venant dynamic flow
equations. These equations are used for solving complex hydraulic situations such as looped
systems, pressure and open channel flows, subcritical and supercritical flow and no backwater
effects.

Fully dynamic simulation replays are available for both long and cross section views demonstrating
the hydraulic effects for the flows in the system. The program permits full culvert design
capabilities with the option of using over 50 specified inlet control measures.

3. Simulation Programs with Unsteady-Flow Pipe Hydraulics: These type of programs use
numerical finite difference solutions of equations of conservation of mass and momentum to
determine unsteady flows through a pipe system. These packages can model open channel and
pressure flows and possibly overflows.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-32
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.10 Worked Example

The following worked example for a local drainage network has been sourced from Institute of Engineers of
Australia publication ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation Volume 1’ (2001).
References to the figure and table numbers are local to the example adopted from the Australian Rainfall
and Runoff Manual.

Example 10.1: Rational Method Calculations (Source: Institute of Engineers, Australia, 2001)

This example illustrates procedure for design flow rate estimation by the Rational Method. Design
calculations are performed for the stormwater drainage system shown in Figure 10.17. For the minor system
design, an ARI of 2 years and for the major system design ARI of 100 years are chosen. The 10 year ARI, 1
10
hour intensity, I 1 is 43.7 mm/h so the runoff coefficients corresponding to different impervious fractions are
given in Table 10.5.

The land uses involved are:

• open space parkland, assumed pervious;

• roads and footpaths with nature strips, assumed to be 85% impervious; and

• residential areas, with an ultimate impervious fraction of 0.35, varying proportion connect directly to
street drainage system, depending on the flow paths involved.

Average runoff coefficients for residential areas can be estimated from Table 10.13 as 0.46 and 0.65 for 2
and 100 years ARIs respectively, assuming an impervious proportion of 35%. These may be used in a full-
area calculation, where a duration equal to the time of concentration is assumed.

For partial area calculations, a more detailed division is needed, taking account of different concentration
times of the pervious and impervious portions. For minor flows from impervious portions of lots, a C2 value
of 0.77 can be used, and for pervious portion, a value of 0.3.

The sub catchments for each pit in the drainage system are shown in Figure 10.18. Gutter flow
characteristics are determine from Figure 10.2 and pit entry capacities from the relationships in Figure 10.19.

Calculations for minor and major systems are given flows are given in Tables 10.15 to 10.17.

Design flow rates for pit entrances are calculated in Table 10.15, and type of entrances are defined. Both
full-area and partial-area flows are considered. Since the catchment is steep and times of concentration are
relatively short, it is not necessary to calculate partial area estimates for many pits.

Full area and partial area estimates of design pipe flows are made in Table 10.16. As flows are only
admitted to pipes at their upstream ends, the times of concentration to these points are used.

Calculations for the major system are given in Table 10.17. These are in the form of checks at critical points,
and are not performed for all pits. An adjustment of (1/2/0.85) is made to equivalent impervious areas to
allow for the two and 100 years ARI runoff coefficient factors in Table 10.18. In this example, major flows
generally follow the pipe system route and, and suitable values of equivalent impervious area can be taken
from Table 10.16.

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-33
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-17: Sample Drainage System at Penrith, N.S.W.

Checks are first made assuming that the roadway takes all of the major flow. If it can do this satisfactorily,
no calculation concerning pipe system capacity need be performed. Where the roadway capacity is
inadequate, an estimate is made of the flow rate that the pipe system can carry under major flow conditions.
Pit capacities at relevant points upstream are estimated and added. These estimates are made assuming
major flows and approaching pits and suitable blocking factors.

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-34
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-13: Design Rainfalls and Statistics

DURATION, t (minutes)
5 7.5 10 15 20 25 30 45 60
2 years ARI Rainfall
Intensity, I mm/h 96.1 82.7 73.6 61.5 53.5 47.8 43.4 34.7 29.4
Values of t.I
0.4 (31) (44) (56) (78) (98) (117) (136) (186) (232)
100 years ARI Rainfall
Intensity, I mm/h 219 189 168 140 121 108 98.4 78.8 66.8
Values of t.I
0.4 (43) (61) (78) (108) (136) (163) (188) (258) (322)

Table 10-14: Runoff Coefficients

Fraction Impervious
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
10 year ARI, C10
(from Figure 10.13
or eqns.(1.11) & 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.52 0.57 0.63 0.68 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.90
(1.12))
2 years ARI, C2
(0.85xC10)
0.3 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.63 0.67 0.72 0.77
100 years ARI, C100
(1.2xC10)
0.42 0.49 0.55 0.62 0.68 0.76 0.82 0.89 0.95 1.00 1.00

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-35
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-18: Assumed Sub-Catchments and Flow Paths

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-36
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Figure 10-19: Entry Capacities for Kerb Inlets on Grade

Figure 10-20: Runoff Coefficients

FINAL – November 2004 Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-37
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-15: Calculation of Minor Flowrates at Pits

PIPED URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 1 Sheet 1 of 3
Job…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Reference…………………………
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
FLOW TIMES PIT INLET Bypass [21]
Q = CIA Bypass Adopted
Runoff Area Flow
Land-Use Flow Total Intensity CA Σ CA (l/s) Flow (l/s) Flow Rate Gutter Flow
Pit Slope Time Coeff. A Inlet Inflow (L/s)
Type Length ‘n’ time I (mm/h) (ha) (ha) [8]x[12]/ from (l/s) Slope Width
(m/m) (min) C (ha) Type (L/s) to Remarks
(m) (min) 0.36 Pit ( ) [13]+[14] (m/m) (m)
Pit ( )
1 Parkland 175 0.11 0.050 8.8 9.3 76 0.30 2.704 0.811 0.811 171 - 171 NA NA Letter 171 - Overland flow for 175 m flowed by 26 m
FULL 26 0.01 Catch 0.5 Box of formed channel. Partial area not
AREA drain considered because of virtual absence of
impervious area.

2 Houses 68 0.13 0.04 3.8 5.3 94 0.46 0.167 0.077 grated

FULL Parkland 13 0.02 channel 1.0 0.30 0.139 0.042 0.119 31 - 31 0.08 NA Pit on 19 12
along pathway
AREA fence {3}
70 0.08 0.306
35 0.08 paved 0.5

3 Houses 23 0.15 0.040 5 96 0.46 0.089 0.041

Tc is less than 5 minutes, and is set at
FULL Parkland 8 0.01 0.035 3.2 0.30 0.027 0.008 2m
this value. No partial area calculations
AREA Road 15 0.11 0.040 0.70 0.045 0.031 0.080 21 12 33 0.05 1.0 Kerb 33 -
are required.
55 0.135 gutter 0.5 0.161 {2} inlet

4 Houses 40 0.10 0.060 0.4 5 96 0.46 0.320 0.147 2m

Fast response. Partial area calculations
FULL Road 35 0.11 Gutter 0.3 0.70 0.066 0.046 0.193 51 - 51 0.02 1.7 Kerb 51 -
are not required.
AREA 0.386 inlet

5 Houses 30 0.12 0.040 0.3 5 96 0.46 0.049 0.023 2m

FULL Road 10 0.01 - 0.5 0.70 0.037 0.026 0.049 13 - 13 0.05 0.5 Kerb 13 - Ditto
AREA 40 0.09 - 0.086 inlet

6 Houses 90 0.11 0.040 4.8 6.3 88 0.46 0.193 0.089

Full and partial area estimates are
FULL Parkland 130 0.10 gutter 1.5 0.30 0.136 0.041
compared. The former gives the greater
AREA Road 0.70 0.104 0.073 0.203 50
estimate.
0.433

2m
Houses - 50 0.07 1.2 Kerb 45 5
In partial-area calculations, houses are
6 -impervious 5 96 0.77 0.057 0.044 inlet {8}
divided into impervious and pervious
PARTIAL -pervious 0.30 0.088 0.026
areas, and Ca values are calculated
AREA Parkland 0.30 0.082 0.024 separately.
road 0.70 0.104 0.073 0.167 45
0.331

Designer………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………. Checked………………………………………………………………….

Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-38
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

PIPED URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE Table 10.15 Continued - HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 1 Sheet 2 of 3
Job…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Reference…………………………
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
FLOW TIMES PIT INLET [21]
Q = CIA Bypass Adopted Bypass
Flow Total Runoff Area Gutter Flow
Land-Use Slope Time Intensity CA Σ CA (l/s) Flow (l/s) Flow Rate Inlet Inflow Flow
Pit Length ‘n’ time Coeff. A Slope Width Remarks
Type (m/m) (min) I (mm/h) (ha) (ha) [8]x[12]/ from (l/s) Type (L/s) (L/s)to
(m) (min) C (ha) (m/m) (m)
0.36 Pit ( ) [13]+[14] Pit ( )
7 Houses 55 0.12 0.045 7 85 0.46 0.892 0.410
FULL Road 25 0.05 0.040 6.0 0.70 0.073 0.051 0.461 109
AREA 0.965
28 0.08 0.040
95 0.08 Gutter 1.0

2m
Houses - 109 0.07 1.8 Kerb 77 32 Partial-area time – time of concentration for
7 -impervious 6 90 0.77 0.297 0.229 inlet {8} directly connected impervious areas is taken
PARTIAL -pervious 0.30 0.493 0.148 as 6 minutes.
AREA Road 0.70 0.073 0.051 0.428 107

8 Houses 5 96 0.46 0.063 0.029 2m

FULL Road 0.70 0.050 0.035 0.064 17 5+32 54 0.07 1.3 Kerb 54 - Times are too small for partial area
AREA 0.113 inlet calculation.
[6]+[7]

9 Houses 25 0.08 0.05 5 96 0.46 0.222 0.102 2m

FULL Road 37 0.05 ???? 1.5 0.70 0.079 0.055 0.157 42 - 42 0.07 1.1 Kerb 42 -
Ditto
AREA 0.301 inlet
115 0.07 Gutter

1m
10 5 96 0.70 0.013 0.009 0.009 2 - 2 0.02 - Kerb 2 -
Ditto
FULL inlet
AREA

11 Houses 38 0.03 0.04 5.7 5.7 92 0.46 0.120 0.055 2m

FULL Road 22 0.02 0.04 0.70 0.041 0.029 0.084 21 - 21 0.02 1.1 Kerb 21 -
AREA 0.161 inlet

12 Houses 90 0.075 0.080 8.9 10.4 72 0.46 0.884 0.407

‘n’ value is high to allow movement through
FULL Road 123 0.05 Gutter 1.5 0.70 0.209 0.146 0.553 111
fences.
AREA 1.093

2m
Houses - 11.1 0.03 2.2 Kerb 78 33
12 -impervious 6.5 87 0.77 0.247 0.190 inlet {13}
PARTIAL -pervious 0.30 0.345 0.104
AREA - road 0.70 0.209 0.146 0.440 106

Designer………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………. Checked………………………………………………………………….

FINAL – November 2004 Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-39
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

PIPED URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE Table 10.15 Continued - HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 1 Sheet 3 of 3
Job…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Reference…………………………
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
FLOW TIMES PIT INLET [21]
Q = CIA Bypass Adopted Bypass
Flow Total Runoff Area Gutter Flow
Land-Use Slope Time Intensity CA Σ CA (l/s) Flow (l/s) Flow Rate Inlet Inflow Flow
Pit Length ‘n’ time Coeff. A Slope Width Remarks
Type (m/m) (min) I (mm/h) (ha) (ha) [8]x[12]/ from (l/s) Type (L/s) (L/s)to
(m) (min) C (ha) (m/m) (m)
0.36 Pit ( ) [13]+[14] Pit ( )
13 Houses 5 96 0.46 0.063 0.029 2m
FULL Road 0.70 0.043 0.030 0.059 16 33 49 0.02 1.6 Kerb 49 -
AREA 0.106 {12} inlet

14 Houses 100 0.126 0.080 7.9 8.9 77 0.46 0.364 0.167

FULL road 28 0.01 Path 10 0.70 0.120 0.084 0.251 54
AREA 60 0.02 gutter 0.484 2m

Houses - 54 0.02 1..7 Kerb 50 4

14 -Impervious 6 90 0.77 0.102 0.079 inlet {15}
PARTIAL -pervious 0.30 0.130 0.039
AREA
Road 0.70 0.120 0.084 0.202 50
2m
15 Road 5 96 0.70 0.018 0.013 0.013 3 4 7 0.02 0.3 Kerb 7 -
FULL {14} inlet
AREA

Designer………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………. Checked………………………………………………………………….

Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-40
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-16: HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 2

PIPED URBAN
STORMWATER
DRAINAGE Job ………………………………………………. Ref. ………………………
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

FULL AREA PARTIAL AREA

Adopted flow
Time Intensity Q = CIA Time Q = CIA rate
Σ CA Intensity Σ CA
Pipe Tc I (L/s) Tc (L/s) (L/s) Remark
(ha) I (mm/h) (ha)
(min (mm/h) [3]x[4]/0.36 (min) [7]x[8]/0.36 greater of
[5]&[9]
1-2 9.3 76 0.811 171 5 96 1.587 127 171 1.587 ha. estimated to
x 0.30 contribute in partial
area time of 5 minutes.
Pervious area C=0.30
= 0.476
+ 0.119 + 0.119 In both cases, 0.119 ha
equivalent impervious
Area contributes in 5.3
minutes.
2-3 9.6 75 0.930 194 5.3 94 0.595 155 194
+ 0.080 + 0.080
3-4 9.7 75 1.010 210 5.4 94 0.675 176 210
+ 0.193 + 0.193
4-5 10.1 73 1.203 244 5.8 91 0.868 219 244
+ 0.049 + 0.049
5-6 10.2 73 1.252 254 6.0 90 0.917 229 254
+ 0.203 + 0.200 0.200 ha contributes in 6.0
minutes, 0.203 ha
in times longer than 6.3 min.
6-8 10.4 72 1.455 291 6.2 89 1.117 276 291
+ 0.064 + 0.064
8-10 10.5 72 1.519 304 6.3 88 1.181 289 304
Sideline
7-9 7.0 85 0.461 109 6.0 90 0.428 107 109
+ 0.157 + 0.157
9-10 7.2 84 0.618 144 6.3 88 0.585 143 144
+ 0.009 + 0.009
+ 1.519 + 1.181
10-11 10.7 72 2.146 429 6.5 87 1.775 429 429
+ 0.084 + 0.084
11-13 10.9 71 2.230 440 6.7 86 1.859 444 444

12-13 10.4 72 0.553 111 6.5 87 0.440 106 111 Sideline

+ 0.059 + 0.059
+ 2.230 + 1.859
13-14 11.0 71 2.842 561 6.8 86 2.358 563 563
+ 0.251 + 0.220
14-15 11.1 70 3.093 601 6.9 85 2.578 609 609
etc

Designer ………………… Date ………………… Checked …………………

Section – 10 Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-42
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

PIPED URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE

Table 10-17: HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN SHEET 3
Job…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Reference…………………………
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
FLOW TIMES
Down Road
Cumulative Road
Land- Flow Total Runoff Area CA Q = CIA stream Flow rate
Slope Time Intensity Σ CA Pit capacity
Location Use Length ‘n’ time Coeff. A (ha) (l/s) Pipe [13]- Remarks
(m/m) (min) I (mm/h) (ha) Capacity check
Type (m) (min) C (ha) [9]x[10] [8]x[12]/0.36 Capacity lesser of
(L/s)
(L/s) [14]&[15]
D/s of pit 4 175 0.11 0.090 5.9 7.2 92 1203 906
x 1.2/0.85 100 year ARI intensities give shorter overland flow times with kinematic
wave equation. Σ CA f or subcatchments 1-4 (sheet 2) is multiplied by
=1.698
1.2/0.85 to allow for C-value factors from Table 10.9. At slope of
0.02 m/m, roadway can carry 906 L/s with some flow across the road
26 0.01 Catch 0.5 crown. Thus it is not necessary Pit 3 upstream or to calculate pipe
drain system capacities.
pipe Street Flows 0.8

D/s of pit 8 7.5 189 (1.519+0.084) This point carries flows from Subcatchments 1 to 8 and 1/3 of
x 1.2/0.85 subcatchment 14. Assuming that 594 L/s flows on each side of the
=2.263 road, these can be carried on the road way at slope of 0.07 m/m. Pipe
system calculations are not required.

D/s of pit 7 55 0.12 0.045

25 0.05 0.040 4.1 5.1 218 0.461 394
28 0.08 0.040 x 1.2/0.85 6 m wide road section can carry this flow with some spilling over crown.
95 0.08 gutter 1 =0.651

D/s of pit 11 8 185 (2.230+0.191) 1800 776 496 1320

x 1.2/0.85
=3.903

(457 mm Sub catchments 1 to 11 and 14 contribute to this point. At 0.02 m/m

dia pipe, slope, the roadway can carry 900 L/s on each side. However, check for
ko=0.020) pipe system capacity. Pit capacity for pits 1 to 11 were estimated
allowing for large approach flow and blocking factors for debris. They
were summed to give a cumulative capacity of 776 L/s. Capacity of
pipe 11-13 was estimated assuming available head of 0.72 m, based on
surface levels upstream and downstream.

D/S of Pit 12 82 183 (3.093+0.100)x 0.10 is added to ΣCA to allow for overflows into catchment. Capacity
1.2/0.85 of woodlands Road downstream of Pit 15 should now be checked.
=4.508

Designer………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………. Checked………………………………………………………………….

FINAL – November 2004 Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-43
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

Table 10-18: Frequency Factors for Rational Method Runoff Coefficients

ARI (years) Frequency Factor, Fy

1 0.8
2 0.85
5 0.95
10 1.0
20 1.05
50 1.15
100 1.2

FINAL – November 2004 Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage

Page 10-45
 GUIDELINE 6
AACRA DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL

10.11 References
ACT Government (1994) ‘Urban Stormwater – Edition 1: Standard Engineering Practices’.

Institute of Engineers, Australia (1987) ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation
Volume 1’.

Institute of Engineers, Australia (2001) ‘Australian Rainfall and Runoff – A Guide to Flood Estimation
Volume 1’.

Department of Main Roads (Main Roads), Queensland, Australia (June 2002) ‘Road Drainage Design
Manual’.

NAASRA (National Association of Australian State Roads) (1986) ‘Guide to the Design of Road Surface
Drainage’.

QUDM (1994), Department of Primary Industries – Water Resources, Institute of Municipal Engineering
Australia, Queensland Division, Brisbane City Council, Queensland Urban Drainage Manual –
Volume 1: Text’.

Section 10 – Design of Road Surface Drainage FINAL – November 2004

Page 10-46