UNIVERSITY

OF NEWCASTLE

Urban Drainage Modelling

Comparison and Capabilities
1D and 2D

Personal Project S2, 2012
An Industry Based Project

By Ryan Coe Diercke
C3111558
Supervisor: Dr. Shaun Manning

ABSTRACT
Urban drainage is a prevailing issue within todays modern societies. Rapid
development of dense urban areas has increased the demand on designers to quickly
and accurately model complex drainage networks. Computer modelling has allowed for
complex drainage networks to be designed and assessed, promoting the development of
new softwares and their capabilities. The most recent development has been two
dimensional analysis techniques incorporated into leading drainage programs. As the
technology is relatively new, few assessments have been conducted to explore the
programs capabilities and limitations. Research and testing provided valuable
information for future drainage modelling, and gave consideration to legal obligations
and responsibilities.
An investigation into the modelling techniques employed by three common drainage
programs (DRAINS, 12d and XPStorm) was undertaken in this project. The programs
vary in their complexity and capabilities, with DRAINS and 12d being limited to a one
dimensional analysis, and XPStorm being capable of performing a twodimensional
analysis. A onedimensional comparison of all three programs highlighted differences in
their modelling techniques and subsequent results. Major differences in infiltration loss
results indicated that there are technical issues, which have significant impacts on the
hydrological flow calculations.
Additionally, a two dimensional scenario investigated the capabilities and accuracy of
the XPStorm software. The scenario primarily focused on the interaction of surface flow
with common urban surroundings/obstructions along a road surface. The limitations of
the programs accuracy and ability to model complex scenarios were discovered,
relating to the 2D finite element grid sizing. The program was restricted to relatively
large grids and also experienced issues when modelling steep sections of road.
Reviewing the programs highlighted their capabilities and differences.
Recommendations were made for further investigation into the loss methods and their
techniques for all three programs. Consultation with program developers concerning
the limitations of XPStorm grid spacing is required for greater accuracy and details
within future models.

ii

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF EQUATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS ...................................................................................................... xiii
1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1

Urban Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1

Industrial Project ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2

Project Aims and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 4

2.3

Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.3.1

Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2

2D Analysis Review ............................................................................................................. 10

2.3.3

Other Applications and Future Developments ........................................................ 15

MODELLING OF URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE .............................................................. 17

3.1

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 17

3.2

Components of urban drainage ............................................................................................... 17

3.2.1

Property Drainage ................................................................................................................ 17

iii


3.2.2
3.3

Rational Method .................................................................................................................... 21

3.3.2

Time Area Method ................................................................................................................ 22

3.3.3

Models ....................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.4

Infiltration Losses ................................................................................................................. 24

3.3.5

2D Surface Flow ................................................................................................................... 26

Hydraulics ......................................................................................................................................... 27

3.4.1

Types of flow .......................................................................................................................... 27

3.4.2

Pipe Flows and Routing ..................................................................................................... 32

3.5

Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.1

3.4

Street drainage ...................................................................................................................... 18

The Dimensions of Flow ............................................................................................................. 35

3.5.1

OneDimensional Flow ....................................................................................................... 35

3.5.2

TwoDimensional Flow ...................................................................................................... 37

3.5.3

ThreeDimensional Flow ................................................................................................... 38

3.5.4

Applying numerical solutions for twodimensional analysis ............................ 39

3.6

Finite Difference Models............................................................................................................. 39

3.7

2D assessment, using 1D model results and hand calculations ................................ 42

3.8

Computer Modelling Programs ............................................................................................... 43

3.8.1

Types of Modelling ............................................................................................................... 43

3.8.2

Modelling Programs ............................................................................................................ 46

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN AUSTRALIA .................................................................................... 51

iv


4.1

Criteria for Modelling .................................................................................................................. 51

4.1.1

Rainfall Information ............................................................................................................ 51

4.1.2

Return Periods ....................................................................................................................... 51

4.1.3

Acceptable Computer Modelling Methods ................................................................. 53

4.2

The Liability of Professional Engineers in the Construction Industry Flood

Risks 53
5

URBAN DRAINAGE COMPUTER ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 57

5.1

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 57

5.2

Scenario Data ................................................................................................................................... 58

5.3

Modelling Parameters and Accuracy .................................................................................... 59

SCENARIO 1 COMPARISON OF URBAN DRAINAGE MODELLING (1D) ........................ 59

6.1

Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 59

6.2

Description of System .................................................................................................................. 60

6.3

Previous Calculations................................................................................................................... 60

6.4

Storm Simulation ........................................................................................................................... 60

6.5

Modelling the System ................................................................................................................... 60

6.5.1

Transfer of data between programs ............................................................................. 61

6.5.2

Comparison of data and results ...................................................................................... 62

6.6

Results ................................................................................................................................................ 63

6.7

Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 67

SCENARIO 2 TWODIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 68

7.1

Introduction and Aims ................................................................................................................ 68

v


7.2

XPStorm Modelling ........................................................................................................................ 69

7.2.1

Storm Simulated .................................................................................................................... 69

7.2.2

Grid Sizes .................................................................................................................................. 72

7.2.3

Previous assumptions and calculations ...................................................................... 75

7.2.4

Effects of Surface Flows due to Road Steepness ..................................................... 75

7.3

Scenario A Effects of a Downpipe on Surface Flow ..................................................... 78

7.3.1

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 81

7.3.2

Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 84

7.4

Scenario B Obstruction ............................................................................................................ 85

7.4.1

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 87

7.4.2

Modelling Issues and Accuracy ....................................................................................... 89

7.4.3

Discussion and Conclusion of 2D results .................................................................... 94

7.5

2D Analysis with Hand Calculations ...................................................................................... 94

7.5.1

Results from 1D compared to 2D model .................................................................... 98

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 99

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 100

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................................................... 101

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 102
Appendix A Scenario 1 Data .................................................................................................................. A1
Appendix B Scenario 2 Data (2D Analysis) ..................................................................................... B1
Appendix C 2D Hand Calculations ...................................................................................................... C1

vi


Appendix D Finite Element Modelling .............................................................................................. D1
Appendix E Hydrology, General Parameters ................................................................................. E1
Appendix F Modelling Transfer (12d to XPStorm) ...................................................................... F1
Appendix G XP Solutions Technical Support .................................................................................. G1
Appendix H Consultation with Supervisor form and Turnitin Receipt .......................... H1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Brisbane Floods 2011 (REUTERS/Tim Wimborne, 2011) ....................................... 2
Figure 21 Ancient Drainage Network, Lothal (Carr, 2011) ........................................................... 6
Figure 22 Urban and Rural Development Trends in Australia (UN, 2012) ............................ 7
Figure 23 Hydrological Models for Urban Drainage Design and Analysis, (The
Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987) ............................................................................................. 8
Figure 24 2D Software Screen Shot (XP Software, 2011) ............................................................ 11
Figure 25 2D Surface mesh integrated with a 1D Drainage network (XPSolutions, 2011)
................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 26 UNSW Scale Model Testing for comparisons with 2D Software, Newcastle
(Engineers Australia, Water Engineering, 2012) .............................................................................. 15
Figure 27 3D Software (SSIIM) Representing Water velocities in Nidelva near Stavne
Bridge, ( Department of Geography, (NVE) , 2007) .......................................................................... 16
Figure 31 Flow Paths (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ........................................................................... 19
Figure 32 Simple Rational Method Hydrograph (Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 2002)
................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 33 Time area method (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ............................................................ 23

vii


Figure 34 Hortons Infiltration Curves (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ........................................ 25
Figure 35 Turbulent and Laminar Flow Stream Lines (University of Cambridge, 2012)
................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 36 Drainage Pipe Long Section with HGL (pipe flowing partially full), (Dept
Natural Resources and Water, 2008) ..................................................................................................... 34
Figure 37 1D flow through a pipe with bypass flow (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) .............. 36
Figure 38 Plan View of a 1D Drainage Network (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ...................... 36
Figure 39 2D Plan view of overland surface flow into a 1D drainage network .................. 37
Figure 310 3D Flow pressure cuts (top) within a 3D intake channel computing mesh
(bottom) using the program FIRE (Gheorghiu, 2004) .................................................................... 38
Figure 311 Finite element Modelling in 2D Software, (XPSolutions, 2011) ........................ 40
Figure 312 Flow Capacity of a standard kerb (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012) ......... 42
Figure 313 Flow Capacity of a roll kerb (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012) .................... 43
Figure 314 Surface flow (2D) linked with a drainage network (1D) (XP Software, 2011)
................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 315 DRAINS modelling incorporating the ILSAX hydrological and hydraulic
method (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 41 Flooding on Flat Intersections, Newcastle 2007 (ABC, 2011) ............................... 55
Figure 51 Urban Drainage Modelling Flow Chart ............................................................................ 57
Figure 61 Flowchart of the Programs Transfer Capabilities ....................................................... 62
Figure 62 Hydrological Comparison of Drainage Models ............................................................ 63
Figure 63 Infiltration Loss Comparison ............................................................................................... 64
Figure 64 Hydraulic Flow Comparison ................................................................................................ 65

viii


Figure 65 Hydraulic Flow Comparison (Detailed) .......................................................................... 66
Figure 71 Hydrograph of design storm/flow used for 2D analysis ......................................... 70
Figure 72 Plan view of scenario 2 (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012) ................................ 71
Figure 73 Modelling Layout (XPStorm) ................................................................................................ 72
Figure 74 2D Solution for Outlet A at 1.25m Grid Spacing .......................................................... 73
Figure 75 2D Solution for Outlet A at 5m Grid Spacing ................................................................. 74
Figure 76 Water Ponding at Flat Intersection, Cardiff 2012 ....................................................... 76
Figure 77 Steep Road Section (No Ponding), Garden Suburb 2012 ........................................ 77
Figure 78 Effects of velocity and flow direction ............................................................................... 78
Figure 79 Effects from Down Pipe .......................................................................................................... 79
Figure 710 Effects of Downpipe on Steep Road, Garden Suburb 2012 .................................. 80
Figure 711 Velocity of flow with effects of a downpipe ................................................................ 81
Figure 712 Depth of flow with effects of a downpipe .................................................................... 82
Figure 713 Effects of Downpipes on Surface Flow .......................................................................... 83
Figure 714 Misplaced Wheelie Bin Causing Flow Diversions, Garden Suburb 2012 ....... 86
Figure 715 Effects of Obstructions on Captured Flows with Relation to Road Grade ..... 87
Figure 716 Effects of Obstructions on Diverted Flows .................................................................. 88
Figure 717 Steep Road (25%) @ 1.25m Grid Spacing, Unstable ............................................... 90
Figure 718 Steep Road Successful Simulation @ 2.5 Grid Spacing, Poor Accuracy .......... 91
Figure 719 Effects of Downpipe with Steeper Roads ..................................................................... 92
Figure 720 Effects of Obstructions on Steeper Roads.................................................................... 93

ix


Figure 721 Diverted Flows on Steeper Roads ................................................................................... 93
Figure 722 Hand Calculations of long section of road (12d) ....................................................... 95
Figure 723 Hand calculated flow widths Plan view (78 L/s) ..................................................... 96
Figure 724 2D Simulations Compared to Hand Calculations (XPStorm) (78 L/s) ............. 97

LIST OF TABLES
Table 31 Antecedent Moisture Conditions (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) ................................ 26
Table 32 Hydraulic Models for Design and Analysis of Pipe Networks and Open
Channels (The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987) ............................................................ 33
Table 33 Classification of models used in urban drainage and flooding analysis
(Barnard, et al., 2007) .................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 71 Grid Sizing for 2D Model .......................................................................................................... 73
Table 72 Effects of Downpipes ................................................................................................................. 83
Table 73 Downstream Effects of Downpipes ..................................................................................... 84
Table 74 Flow Characteristics with Modelled Obstructions ....................................................... 86
Table 75 Downstream Effects due to Obstruction .......................................................................... 89
Table 76 Flow Widths from Hand Calculations ................................................................................ 95

LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 1 Rational Formula
Equation 2 Hortons Infiltraion Loss
Equation 3 Momentum Equation
Equation 4 St. Venant Dynamic Equation, Unsteady Nonuniform Flow
Equation 5 Steady Uniform Flow
Equation 6 Steady NonUniform Flow
Equation 7 TwoDimensional Average Velocity (u and v directions)

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

David England


(B.Surv (Hons 1), B.E (Civil) (Hons 1),
M.I.S., M.I.E. Registered Surveyor)




Ben Collyer



(B.Eng (Civil) (Hons 2))





Dr. Shaun A Manning

(B.Eng (Chem) (Hons), PHD)

Principal Engineer at Pulver Cooper and

Blackley (PCB) Surveyors and Engineers

Senior Engineer at Pulver Cooper and

Blackley (PCB) Surveyors and Engineers

Professional Officer at the University of

Newcastle, School of Engineering

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS

AMC Antecedent Moisture Content
ARI Average Recurrence Interval
ARR Australian Rainfall & Runoff
EKI Extended Kerb Inlet
GPT Gross Pollutant Trap: Small water storage to remove pollutants from storm water
before it is discharged from a basin.
Gradually varied flow The flow depth changes gradually with distance, e.g. Water
behind a dam.
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line: Indicates the total amount of head (pressure) within a
closed pipe system.
Hydrograph A graph representing the rate of flow (discharge) versus time, such as
rainfall or surface flows over a catchment area.
IFD Urban drainage method/program which uses time area and infiltration losses
ILSAX Urban drainage method/program which uses time area and infiltration losses.
NonUniform (varied) flow The velocity of a flow varies along the length of a
channel.
PCB Pulver, Cooper and Blackley Surveyors and Engineers (Industry Sponsor)
Rapidly varied flow The flow depth changes rapidly with distance, e.g. Water flowing
down a steep pipe.
Steady flow The flow does not change at any given point in space over time.
Surcharging/Upwelling Where a pit overflows due to high pressure flows within a
pipe network.
SWMMStorm Water Management System: May refer to a program or technical
procedure used for stormwater management.
Time of Concentration (Tc) The time it takes for water to move from its entry point
to its destination, generally the longest path (rainfall).
Uniform flow The velocity (depth) at a given time does not change for a given length
of channel.
Unsteady flow The flow varies in space over time.

xiii

xiv

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Urban Hydrology
Urban hydrology studies the movement and distribution of storm water and its
relationship with urban surroundings. The main purpose of urban drainage systems is
to collect and convey stormwater to receiving waters, with minimal disturbance, danger
or damage to the public and surrounding environment (DAYARATNE, 2000). Efficient
designs are sought by the community as oversized systems and infrastructure can result
in large costs without much benefit. The design of drainage systems is highly variable
and uncertain, requiring increased understanding of the system to provide acceptable
development.
Urbanising a catchment area has significant impacts on the movement and distribution
of water across the landform. Alteration of land surface characteristics directly relate to
the interaction of stormwater with its surroundings (Chaudhry, 2008). The most
considerable change to an area when it is urbanised is the reduction of infiltration to
natural soils, caused by impervious structures such as roads, roofs, concrete driveways
and footpaths (Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012). The reduction in infiltration and
increase in impervious area allows for additional stormwater to enter a catchment area
and eventually be directed to a stormwater pit or basin. An increase in surface flow can
lead to environmental impacts on downstream areas causing erosion and damage of
local flora and fauna (The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987).
Drainage systems capture, store and route runoff water to reduce environmental
impacts and protect urbanised areas. The design of drainage systems is highly
dependent on the surrounding area and local weather conditions, making urban
drainage design highly variable and unpredictable (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012). There is
increased demand for the improvement and development of design methods as the rate
of urbanisation increases (UN, 2012). This has led to the implementation and use of
computer modelling software allowing more complex systems to be designed. The
demand has created several drainage programs, which vary in complexity and ability,
each employing an array of methods and design approaches.


Descriptions and analysis of stormwater drainage systems are preferably based on
measured and/or observed system behaviours, directly related to the catchment area
(Bombardier, 2003). This approach provides an accurate description of the system and
allows for the use of valid data during the design process. Although this is a favoured
method, it is uncommon in most urban development planning due to a lack of resources,
time constraints and expense. A common approach for designing a drainage system uses
assumptions and standardised techniques that can be applied to nearly any urban
situation. Information on rainfall patterns and intensities is based on statistical data
which is then approximated for a catchment area (The Institution of Engineers,
Australia , 1987).
The occurrence of inadequate urban stormwater infrastructure is not uncommon. This
was seen during the 2011 Brisbane floods where floodwaters could not be contained by
the drainage systems (Figure 11). These storms resulted in widespread damage and
large scale rehousing of residents in the floodaffected areas of Brisbane. In 2007 the
Newcastle storm event resulted in widespread damage to housing and road
infrastructures. Clearly new procedures are needed for the modelling of catchments and
designing of stormwater management systems.

Figure 11 Brisbane Floods 2011 (REUTERS/Tim Wimborne, 2011)


Drainage networks are implemented within a social and economical structure, which is
greatly influenced by the surrounding environmental and urban conditions. The
network must be integrated within an entire system of additional elements of
infrastructure, without greatly compromising existing or proposed developments. The
overall scale, type and performance of the drainage networks are determined primarily
for the benefit to the community. Adequacy, safety and cost are all considered according
to the communitys needs, requirements and budget. A balance between cost and
performance of the drainage system is essential to provide adequate and affordable
drainage at a reasonable scale.

2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Industrial Project
This project has been sponsored by Pulver, Cooper and Blackley (PCB) to analyse and
compare three suites of drainage software used for the design of urban, rural,
commercial and industrial developments. PCB is a Hunter based surveying and
engineering company providing high quality designs and assessments of large and small
subdivisions within the Hunter region which reflect local area constraints and
requirements. They strive to improve their design approaches with updates in the latest
technology and knowledge regarding drainage design.
The project reviews the latest urban drainage software and compares newly acquired
software with other design packages currently being used by the company. In addition
to providing a comparison of the software and modelling techniques, the setting up
requirements have also been investigated to enable other employees to easily use,
understand and appreciate the software. As PCB is a design company, the practicalities
and legalities surrounding particular design methods were also of interest and
investigated using multiple design packages including twodimensional (2D) flow
regimes for particular scenarios, both real and hypothetical. PCB has supported the
projects findings and will use the results when considering future developments and
urban drainage modelling methods.

2.2 Project Aims and Objectives

A major aim of this project was to investigate the differences between three different
urban drainage programs; DRAINS, 12d and XPStorm. These programs vary in their
complexity and capacity, with each being suitable for urban drainage design. Due to the
differences in the software, varied solutions may occur, causing confusion and doubt
regarding the accuracy and validity of the results. To avoid this confusion, a comparison
of how these programs calculate simple onedimensional (1D) models was reviewed
and compared for an urban drainage network. This comparison highlighted any major
differences and their source, giving future insight into developing subsequent models
with the software.


In addition to the comparison of a 1D system, a 2D analysis of a small urban intersection
was undertaken, using the newly acquired XPStorm program. As this program is
relatively new, information regarding its capabilities is limited. The 2D analysis
included investigating the effects of flow interactions, obstructions affecting flow paths
and the effects of steep roads with an overland surface flow. These results were
compared with calculation techniques used prior to the acquisition of XPStorm
software. Valuable information is provided regarding the 2D flow of water during a
major storm event, within small urban areas.

2.3 Literature Review

2.3.1

Overview

The management of stormwater runoff dates back to ancient cities and developments
that designed channels and systems to control excess flows occurring from stormwater
runoff (Burian & Edwards, 2002). Civilisations such as the Egyptians, Romans and
Machu Picchu Incas developed drainage systems as early as 2000 B.C. (Figure 21). In
some cases these early designs were far more advanced and efficient than
contemporary urban sites in the Middle East, Pakistan and India (Coterell, 1980).
Historical accounts of ancient civilizations (e.g., Indus and Minoan) suggest urban
drainage systems were constructed with great care and that the objectives of the
systems were to collect rainwater, prevent nuisance flooding, and convey wastes
(Burian & Edwards, 2002). This criterion is a major design requirement for drainage
systems today.

Figure 21 Ancient Drainage Network, Lothal (Carr, 2011)

Stormwater management has developed over time, from being purely focused on the
capture and drainage of urban areas to considering social, economic, political,
environmental, and regulatory factors (Burian & Edwards, 2002). Prior to the 1980s,
stormwater was considered a nuisance and the main intention of stormwater
management was to quickly dispose the stormwater to receiving water bodies
(DAYARATNE, 2000). This was the objective for every storm, regardless of its intensity
or duration; the drainage system was expected to remove runoff in an attempt to
restore convenience to the community as quickly as possible. The rainfall runoff was not
considered a valuable resource. Furthermore, the receiving water bodies were
adversely affected due to poor quality stormwater and high velocity flows, causing
scouring and damage to the natural banks (DAYARATNE, 2000).
Modern drainage networks are increasing in size and complexity as developments are
being constructed for the growing populations of developing nations (The Institution of
Engineers, Australia , 1987). Increases in global urbanisation (UNHABITATE, 2006)
have placed rapidly increasing demands on Governments to design effective and
efficient stormwater management practices. As urbanisation increases, the proportion
of rainfall infiltration reduces; increasing runoff which potentially affects more people
(CUPDR, 2006). Stormwater management practices are now accompanied by increased


rules and regulations, requiring designers and contractors to take more responsibility
for their systems (Bombardier, 2003). Subsequently, as the systems have become more
complex, there is an increasing need for more accurate and efficient designs.
Australia is a large continent with a population of about 22.6 million (World Bank,
2012). The level of urbanisation in Australia is estimated to be 89% of already
developed areas, with an increase rate of approximately 1.2%1.6% per year, which is
rated as one of the highest amongst the other developed nations (DESA, 2011).
The past and predicted trends of urban and rural development within Australia are
shown in Figure 22. Such increases resulted in a Standard guideline for urban and rural
drainage being published in the late 1950s, known as the Australian Rainfall and Runoff
(ARR) guide.

Figure 22 Urban and Rural Development Trends in Australia (UN, 2012)

The ARR guide was first published in 1958, outlining the design methodology and
requirements for the management of stormwater (The Institution of Engineers,
Australia , 1987). Although this is a design guide and technically has no specific
regulations, many local councils have based their requirements on the
recommendations outlined in the text (Maitland City Council, 2008). The text has been
updated several times as new information is obtained, creating continuous design
improvements. However, the most recent update is Version 3, 1987, which was later re


published in book form in 1999. Current information can be obtained from their
website (Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012). In 200 years of European settlement in
Australia the design methods for drainage systems have changed from rule of thumb
methods to standardised and sophisticated methods (including computer models)
based on experiments and research. The evolution of these design methods involved
(The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987):

Up to 1845: Ruleofthumb methods

18451935: Empirical equations

19351985: Rational method

Post 1985: Computer models

The hydrological models have increased in complexity due to the introduction of

computers. Figure 23 shows the different types of hydrological analysis as outlined in
the ARR (1987).

Figure 23 Hydrological Models for Urban Drainage Design and Analysis, (The Institution of Engineers, Australia ,
1987)


It can be seen in Figure 23 that there are several methods of modelling drainage
systems, all which vary in complexity. Since this table was produced in 1987, several
advancements in computer technologies have allowed for more complex methods to be
applied and widely used today (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012). The Australian design
philosophy, as outlined in the ARR, compares well with those of other developed
countries. Many countries including the United States (Terstriep & Stall, 1974) and (XP
Software, 2011) and the European countries (Alfakih & Miramond, 2005) use the
methods outlined in ARR. Stormwater management has become a universal issue for
every developing nation. As a result, information regarding the design philosophy is
widely shared; however methods of implementation and execution within a computer
program are limited (DAYARATNE, 2000).
The responsibilities of the designer and their associated company are increasing, as
local council and government regulations become stricter and require various
consequences of stormwater effects to be justified (Department of Environment and
Climate Change NSW, 2006). With increasing compliance, climate variability and
urbanisation companies are becoming liable for unforseen scenarios or acts of
negligence that were previously not the designers responsibility. These factors have
prompted design firms to improve their analysis techniques in order to assess the
potential issues resulting from a proposed design. Drainage modelling software has
developed from a simple flow routing program to complex and extensive packages, with
most being able to determine the effects of pollutants, compliance regulations (that can
be imputed by the user), routing methods, flooding and several more factors (XP
Software, 2011).
As the need for urban drainage is always present and the understanding and data
available is constantly updated over time, publications are continually being produced.
Many reports regarding the management and theory behind urban stormwater
drainage systems have been published over recent years (DAYARATNE, 2000) and
(Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012). Methods to design and construct sustainable
urban drainage systems are currently being researched and tested (Australian Rainfall
and Runoff, 2012). Alternative development concepts (e.g., lowimpact development)
are influencing current practices and can minimise the impacts of urban development


on stormwater drainage (Burian & Edwards, 2002). Engineers are searching for
innovative techniques to capture, detain, and use rainwater within properties in order
to reduce the required size of the drainage networks (Burian & Edwards, 2002).
Computer modelling is at the forefront of the technological advancements in urban
hydrology and is a key feature in developing and maintaining efficient drainage designs
in the twenty first century. Although the basic concepts and theory remain fairly
constant, the implementation of these theories into computer programs is forever
changing as the technology advances (TUFLOW, 2011). Currently the most advanced
and readily available programs for urban drainage design consist of 2D flow analysis
techniques.
The complex computer modelling programs for these systems are becoming more
accessible to design firms, yet few reports are produced, regarding their detailed
computational capabilities and techniques (Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012).
Constant updates to the programs, that often occur every few years, limit the scope and
relativity of reports produced, as they are can be outdated by the time of publication
(12D SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, 2010). Very few reports, in line with this reports aims and
objectives have previously been published.
2.3.2

2D Analysis Review

Full 2D models have been widely used for modelling of river and coastal hydraulics, and
have recently become a practical option for modelling urban floods. As stormwater
management tools, 2D models are more accurate and produce results that are far more
readily accepted and understood by managers, decision makers and other stakeholders
(XP Software, 2011). A 2D graphical representation is shown in Figure 24.

10

Figure 24 2D Software Screen Shot (XP Software, 2011)

Prior to twodimensional analysis being readily available, many techniques for

calculating such flows were done using hand calculations or 1D modelling codes that
assume flow paths, by using educated guesses (Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012).
Guessing involved calculating the amount of flow entering the catchment area, and using
the known topography and boundary conditions of the surface area (Australian Rainfall
and Runoff, 2012) & (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012). In simple cases it was possible
to predict where the flow would route using intuition. However, some cases had difficult
surface conditions (usually flat or steep terrain) which compromised the validity of the
judgement being made. Although assumptions may have been the best method available
prior to 2D modelling, the designer and company would still be liable if wrong
judgement was made, which would ultimately affect local properties or areas
(Kanellakis, 2012).
The initial developments of 2D software such as XPSWMM2D and 2D TUFLOW were
limited to being compared to either a simple 1D model or physical scale model. Scale
models have been used to validate surface flow paths modelled in 2D software and their
effects (Engineers Australia, Water Engineering, 2012). The use of scale models is very

11


expensive and time consuming, subsequently 2D models can provide a less expensive
approach with similar results. The results found in early trials of the software generally
indicated that the flood estimates were in close agreement with one another, however,
the 2D software had a slightly higher flood estimate. The higher values were attributed
to the loss of definition in the finer detailed sections of area due to the grid sizing
(typically 510 m for a large urban area) (Phillips, et al., 2005).
Twodimensional modelling has only been commercially available during the past few
years for urban drainage design. For example, the XPSWMM package only incorporated
a 2D flow analysis into its program in 2011 (XP Software, 2012). Consequently, minimal
research has been undertaken to explore the programs full capabilities to model more
complex scenarios. There are currently very few programs that offer a 2D analysis that
are readily accessible by industry and are user friendly. This is due to the lack of
computational power in the previous decades when standard computers would not
have been capable of running 2D analysis programs. (XP Software, 2011).
As the software is extremely useful in determining flow paths, many companies have
started to see its advantages and are using it in their practice (Sarukkalige, et al., 2011)
and (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012). The development of such advancements in
drainage software has also prompted governments, including the NSW government, to
incorporate a 2D analysis of drainage systems where necessary (Phillips, et al., 2005).
Improvement in urban stormwater drainage analysis is predicted to develop further
with the technological advancements of computer systems, as 2D modelling is an
integral component of this analysis for both urban and rural areas.
Individual agencies and specialist consultants have developed various techniques to
address overland flooding using 2D numerical models (XP Software, 2012). In many
instances, these methods are unique and can produce significantly different outcomes in
terms of the generated flood behaviour characteristics. In reality water flow is three
dimensional, and simplifications to the analysis are achieved by considering the flow as
twodimensional using vertically averaged quantities (Stelling, 1984). Such an
assumption not only simplifies the analysis considerably but yields results of improved
accuracy (Chaudhry, 2008).

12


TwoDimensional software works on the principles of finite element modelling, that is,
where an area is divided into smaller sections, known as a grid, and each grid section is
analysed separately in order to determine the flow at that particular point (XP Software,
2011). The elements are linked to one another, allowing for flows to be transferred
between each grid section, which defines the entire space of the grid network. As the
grid sizing decreases with more elements for a given area, the detail and accuracy of
the solution is increased. Due to the greater detail of terrain patterns, especially
channels such as gutters, each grid represents an average height within the area.
Common 2D drainage software packages like XPStorm, MIKE21 and TUFLOW allow the
user to define the grid size (XPSolutions, 2011), (Phillips, et al., 2005) and (Carr &
Smith, 2006). The sizing, however, is limited to the processing power of the computer
being used. A large area will require larger grid spacing; otherwise the analysis becomes
too complex for the computer to analyse. These grid systems are generally used for
large urban or rural areas to assess major storms which cause wide spread flooding.
Conversely, if a smaller system is being assessed, finer grid spacing can usually be used,
providing more accurate and detailed results (Carr & Smith, 2006). Examples include
the assessment of particular road sections that are flood prone or small flat areas near
urban developments such as playing fields or parks (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012).
The finite element method provides accurate and reliable results that can be
numerically represented and computed within a software package. The implementation
of such methods is complex and is continually being improved by programmers,
increasing the accuracy and abilities of the software (TUFLOW, 2011).
As 2D analysis applies only to the surface flow (grid mesh) of water, most software
packages integrate their 2D surface flow with a 1D drainage network. The system links
two separate models creating one package, however this is not to be mistaken as a 3D
network. As water exits from the 2D surface, possibly through a drainage pit along a
road surface, the water is transferred into the underground pipe/drainage network. The
analysis then becomes 1D and is mostly concerned with pipe capacities and layout
(Burian & Edwards, 2002), (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) and (The Institution of
Engineers, Australia , 1987). The spatially linked 2D overland and 1D pipe integration
approach brings computer modelling much closer to a physical representation of

13


catchment behaviour than has previously been possible (Carr & Smith, 2006). A
graphical representation of a 2D surface mesh integrated with a 1D drainage network is
shown in Figure 25.
Connectionbetween
2DSurfaceFlow

2Dand1D

Directionofflowwith
AveragedDepthperGrid
Cell(2D)
1DDrainageNetwork

Figure 25 2D Surface mesh integrated with a 1D Drainage network (XPSolutions, 2011)

A report published in 2012 with regards to the 2007 Newcastle floods assesses the
drainage network at Merewether Heights in a 2D software package (XPStorm). The
report compares the results from the software package to a scale model, recently built
in Sydney during 2011. The key focus was to assess the performance of the 2D model
and how it can represent surface flow interactions with buildings (Figure 26). Correctly
built scaled models can assist to validate computer modelling programs, and are often
used for larger projects (Engineers Australia, Water Engineering, 2012). Results from
the investigation indicated that the solutions predicted by XPStorm compared relatively
well to the scale model results. This showed that the 2D software could accurately
represent the interaction of surface flow around buildings within an urban area. The
numerical methods used by the 2D programs allow for a quantitative approach towards
designing a reliable and efficient drainage network, where the solutions are backed by
accurate results with minimal need for guessing or assumptions.

14

Figure 26 UNSW Scale Model Testing for comparisons with 2D Software, Newcastle (Engineers Australia, Water
Engineering, 2012)

2.3.3

Other Applications and Future Developments

Although there is a large demand and market for flow modelling of urban catchments
and drainage networks, similar programs are also required in a wide range of industries
concerned with the interaction of fluid (or gas) within various infrastructures and
designs (Gheorghiu, 2004). Fluid dynamics is a broad area of research, and often
developments in a particular field of study can assist in other fields. Although certain
techniques used in fluid dynamic programs may not directly relate to urban drainage,
several components may be incorporated to assist in improving the accuracy and
complexity of the analysis (TUFLOW, 2011).
As technology in todays modern society grows, so does the complexity of the programs
used for urban stormwater analysis. The increase in understanding and the
computational processing power of computers, allows the market to develop rapidly
(TUFLOW, 2011). Many programs including DRAINS, 12d and XPSTORM strive to
constantly update their software within a growing and competitive market.

15


Developments in finite element modelling algorithms allow for finer detailed systems to
be modelled (Chaudhry, 2008). Increased computational power now allows for three
dimensional (3D) analysis programs to be developed and these will be commercially
available for urban drainage design within a few years (TUFLOW, 2011). 3D programs
have been used in previous years for various small scale analyses such as single pipe
flows (Gheorghiu, 2004) and also for larger areas which are affected by the change in
height and direction of static water, such as harbours or coastal areas (Steve, 2012). A
graphical representation of a 3D software analysis, taking depth and direction of flow
into consideration is shown in Figure 27.

Directionand
Depthofflow(3D)

Figure 27 3D Software (SSIIM) Representing Water velocities in Nidelva near Stavne Bridge, ( Department of
Geography, (NVE) , 2007)

16

3 MODELLING OF URBAN STORMWATER DRAINAGE

3.1 Overview
The analysis of each scenario for this project was determined using accredited software
packages (DRAINS, 12d and XPStorm) which are widely used in Australia and around the
world. A broad range of software was selected to determine the reliability of data
output. The data used between each modelling package remained constant, allowing the
answers to be determined by the individual software programming techniques. A
solution was developed to transfer data between programs, reducing the chance of
copying errors and increasing the efficiency of modelling. Although many factors may
affect the results obtained from the programs, variations in the software outputs are
mainly due to the assumptions and methodology of various calculations. The limitations
of the programs are primarily due to computational power and cost.

3.2 Components of urban drainage

Urban drainage is an intricate system that requires many components working together
to sufficiently drain rainfall safely away from urban areas (The Institution of Engineers,
Australia , 1987). There are two broad categories that define urban drainage modelling.
Firstly the surface flows travelling along the ground and roadways are defined as the
hydrology of the system. Secondly, the interaction and capacities of the subsurface
drainage network, such as pipes and pits, are known as the hydraulics of the drainage
network. These two components are integrated to produce a network of surface
catchment and drainage routing which defines the overall drainage network. The
system can be divided into several separate components as follows:
3.2.1

Property Drainage

Property drainage consists primarily of two main hydrodynamic components,

impervious areas and pervious areas. If an area within a property does not allow water
infiltration it is considered impervious e.g. concrete footpaths, roofs, driveways etc.
Alternatively, pervious areas allow for the infiltration of water and consist of grassed or
undisturbed areas. The combination of pervious and impervious areas affects travel

17


times of water across a catchment. The time taken for water to flow from its entry point
to its destination is commonly referred to as the Time of Concentration (Tc). The
percentage of pervious or impervious areas can greatly impact on the travel time of
surface flow and affect downstream pits within the system, which must be taken into
consideration when designing drainage systems. Roofs which are connected to the
street drainage via guttering systems and downpipes can also affect the rate of flow
entering the system.
3.2.2

Street drainage

Stormwater must pass over the surface of urban areas in order to reach its destination
(i.e. basins, pits or water bodies). The interaction of the flow from the time it enters a
system (rainfall on properties or roads, developed flow from upstream areas) to the
time it reaches its destination (pits and basins) must be accounted for, as various
components can have significant effects on the final surface flow properties and their
magnitude (The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987). The development of such
flows can be extremely complex to model in a numerical software package, and
generally several assumptions are derived concerning the interaction with the designed
surface and the conveyance of stormwater flow. Components which may require
assumptions include:

Surface kerb and gutter flows

Submerged pipe flows

Overland flow paths (natural and constructed open channels including roads)

Destination (basins, pits, water bodies)

These components are represented in Figure 31.

18

Figure 31 Flow Paths (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

The key components of any surface flow design consider the properties of the channels
through which the surface flow travels and how they impact on the flow. Parameters of
surface flow interactions with the design include:

The roughness of the surface (smooth concrete/rough grass)

Infiltration from pervious areas (grass)

The shape of the channel (kerb/gutter, open plain, downpipe) and its geometry
such as steepness, and interconnecting components (intersections, pipe
connections)

The parameters are used to define how long it takes for water to enter the system and
reach its destination. This is a key component in stormwater design as design flows are
the governing body, and the relationship between interacting stormwater flows can
vary greatly depending on assumptions. Water entering the system and travelling a long
distance will impact on downstream drainage components at a later time during a
storm, and vice versa. For example, a storm may only run for a short duration; however
storm water from a far distance may impact on the system later and with greater

19


magnitude, as the flows can accumulate from various catchment areas. Modelling such
phenomena in a computer program can generate varied results, based on the
assumptions inputted by the user regarding surface flow characteristics.

3.3 Hydrology
Hydrology is the study of water movement across a catchment area, and how it interacts
with the land (The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987). Knowledge of the rate at
which flow can move from one point to another within the area allows designers to
predict the amount of flow entering a drainage system. This is a crucial element in
urban stormwater design, as it governs the layout and dimensions of the required
system. Several techniques are available to determine the rate of flow, ranging from
simple to complex calculations.
The hydrology of a system is primarily governed by the flowrate developed within the
catchment area. These can be represented as a peak flowrate, which assumes a worst
case scenario or as a full hydrograph, which describes the pattern of rainfall over a given
duration. The simple methods use rational assumptions based on statistical analysis of
data to produce a standard design flowrate or discharge. Although they can be used to
analyse individual pipe capacities, they cannot simulate actual flow behaviour
throughout an entire network (The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987). Two
common methods used in industry are the rational method and time area method, which
provide information regarding the hydrological flow of water in a catchment area.
Although they are simple, both are still used within the industry today and within
computer modelling programs. There are also several other methods used for the
hydrological analysis of flows.
The analysis of hydrological flows can also account for losses due to infiltration through
pervious areas. Assumptions can be made for the amount of water lost due to
infiltration; however a well developed method known as the Hortons Infiltration Loss
method can accurately predict losses based on soil type and its infiltration rates.
Hortons method is incorporated into several programs and has been used for the
investigation undertaken in this report. This will be further discussed in 3.3.4.

20


3.3.1

Rational Method

The rational method is a very common and simple approach to a hydrological analysis
for a catchment area. The method was developed by Kuichling during 1889 for
estimating the design discharge for small urban areas (Thompson, 2007). It has little
association with the actual catchment, as it does not take into account several factors
which impact on the flow. The rational formula is a simple linear function and has three
variables:

. . /

(1)

Where Q is the design flowrate (m3/s), C is a dimensionless runoff coefficient

(roughness), I is a rainfall intensity based on the location of the system corresponding
to a particular storm duration and recurrence interval (mm/hr), and A is the catchment
area (ha).
The rational method does not account for a number of factors such as: the form
(topography) of the land or obstructions; soil type; vegetation such as trees or shrubs;
accumulation of other flows over time; ponding or storage; direction etc. The lack of
inclusion of these parameters makes the rational method extremely inaccurate, usually
resulting in answers having an accuracy of 50% (Kuczera, 2011). These inaccuracies
can have significant impacts on the design of drainage systems, as they may be
considerably over or under designed. The method, however, is still widely used and
accepted as it is very simple, quick and universal. The trade off for accuracy is gained in
the reduced calculation times and less expense than a more complex analysis. The
rational method accounts for all losses in the runoff coefficient (C), which is generally a
conservative approach, and does not replicate the catchment area as accurately as other
methods. The runoff constant is dependent on the soil type and slope of the drainage
basin (Anon., 2012). Figure 32 displays a simple peak flow hydrograph formed using
the rational method and time of concentration (Tc).

21

Figure 32 Simple Rational Method Hydrograph (Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 2002)

Although the rational method is very crude, if used on a simple catchment with
understanding and consideration to its limitations, it is capable of providing reasonably
accurate results. Issues arise as the system increases in surface area and complexity,
such as varying terrain and obstructions. A common method is to split a large varying
catchment into several subcatchments, which allows for more accurate calculations and
solutions to be obtained.
3.3.2

Time Area Method

The time area method generates a more accurate rainfall intensity event compared to
the rational method. It incorporates the same basic principles as the rational method,
however, it allows for a stepped interval of rainfall intensities to be developed over a
given time period. The method achieves a stepped interval by dividing the catchment
area into subcatchments, allowing for a linear varying hydrograph to be produced. This
represents the flow entering a catchment area using a more realistic approach, as
rainfall intensities vary during a storm event and accounts for the accumulation of
flows. Figure 33 represents the time area method and graphically shows the
subdivision of areas to form a stepped hydrograph.

22

Figure 33 Time area method (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

It can be seen in Figure 33 that the hydrograph varies with time which is directly
related to the accumulation of flow over time. This represents rainfall flow patterns in a
more realistic way than the rational method.
3.3.3

Models

Complex models that use computer software employ sets of equations and procedures
to predict hydrological flows. Models can be divided into two broad categories: one
where a peak flowrate is produced; and the other is where a full hydrograph is provided
by the user. Models can utilise the rational and time area methods and apply them to a
drainage network, however, a computer software package is capable of calibrating the

23


runoff and improving the accuracy. The calibration involves inputting values of
observed data, usually at a discharge outlet, and then the program runs an iteration to
change various parameters to match the observed discharge rates. The integration of
the time area method with infiltration losses has been further developed by Australian
designers and referred to as the ILSAX method, which is commonly used in programs
such as DRAINS and 12d (DAYARATNE, 2000) and (12D SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, 2010).
Modelling urban catchments can allow for a more extensive and detailed subcatchment
definition, therefore increasing the accuracy and validity of the analysis. Most current
urban drainage programs contain the rational and time area methods as standard
methods, with some having an extensive range of options for hydrological analysis
(XPSolutions, 2011). A variety of loss models can be incorporated into the runoff
calculation, accounting for several losses such as infiltration into soils and
evapotranspiration. Details of pervious and impervious areas are able to be entered,
allowing improvements in the total runoff estimation.
3.3.4

Infiltration Losses

Even in urbanised areas, there generally remain sections of pervious areas (parklands
and lawns), consequently losses due to infiltration should be taken into consideration
when modelling a catchment. The losses due to infiltration effectively alter the total
amount of runoff reaching the drainage network. If a catchment area has a high amount
of pervious regions, the infiltration rate will be high, implying that less rainfall will
actually reach the drainage network. This reduces the required capacity of the system.
However, since many urban areas are built up and consist mostly of impervious areas
such as roofs, driveways and roads, the infiltration rates are reduced. Similarly, as the
soils in a pervious region fill up, their ability to store rainfall reduces, and the region
effectively becomes impervious after the initial phase (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012). There
are several methods for numerically representing the effects of infiltration. One of the
most common which is used in all three programs for this report is Hortons method.
The Hortons method is most useful in urban and agricultural areas where the
infiltration capacity of soils is relatively small due to cultural activities (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1994).

24


The procedures for grassed areas are complex and are based on the equation developed
by Horton in the 1930s (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012) shown in Equation (2).

(2)

Where f is infiltration capacity (mm/h), f0 and fc are initial and final rates on the curve
(constants, mm/h), k is a shape factor (here taken as 2 h1), and t is the time from the
start of rainfall (minutes).

Equation (2) describes the curves shown in Figure 34 . The curves only apply when
there is sufficient rainfall to completely satisfy the infiltration capacities, and
accumulated infiltration is increasing at its full rate (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012).

Figure 34 Hortons Infiltration Curves (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

The curves in Figure 34 represent soil types which follow the classification used by
Terstriep and Stall (1974) based on the system developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and described in references such as Chow (1964). The curves are used in
North American procedures described in Technical Release 55 of the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (1975). The four main soil classifications designated A, B, C and D
(corresponding to 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the ILSAX type model) are described as: (O'Loughlin
& Stack, 2012)

25



A (1) low runoff potential, high infiltration rates (consists of sand and gravel);
B (2) moderate infiltration rates and moderately welldrained;
C (3) slow infiltration rates (may have layers that impede downward movement of
water);
D (4) high runoff potential, very slow infiltration rates (consists of clays with a
permanent high water table and a high swelling potential).

These soil types are used in conjunction with antecedent moisture conditions (AMCs)
that define the points on the infiltration curves at which calculations commence. This is
specified as an antecedent depth of moisture, corresponding to the area under the curve
until it reaches the finishing point. On each curve in Figure 34, four starting points (1, 2,
3 and 4) are shown, representing possible AMCs. The AMCs are estimated using Table
31. Intermediate AMC values can be determined using interpolation (O'Loughlin &
Stack, 2012).
Table 31 Antecedent Moisture Conditions (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

3.3.5

2D Surface Flow

Until recently the hydrological flow of a system was modelled in 1D network. That is,
any surface flow that upwells from a pit and becomes excess runoff must be rerouted to
another pit or outfall as determined by the designer. The use of a 2D software package
eliminates this assumption, and runs a simulation to determine where the runoff would
most likely be routed. The simulation uses the surface heights of the system and its
components to determine how the flow interacts with the system. Further detail of 2D
analysis is outlined in section 3.5.4.

26

3.4 Hydraulics
The hydraulics of a drainage system refers to the interaction between the stormwater
runoff and the channelling networks, including open channels and pipes. A stormwater
model will assess the hydrology of a system (overland flow), and route it through a
drainage network, which then becomes a hydraulic analysis. The dynamics of fluid
mechanics through a system of pipes and channels is extremely complex due to the
large number of unknown variables. The shape, material, orientation, upstream and
downstream conditions, amount of flow, obstructions and various other physical
properties are unique to each system, and have a significant impact on the final solution.
There are several methods to determine the hydraulic relationships of the stormwater
with the system. The methods range from simple relationships to highly complex
analyses, which vary in accuracy and validity. Simple approaches take into account
minimal variables, and require several assumptions, all of which reduce the validity of
the solution. The more complex systems require high computational power and greater
knowledge of the physical attributes of the system being assessed.
3.4.1

Types of flow

The analysis of a complex fluid flow is often difficult to predict and visualise,
consequently the development of a valid mathematical model is problematic. Several
idealisations have been made in the representation of the dynamics of fluids in a flow
field. A common method used is the Eulerian description of motion, which expresses
flow as an array of individual particles that occupy a small volume of water. The
particles are considered to move through a flow field as an entity (Potter & Wiggert,
2010). As water is incompressible, the volume cannot change, however it can deform.
The Eurlerian method observes the velocity of particles from fixed points in space. As
several points in space can be used, a rate of change in velocity can be identified (i.e. the
change in velocity as a function of space) and also the rate of change in velocity over
time can be determined (i.e. the change in velocity as a function of time). The method
can be generalised for simplicity, and idealisation of a fluid model and is known as
steady state flow. An improved idealisation, which makes full use of the Eurlerian
description, is known as unsteady state flow. Both classifications also have sub
classifications known as uniform and nonuniform flow (Potter & Wiggert, 2010).

27


3.4.1.1 Steady State Flow
In a steady state flow analysis the velocity of the fluid is not a function of time; instead it
is purely a function of space. This idealisation of a fluid model does not consider that in
reality the other properties of a fluid vary with time (Potter & Wiggert, 2010). This
generalisation is noticeable in particular scenarios of urban hydraulics, where fluid is
subject to various changes in its properties over a given time frame. In urban areas the
flow can be viewed as being a steady state flow, as the response time of the flow is much
faster than the global changes such as floods (Kuczera, 2011). Since steady state flows
have one less dimension than unsteady flows, the analysis is generally simpler and
computational time is less. Steady state analysis is commonly used in hand calculations
and earlier software packages due to its simplicity, and usually the analysis is
conservative (Kuczera, 2011).
3.4.1.2 Unsteady State Flow
Unsteady state flow describes the flow in terms of space and time, both being
independent variables. The use of a time variable function allows for flows to be
assessed in a more realistic manner, especially for storm events occurring in an urban
environment. The variations in velocity over time and space can have significant
impacts on the results obtained from modelling a hydraulic system, and if used correctly
are considered to produce a more accurate answer than a steady state solution (Potter
& Wiggert, 2010). The stormwater runoff in drainage canals essentially requires an
unsteady analysis, which can create a less conservative (but still correct) solution,
consequently being more cost effective (Kuczera, 2011). Most current hydraulic
software packages have the ability to analyse a system using unsteady calculations, due
to the development of computational power and increased understanding of the
significance of accurate drainage modelling.
3.4.1.3 Uniform and NonUniform Flow
Uniform flow is the situation where terminal velocity has been reached in a channel of
constant cross section, indicating that the mean water velocity and the depth are
constant (Potter & Wiggert, 2010). This state of flow often occurs in rivers and man

28


made channels, where typically the height of the channel does not change, hence the
velocity/depth remain unchanged (Kuczera, 2011).
Nonuniform flow signifies that the velocity and depth of water vary along given points
in space. As the flow moves through a system that changes in geometry, it will change in
velocity and depth (Potter & Wiggert, 2010). This is particularly useful in more complex
systems that vary in shape and have constantly changing crosssections for channelling
water flow. Such systems may include urban components such as kerb and gutters that
vary over the length of a road, pipe systems that vary in diameter, varying crossfalls in
roads and several other sections that change the dynamics of a fluid.
3.4.1.4 Laminar and Turbulent flow
A viscous flow can be classified as either a laminar or turbulent flow (Potter & Wiggert,
2010). In laminar flow, particles of fluid travel on path lines known as stream lines, and
there is no significant mixing of nearby fluid particles. Viscous shear stresses always
influence a laminar flow and may be highly time dependant, or may be steady. For
example, if a dye was injected into a laminar flow, it would not mix, and would travel in
stream lines for a relatively long period of time (Potter & Wiggert, 2010). Figure 35
graphically displays the motion of turbulent and laminar flow.

Figure 35 Turbulent and Laminar Flow Stream Lines (University of Cambridge, 2012)

29


It can be seen in Figure 35 that in a turbulent flow, fluid motions are constantly
changing which produce irregular velocities and pressures that vary with time and
space (Potter & Wiggert, 2010). As the changes are rapid, and occur randomly, the
physical values are often described using statistical averages, which may reduce the
accuracy of the analysis of complex flows. Turbulent flow can be defined as steady,
where the average physical values do not vary with time. With reference to the laminar
example above, if a dye were injected into a turbulent flow, it would instantly mix due to
the random action of moving fluid particles (Potter & Wiggert, 2010).
3.4.1.5 Unsteady Dynamic Flow
Unsteady dynamic flow can be described using the St. Venant equation. The equation is
derived from the conservation of momentum or Newtons second law of motion
(Chaudhry, 2008) and is one of the three conservation laws which must be applied
when describing the flow of fluids through pipes and channels. These three laws are
conservation of mass, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. The St.
Venant equation uses the following assumptions:

Flow is onedimensional, implying streamlines are parallel and gradually varied

Channel slopes are small (less than 10), implying horizontal streamlines and a
hydrostatic pressure

Head losses due to friction can be approximated using steady state resistance
laws

To fully define an unsteady open channel solution it is required that the depth y(x, t)
and velocity V(x, t) or discharge Q(x, t) are determined. Two differential equations must
be solved simultaneously in order to provide a valid solution (Kuczera, 2011).
The first equation applies Newtons second law of motion, and conserves the mass of
the flow such that:

30

(3)

Equation (3) is known as the continuity equation, and indicates that the sum of the
change in depth (

over the change in time (

over the change in distance (

, and the change in discharge (

), equates to the lateral inflow (q) which is expressed as

discharge per unit length of channel. The value B is the width of flow at a given point
along the channel in relation to time. The flow is assumed to be one dimensional and
incompressible (Chaudhry, 2008). Unsteady dynamic flow is still represented as a 1D
analysis in 2D software with regards to the hydraulic systems.
The St. Venant dynamic equation is shown in equation (4), with a description of each
term:

1 Q
1 Q2
y

g (So S f ) 0
A t
A x A
x
Local
acceleration
term

Convective
acceleration
term

Pressure Gravity Friction

force
force
force
term
term
term

(4)

Equation (4) applies to a dynamic analysis, where all terms are taken into consideration
and calculated. It is a more complex approach than a steady state analysis and generally
requires a computer to solve the equation. The partial differentials (first three terms)
often require an iterative process in order to obtain a solution. A steady state approach
only takes into account the last two terms (gravity and friction force terms) and
disregards the first three partial differentials, making calculations linear and more
basic.

Under a steady uniform flow,

0 and

0 which leads to the St. Venant equation to

be simplified to:

31


Sf = So

Under a steady nonuniform flow

0 and

(5)

0, in which case the St. Venant

equation simplifies to:

(6)

The representation of a channel experiencing a 1D unsteady gradually varied flow uses

the entire St. Venant equation as

3.4.2

0 and

0 and also the continuity equation.

Pipe Flows and Routing

When stormwater flow is captured from the surface by inlet pits it is then routed
underground via a network of interconnecting pipes. The analysis of such flows
depends greatly on the amount of flow relative to the pipe routing it, as well as
upstream and downstream conditions. Computer models employ hydraulic calculations
to automatically size a drainage network until it meets the requirements set by the user
(O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012). As pipes vary in size, direction, slope, materials and various
connection points, flows quickly become complex and varied as the pipe network
develops. Consequently, several factors must be taken into consideration when
analysing a drainage network in order to accurately predict how the network will
handle vast quantities of water flow. The flow calculations performed for a pipe
network are also very similar to open channel networks, with the fundamental
difference being that pipes may have flow running through them under pressure. The
effects of pressure in a pipe network can result in water rising at inlets, causing
upwelling, and water is then transferred back onto roads. Correct analysis and
predictions concerning the hydraulic pipe network greatly impact on the performance
of the entire system, and can have a direct effect on the surface flows within the
hydrological model, even after the water has exited the surface. Accordingly, correct
hydraulic pipe flow and open channel analysis techniques are essential in the
development of a successful model to represent a drainage network. Three types of

32


hydraulic models used in the analysis of pipe networks and open channels are
presented in Table 32.
Table 32 Hydraulic Models for Design and Analysis of Pipe Networks and Open Channels (The Institution of
Engineers, Australia , 1987)

The two steady state model types given in Table 32 involve relatively simple
calculations that can be performed by hand. The third model type, being an unsteady
flow analysis, must be performed by a computer due to the high complexity and
iterative process required to solve the model. For many tasks, steady flow conditions
may be assumed, allowing simplified models to be used (The Institution of Engineers,
Australia , 1987). The pipe network and/or channels are assumed to carry a single
peakflow rate, and are sized accordingly. The effects of flow conditions from one
conduit can influence those elsewhere, and allowances can be made to correctly adjust
the flowrate entering the affected pipes.
The most simplified method of pipe drainage design usually assumes that the pipes run
full, but not under pressure (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012). This allows each pipe to be
considered independently, and capacities can be calculated using simple open channel
formulas (as there are assumed to be no pressure variations). This is a simple and quick
method for designing a pipe network. However, due to assumptions required, the
accuracy and reliability of the results is reduced.

33


A more developed and accurate method of pipe design is to permit the network to
operate under pressure or surcharge, allowing water to rise in pits, but not necessarily
overflowing back onto the roads. This allows for a more realistic hydraulic analysis to
be performed, and often a more efficient design can be achieved. As the pipes are
allowed to flow under pressure, consistency of solutions is improved and a greater
selection of pipe slopes can be used. The calculations are complicated by the effects of
upstream and downstream conditions, as they can greatly affect the pressure and flow
in the pipe network. Pressure flow calculations require estimations of pressure changes
associated with energy losses at pipe pits and junctions. There are several sources that
provide information regarding these losses, such as the Missouri Charts (Sangster, et
al., 1958). The graphical representation of the hydraulic pressure is known as the
Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) and is commonly produced on drainage long sections (PCB
Surveyors & Engineers, 2012). The use of a HGL allows for backwater analysis and
enables the prediction of hydraulic grade lines and water surface levels throughout the
system (Dept Natural Resources and Water, 2008). This allows for potentially
surcharging (overflowing) areas to be graphically represented, and pipe sizes to be
adjusted accordingly. A pit with two connecting pipes showing the relative HGL is
shown in Figure 36.

Figure 36 Drainage Pipe Long Section with HGL (pipe flowing partially full), (Dept Natural Resources and Water,
2008)

34


The pressurised and non pressurised methods may be used for simplified hydraulic
design, but do not take account of complex flows such as surcharging and overflows.
The assumption that all flows are steady allows only for simplified modelling, and may
only work if all flows are surcharged or all represented by openchannels. Generally the
entire drainage network is either all under positive gauge pressure, or at zero gauge
pressure, and in these cases the flow can be described as a steady state dynamic
analysis. The scenario where a pipe is partially under pressure at one end and not at the
other requires an unsteady dynamic analysis. The unsteady dynamic analysis requires a
lengthy computer solution of partial differential equations describing conservation of
mass, energy and momentum as described in St. Venants equation. The unsteady
dynamic analysis provides the most realistic solution when compared to the other two
methods, as pipes constantly vary in flow and pressure. A significant advantage of a
dynamic analysis is the allowance for backflow, where upwelling at a pit causes flow to
travel in the opposite direction resulting in possible issues upstream. Simplified
methods would simply discharge the water out of the pit, requiring the user to
determine where the excessive flow/pressure should be distributed. The flow analysis
of upwelling and surcharging pits relates back to a hydrological analysis, as water must
be rerouted after it exits the drainage system. The dimensional abilities of the programs
have a significant effect of the routing of such flow and its final destination.

3.5 The Dimensions of Flow

3.5.1

OneDimensional Flow

One dimensional (1D) flow analysis considers the effects of water flow based on a
single direction. The velocities, flows and heights of water can be calculated and routed
through drainage networks. Figure 37 graphically represents the modelling of a pipe
with 1D flow analysis.

35

Figure 37 1D flow through a pipe with bypass flow (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

Figure 37 indicates that surface flows can be routed to other pits, however their
direction is unknown. Surface flows may be assumed to run directly downstream,
however no account for the 2D surface is taken into consideration. This is shown in
Figure 38.

Bypass Flow

??

??
??

Figure 38 Plan View of a 1D Drainage Network (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

Figure 38 displays the assumptions a designer would have to make in regards to the
direction and amount of flow at particular sections within a drainage network.

36


3.5.2

TwoDimensional Flow

Twodimensional (2D) flow analysis incorporates a surface mesh that represents the
direction of overland surface flow, with an average varying height of water flow to give
it a depth. Although the model represents a 3D flow i.e. direction (x, y) and height (z),
the actual numerical modelling is purely twodimensional. The average height of water
eliminates the need to calculate the depth/height (z) of water; which may reduce the
accuracy of flows, especially in highly variable depth situations, such as pipe networks.
The 2D analysis is generally more appropriate for the investigation of large flood plain
areas, where the depth of water would not rapidly vary (Steve, 2012). A graphical
representation of a large flood plain simulated in a 2D software package is shown in
Figure 39.

Figure 39 2D Plan view of overland surface flow into a 1D drainage network

Figure 39 represents a 2D mesh integrated with a 1D channel. The program can utilise
the simplicities of a 1D channel, whilst having the complex 2D surface flows calculated

37


at other areas. The 2D mesh is purely used for surface flows, where the 1D analysis is
used for the underground drainage network and/or open channels.
3.5.3

ThreeDimensional Flow

Threedimensional (3D) analysis can numerically represent the flow of water in all
dimensions, making it the most accurate numerical representation of water flow. This
method accounts for both the direction and height of water, all of which satisfy physical
laws of motion. 3D models are currently used for harbour and coastal design (Steve,
2012), and plans to incorporate the method into commercial urban hydrology program
are currently being undertaken (TUFLOW, 2011). Figure 310 represents the 3D motion
of fluid through a pipe, with varying direction and depth.

Figure 310 3D Flow pressure cuts (top) within a 3D intake channel computing mesh (bottom) using the program
FIRE (Gheorghiu, 2004)

It can be seen in Figure 310, that the direction and volume of water of water are
calculated and vary with space. The example above represents the flow of a steady
turbulent compressible air flow, which 3D modelling can accurately represent
(Gheorghiu, 2004). A 3D analysis was not assessed in the scope of this report, as it is
not currently available in urban drainage programs.

38


3.5.4

Applying numerical solutions for twodimensional analysis

The previous sections have primarily covered 1D numerical solutions for hydraulic and
hydrological situations. However, as discussed, the assumptions made using 1D flow are
not always valid, and a 2D flow model must be assessed for use in particular cases. The
implementation of 1D assumptions and conservation laws such as the continuity and St.
Venant equation, although derived for a 1D system, can be applied to a 2D system using
finite difference methods. Although, in reality, flow acts over a 3D surface, a 2D flow
analysis can be performed by using vertically averaged quantities for the flow depths.
This assumption greatly reduces the complexity of the analysis and still provides a valid
solution (Chaudhry, 2008).
The derivations for such finite difference models are extensive and complicated, and as
such, only a brief summary and interpretation of the final solutions is presented in this
report. Further derivations can be obtained from various reports including Open
Channel Flow by (Chaudhry, 2008).

3.6 Finite Difference Models

The laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy are all considered in the
derivation of 2D flow analysis, as outlined in section 3.4.1.5. As the flow is considered
2D rather than 1D, a new dimension in the equations must be taken into consideration,
that is (x, y) directions. Note that as the analysis is not 3D, a varying height (z) for each
point in space is not applied; instead an average height is used for each section. This is
achieved by integrating the equations over the flow depth, which allows the depth
average equations to be obtained, as shown in Equation 7.
The continuity equation allows the depth of a particle to be determined in terms of 2D
space (x, y) at a given point of time (t). The analysis has two sections: the first section
derives the height/velocity for the top portion (Za) of a surface flow, as it is a free water
surface and it is assumed that no water particle can leave; the second section derives
the bottom portion (Zb) of a surface flow where the channel is rigid and a
height/velocity can be defined. These two velocities are combined to determine the flow
velocity of a three dimensional body of water as shown in Figure 311. The following

39


equations are the final integral of the continuity equations, where and are the mean
values of the two velocities over the depth of the channel (d) (Chaudhry, 2008).

(7)

Zb
Za

Figure 311 Finite element Modelling in 2D Software, (XPSolutions, 2011)

It can be seen in Figure 311 that the average velocities (ZV and ZU) are related to the
single average height (Zb) for a given element point (Za). The momentum equation
assumes that the vertical acceleration is negligible; implying that the change in vertical
velocity over time is zero. The momentum of a 2D analysis, however, is far more
complicated and involves assumptions to be made regarding the direction of flow
(momentum). An approximation of the angles at which the flows interact in accordance
with each other yields a small error (< 3%) if the angle of inclination of a channel (in
both x and y planes) is < 10 (17% Grade) (Chaudhry, 2008).
The governing equations for conservation of momentum determine the flow paths over
a surface and their magnitude. The equations are nonlinear, firstorder, hyperbolic
partial differential equations, where analytical solutions are not available, unless a very
simplified 1D scenario is used. These equations must be solved numerically using
computer programming. For gradually varied 2D, unsteady flows, explicit and implicit

40


finite difference methods have been used. These methods of characteristics have the
ability to determine and preserve the directional information of a flow, but are very
awkward to develop and program in 2D. The finitevolume difference methods
(Godunov, 1959) are commonly used methods when solving 2D average depth
equations (Chaudhry, 2008) and are incorporated into modern day software packages.
The technique of using finite elements allows a relatively large catchment area to be
divided into much smaller sections, which can be analysed individually. The equations
are applied to each element and linked to one another, allowing an entire system to be
defined by an array of finite elements. The use of such a method allows the 1D equations
to be modified and incorporated into a point in space (element). Consequently, a
quantified value can be determined at a given point and integrated into the model. As
the catchments are modelled in a software package and solutions must be quantified, a
finite approach is regarded as the most appropriate way of accurately defining such a
system. The main advantage of using the finite difference method is its simplicity and
subsequent ease of programming. This includes the Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI)
scheme developed by Leendertse (1967), which was later improved to a finite
difference approximation scheme proposed by Stelling (1984). The method has
successfully been applied to 2D numerical models for shallow water flow situations,
resulting in 2D finite difference numerical models becoming established as standard
tools for simulation of 2D hydrodynamic flow behaviour in urban situations (Grosesen
& Soewono, 1997).
The Stelling finite element approach is one of many methods used to implicitly solve 2D
free surface shallow water flow equations over a regular grid (Stelling, 1984). The
model utilizes the vertically integrated equations of motions and continuity for
incompressible fluid (water). The long wave approximation is used with the omission of
vertical acceleration and velocities, which limits the solution to two dimensions. This
results in a set of nonlinear equations that are used to solve shallow water wave
problems. The numerical form of the equations is given in Appendix D. The Stelling
approach has been enhanced by software developers such as TUFLOW to allow it to
solve for an ADI scheme (TUFLOW, 2011), which reduces computational time and
improves the accuracy of results (XPSolutions, 2011).

41

3.7 2D assessment, using 1D model results and hand calculations

Surface flows are able to be determined using simple hand calculations or basic 2D
analysis of surface widths. The surface in which a known flow is travelling (obtained
from a 1D model) is generalised as an open channel, and a 2D calculation can be
performed to determine the width at a given point along the channel. Geometry and
material properties of the channel are considered in the calculation. Prior to 2D
software being available, this was the standard in determining flow widths at critical
locations in a catchment area, such as a road intersection. Many councils and
government authorities require some analysis of the surface flows at critical areas
which may be prone to flooding or causing damage to properties (Maitland City Council,
2008). Hand calculations using 1D analysis are still used today and are accepted by
most authorities, as the acquisition of 2D software is relatively new (PCB Surveyors &
Engineers, 2012). A summary of the flow widths at a given point along a road are given
in Figure 312 and Figure 313.

Figure 312 Flow Capacity of a standard kerb (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012)

42

Figure 313 Flow Capacity of a roll kerb (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012)

Figure 312 and Figure 313 and their associated equations can be inputted in to a
solver program (such as Microsoft Excel) and solve the total width for a known Qcap. A
1D program such as DRAINS or 12d can provide an upwelling flow at a known location,
which can be inputted into the above equation and their relative widths determined
(sum of Z values). An example of this approach is performed in section 7.5.

3.8 Computer Modelling Programs

3.8.1

Types of Modelling

There are several public and commercial software packages available to allow designers
to numerically represent and construct urban drainage models. Table 33 displays a
summary of the typical models used, as defined by (Haestad, et al., 2003). Many other
institutes such as (Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012) and (FEMA) also use similar
category definitions.

43


Table 33 Classification of models used in urban drainage and flooding analysis (Barnard, et al., 2007)

1D gradually varied steady flow models are commonly used for flood insurance rate map
studies. They generally simulate the peak discharge from a storm event, which occurs
simultaneously at each node, and do not allow for storage effects.
Quasiunsteady flow models are used when storage effects must be determined. They
also allow for the use of varying flow over time, as additional flow may enter the system
after a storage system has reached its capacity or overland flow reaches a subcatchment
area.
1D gradually varied unsteady flow models make use of the momentum and continuity
equations described in the St. Venant equation. They allow for flow to vary over space
and time. The model is particularly useful for extensive drainage networks and long
simulation periods, where velocity vectors are assumed to be parallel to the flow
direction. Drainage systems which are complex in terms of layout and flow paths should
use this model, as it can account for various scenarios such as:

Changes in discharge and pressure

Systems where water can exit the drainage network and reenter at downstream
locations

Backwater analysis at pits or junctions

44


Quasi2D unsteady models use an array of 1D links and nodes to represent storage in
channels and detention basins. The flow paths however, must be predefined by the
designer.
2D gradually varied unsteady flow models solve the St. Venants equation in two (x and
y) directions for an average depth condition. Using this analysis for detailed areas, such
as roads, is generally only applicable during large storm events where water may flow
along the streets.
1D/2D linked models are a combination of a 1D unsteady flow model for the drainage
network, such as the pipes, channels, pits and other structures, and a 2D gradually
varied unsteady flow model. The 2D model accurately calculates the routing of water,
giving consideration to the 1D drainage network. The 1D network is linked to the 2D
model, which allows flow to enter and exit the drainage network, flow overland via a 2D
grid that represents the topography and roughness of the land, and reenter the 1D
drainage network continuously. Figure 314 graphically represents a 1D/2D linked
model as interpreted by the developers of the XPStorm software (XP Software, 2011).

Figure 314 Surface flow (2D) linked with a drainage network (1D) (XP Software, 2011)

The 2D surface is modelled as a grid system which represents the elevation, slope and
roughness of the surface as defined by the user. The grid surface is usually calculated

45


using a detailed digital terrain model (DTM) from survey data, or Aerial Laser Scanning
of the catchment area (Smith, et al., 2006).
3.8.2

Modelling Programs

3.8.2.1 DRAINS (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

DRAINS is a Windows program used for the design and analysis of urban stormwater
drainage systems. It was released by Watercom Pty Ltd in 1998, and provided a more
enhanced program than the earlier ILSAX program, which has been widely used for
urban stormwater system design and analysis. DRAINS is constantly updated by adding
improvements to the modelling techniques and capabilities, and can accommodate
systems of various sizes: from small urban networks to large catchments. It also allows
for a number of time steps to be used for rainfall patterns during the course of a storm
event. Rainfall is converted into hydrographs, and then routed to the designed networks
of pipes and channels. DRAINS has the capabilities to model and simulate the following:

Design and analysis tasks

Hydrological (four methods) and hydraulic (two methods) calculations

Closed conduit and open channel systems

Headwalls , culverts and other structures

Stormwater detention systems

Large scale urban and rural catchments

The DRAINS program has the ability to assist with the design and analysis of
hydrological calculations using quasiunsteady and unsteady hydraulic modelling of
systems with pipes, open channels and surface overflow routes. The original basic
hydraulic model (used for this project) combined: (a) hydraulic grade lines (HGL)
projected backwards from tailwater levels at drainage system outlets with; (b) a
pressure pipe calculation procedure, to calculate flowrate and HGL levels at pits and
other locations. This is a static pressure calculation, and does not take into account the
full St. Venant equation. DRAINS has three main applications which it cannot perform,
being:

46



i.

Continuous modelling over long periods (including wet and dry conditions)

ii.

Water quality modelling

iii.

2D unsteady flow modelling

There are four options in DRAINS which allow for the calculation of hydrological
models. These include the ILSAX method, rational method, extended rational method
and various storage routing methods. The ILSAX method is the main hydrological model
used to simulate the operation of urban stormwater drainage systems in DRAINS. The
model uses the timearea method and Horton infiltration procedures to calculate flow
hydrographs from subcatchments. The ILSAX method is detailed in section 3.3.2. A
hydraulic grade line (HGL) is calculated which is applied throughout the drainage
network, allowing the final flowrates and water levels to be determined. Figure 315
demonstrates the application of the ILSAX model during a rainfallrunoff simulation in
DRAINS. The user can input rainfall intensities for the catchment area, allowing for
hydrographs to be produced by the program.

47

Figure 315 DRAINS modelling incorporating the ILSAX hydrological and hydraulic method
(O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

DRAINS was originally designed to have a medium level of complexity for its hydraulic
calculations, providing stable, reasonably accurate results within a relatively small time
frame. As the development of urban system requirements has grown, the programs
hydraulic calculation techniques have been adapted and updated over the past decade.
The initial basic hydraulic model combined hydraulic grade lines (HGLs) projected
backwards from tailwater levels at drainage system outlets, in conjunction with a pipe
pressure procedure. This enabled the program to calculate flow rates and HGL levels at
pits and other locations using a quasiunsteady process. The properties for the surface
overflows were then computed, indicating the quantity of flow exiting an upwelling pit.
Recent updates to the program have replaced the initial procedure with a more complex
1D full unsteady flow analysis. The analysis can be applied to both pipe systems and
overland surface flows, depending on the type of model purchased from the company.

48


3.8.2.2 12d
12d is an Australian software package primarily used for civil engineering purposes,
particularly urban design. It allows users to easily model roads and drainage networks
over inputted survey data making hydrological surface flows simple to calculate.
Although 12d has the ability to model drainage networks, it is not solely a drainage
program. The user friendliness and simplicity of particular drainage infrastructures is
more complex than a pure drainage program such as DRAINS or XPStorm. The program
is highly popular within the Australian and New Zealand communities and is continually
being updated and improved (12D SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, 2010).
The flow analysis performed in 12d is a 1D fully unsteady dynamic procedure. Unlike
DRAINS this dynamic analysis allows water from overflowing structures to be
redirected towards other intakes within the system. This allows for a more realistic
scenario of water behaviour to be analysed and assessed, generally giving more
comprehensive results. This analysis can produce a more efficient design, however 12d
is limited to a 1D analysis, and surface flows are calculated using a 1D channel flow
analysis. 12d offers various hydrological methods such as rational, time area and unit
hydrograph, along with user inputted methods for infiltration losses, such as the
Hortons method. The user has the ability to use rainfall intensity tables and run the
preferred storm durations for the catchment area.
12d is highly versatile and useful, as the program offers a complete package of urban
design for roads, subdivisions and drainage networks. The program is diverse with its
file capabilities, and incorporates the transfer of information between 12d and several
other engineering programs (including XPStorm) which simplifies further analysis.
3.8.2.3 XPStorm
XPStorm is a comprehensive software package for modelling, planning and managing
sustainable drainage systems. The XPStorm package is an addon tool within the more
common computer package, XPSWMM. It is used by scientists, engineers and managers
to develop linknode models (1D), and spatially distributed hydraulic models (2D) for
analysis and design.

49


XPStorm has a comprehensive range for calculating both the hydrological and hydraulic
components of a drainage network. The program options range from the simple 1D
rational method to a complex 2D surface flow analysis, and consists of at least twenty
various types of hydrological methods. XPStorm offers six variations in determining the
losses via infiltration and evaporation. Two variations were used in this report: the
Hortons loss model; and the Uniform loss model. The uniform loss model uses a
constant infiltration rate over the duration of the storm as defined by the user.
The hydraulic analysis component of XPStorm, offers a various range of methods from
very simple steady analysis to a complex fully dynamic nonlinear approach. The
hydraulic components are purely 1D, however they can be linked to a 2D hydrological
surface. The 1D scheme uses a finite difference, secondorder, RungeKutta solution to
solve the fully unsteady dynamic equations (XP Software, 2012).
XPStorm uses the TUFLOW analysis package to solve the 2D model scenarios (XP
Software, 2011). TUFLOWs 2D solution is an enhancement of the Stelling finite
difference alternating direction implicit (ADI) scheme that implicitly solves the full 2D
free surface shallow water flow equations over a regular grid (TUFLOW, 2011). This
feature alone separates the program from the previous two (DRAINS and 12d) and
makes it much more complex and detailed in predicting surface flows.

50

4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

4.1 Criteria for Modelling
As todays urban drainage systems are generally modelled numerically with computer
programs incorporating several assumptions, rules and guidelines have been developed
to ensure that consistent modelling techniques and appropriate solutions are obtained.
Design parameters such as rainfall intensities and drainage restrictions have been
developed by the Australian Rainfall Runoff institution, and are reinforced by local
government authorities and councils. The guidelines provide every designer with the
same information and data, which is based upon historical records and accounts and is
constantly updated. This ensures that designs meeting these standards are valid, and
the probability/risk of failure is known to both the designer and local government
authorities.
4.1.1

Rainfall Information

Rainfall data for particular locations within Australia can be obtained from the Bureau
of Meteorology. The location (Easting and Northing) is required in order to obtain an
Intensity Frequency Duration (IFD) table, which uses several parameters to provide
rainfall intensities relative to durations and probabilities of storm events. The
information is based on statistical analysis which is constantly updated (Australian
Government, Bureau of Meteorology, 2012). Small urban designs generally use small
time of concentrations (Tc), as urban storms are generally short and intense. In these
cases the flow reaches the drainage network relativity quickly (less than 12 hours).
Rural areas and large catchment areas (such as dam catchment areas) can often use
longer storm duration (1272 hours), which expose the system to a constant inflow of
stormwater over several days. The two categories provide a different approach to the
systems capacity, and should be considered when designing any stormwater system.
4.1.2

Return Periods

The annual exceedance probability (AEP) and average recurrence interval (ARI) of a
storm event both allow for a quantifiable approach to be undertaken for the potential of

51


particular storm events occurring within a catchment area (The Institution of
Engineers, Australia , 1987). These are often referred to as Design Storms by Engineers
and other associated designers/contractors. ARIs are divided into categories of
probability, such as 1 in 10 year exceedance, and 1 in 100 year exceedance. The
terminology often refers to these as 10 year/100 year design storms. The storms
represent the estimated rainfall over a given time period for the relative storm event.
For example, a 100 year design storm event is considered a major storm event, where as
a 1 or 10 year storm event is considered to be a minor storm event. Particular design
requirements are outlined in the Australian Rainfall and Runoff guidelines for both
minor and major storms. The requirements, broadly speaking are outlined as follows:

Minor Storm Events (10 year)

The system must be able to safely capture and route all storm water, with
no pits upwelling (overflowing)

An appropriate freeboard must be allowed within pits, between the pit

water level and the surface (generally 0.15 m) to ensure that flows can
easily enter pits

The system must not have significant surface flows, i.e. all pits must
capture their designed inflow (with up to 20% bypass permissible)

The system should prevent flows in street gutters or channels from being
too wide (2 to 2.5 m)

Major Storm Events (100 year)

It is expected that the system will upwell/overflow and that surface flows
will be routed along roads, acting as a channels and consequently design
considerations are required

velocity and depth products must be kept below a limit (typically 0.4
m2/s) for pedestrian and (0.6 m2/s) vehicle safety

Flow levels should not come within a freeboard limit of habitable floor
levels in adjoining buildings (generally 0.30 to 0.50 m)

The ARI overestimates rainfall intensities, which provides a conservative approach to

the design methods and capacities of a system.

52


In terms of the long records of rainfall and their relatively long skews (which are highly
variable), a decision was made in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology that the
effect of expected probabilities would not be incorporated in the derivation of the
design of rainfall data for ARIs up to 100 years (The Institution of Engineers, Australia ,
1987).
4.1.3

Acceptable Computer Modelling Methods

Although there are many different modelling methods that are vastly different in their
approaches and techniques, most methods are generally acceptable, with adequate
reasoning and analysis provided by a professional engineer. Many areas rely on the
local council to provide approval and guidance regarding acceptable and appropriate
modelling methods (Maitland City Council, 2008), (The Institution of Engineers,
Australia , 1987) and (DAYARATNE, 2000). The detail of modelling and accuracy is
highly dependent on the catchment area and potential risk associated with storm water
damage. This is outlined further in Section 4.2.

4.2 The Liability of Professional Engineers in the Construction Industry Flood

Risks
The primary liability engineers face when engaging in construction projects, apart from
a breach of contract, is the tort of negligence. Contract law will hold an Engineering or
Design company accountable for the breach of a contract if the final design was contrary
to that which was stipulated in the agreed contract between the developer and the
Engineer (Kanellakis, 2012). This breach of contract may result in termination of the
contract and could lead to payment of damages in order to compensate the Developer.
Under the tort of negligence, the courts will hold that an Engineering company may hold
a duty of care towards a developer, or towards residents, to take reasonable steps to
ensure that no harm or damage results from faulty designs. In general, all parties
involved in construction and development decisions have a duty of care to take
reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable risks of injury or harm (including economic
harm). The duty of care relates to the residents and workers who will ultimately live or

53


work on that land (Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2006). This
holds particular relevance to participants in projects such as the one at hand, where
flooding and water damage due to faulty drainage design is possible.
An Engineers liability in NSW is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002. In suing for
negligence, a plaintiff must establish that:
i.
ii.
iii.

A duty of care existed

The duty of care was breached
Injury or damage (to person or property) arose

Furthermore, this legislation states that a person (in this case the Engineering company
or authority who gives consent for release of design plans) is not negligent in failing to
take precautions against a risk or harm, unless the risk was foreseeable. If the risk was
significant, and a reasonable person in the circumstances would have taken certain
precaution against risk or harm, then the person/company is liable (Department of
Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2006).
Conservational Engineers, designing plans for a coastal area prone to extreme weather
conditions, should know that major or severe flooding poses a significant risk, and also
that residents are vulnerable and not able to protect themselves from such events.
Flooding will also have severe impacts on other infrastructure such as roads, and poses
significant threats to the natural environment. Figure 41 shows the effects of flooding
at a flat intersection during the Newcastle flood of 2007.

54

Figure 41 Flooding on Flat Intersections, Newcastle 2007 (ABC, 2011)

The onus is on the Engineer to act reasonably in order to avoid loss or damage when
designing drainage for residential subdivisions. Although it is impossible to alleviate all
risks, the Engineer can reduce the risks of possible harm and/or damage resulting from
incorrect designs to a manageable level, and avoid prosecution. It is essential that the
designs for drainage be conducted in accordance with expert analysis and guidelines on
subdivision design in flood prone areas. Appropriate research into flood plans and
climate data should also be referenced (Department of Environment and Climate
Change NSW, 2006). The research of Nick Apostolidis (Kanellakis, 2012) has been noted
when preparing for climate risks and the modelling considerations for this project.
Apostolidis reveals that Australia has long been regarded as having one of the most
variable climates on the planet. He acknowledges that we cannot climate proof our
infrastructure, but we can better understand the possible risks and plan for extreme
weather events such as the millennium drought or the Queensland floods. These floods
highlighted the importance of understanding the consequence of developing urban
catchments in flood prone areas.

55


In addition, the recent Engineers Australia RISK 2012 conference at the Crown Plaza in
the Hunter Valley on 2022 September (Kanellakis, 2012), provided current information
regarding risk issues associated with construction and design. Once more steps such as
these will help mitigate risk such as flooding, and discharge the relevant duty of care
that arises from designing such infrastructure. This will lead to safer subdivisions, and
more profitable enterprises.

56

5 URBAN DRAINAGE COMPUTER ANALYSIS

5.1 Overview
A technical comparison between three programs was investigated using selected
scenarios, which demonstrated the various differences in the modelling programs:
DRAINS; 12d; and XPStorm. Two scenarios were devised to investigate the hydrological
and hydraulic differences within the programs, and the capabilities of modelling 2D
surface flows. The layout and basic premise of each scenario is outlined in the following
flowchart:

UrbanDrainage
Computer
Analysis

ComputerModelling

Scenarios
Performed

Scenario1

Scenario2

Section6:1D
Comparison

Section7:2DFlow
Analysis

DRAINS

ProgramsUsed

12d
XPStorm

CompareHydrology

Assessment

CompareHydraulics
AssessDifferences

XPStorm
HandCalculations

AssessCapabilities
AssesswithinUrban
ComparetoHand
CalculationTechniques

Figure 51 Urban Drainage Modelling Flow Chart

The first scenario was designed to highlight any major variations in solutions, giving
insight into future comparisons. The three programs used were modified in order to run

57


the same routing methods and loss models where possible, resulting in minimal
variation of results due to different analysis methods.
The primary focus of this project was undertaken in the second scenario. This scenario
assessed the capabilities and limitations of the newly acquired 2D software XPStorm
during a range of urban situations which may impact on the design approach of a
drainage system. Results from the 2D flow analysis were compared with the 1D
techniques used prior to the XPStorm software acquisition.

5.2 Scenario Data

Each scenario used data provided by PCB, which primarily comprised of required
information to run a stormwater analysis (in at least one program). The data had been
previously used in the development of existing systems, and is still being used for the
design and development of future stormwater networks. The data used included the
topography of the land, stormwater network layout, rainfall data and assumptions made
for losses. The data also contained detailed designs of the catchment area, both natural
(existing) and developed (design), which included road sections, house boundaries and
their relative pervious/impervious area ratios.
The topography of the land was surveyed by qualified surveyors of the company (PCB),
and this data remained consistent throughout the analysis for each given scenario. The
topography of the land is irrelevant for 1D analysis, as the catchment areas and slope of
the land are entered manually by the user. All other data concerning the pit and pipe
elevations/slopes were calculated once by the user in either the DRAINS or 12d
program, and then the data was transferred to the remaining programs for comparison.
The exchange of data between the existing programs and the new XPStorm program
was explored, and the technique needed to transfer and correlate relevant information
was developed. The integration of information was considered to be of importance to
the company, as future projects may be required to extract data from previous designs.
Details are outlined in Appendix F.

58

5.3 Modelling Parameters and Accuracy

The modelling of the scenarios used real world data that related to the catchment area.
As the project was primarily concerned with comparing three programs and their
abilities, any catchment area data could have been used. The first scenario used a
seamless transition of data exchange, which allowed for the majority of data to be
directly transferred between the programs, thus reducing the chance of invalid results
within one of the programs. The boundary conditions and pipe network were modified
in 12d, and exported to the other two programs, providing detailed topographic and
drainage information, and ensuring interprogram consistency.

6 SCENARIO 1 COMPARISON OF URBAN DRAINAGE MODELLING

(1D)
Company Reference Number: 03_106
Location: Ashtonfield
Programs Used: DRAINS, 12d and XPStorm

6.1 Overview
This scenario was selected for a 1D drainage comparison between the three programs
under investigation as it was simple, small and provided adequate detail regarding the
differences between each programs hydrological and hydraulic calculations. The results
from each program were tabulated and compared, with particular detail made to any
major discrepancies and/or similarities. The scenario was also used as the starting
point for testing and refining the transfer of model data between each program. The
results gathered from Scenario 1 provided valuable information regarding the
processes performed in each program, and highlighted any potential issues which may
occur during future comparisons between the programs.

59

6.2 Description of System

Scenario 1 is located at Ashtonfield, near East Maitland; the system has recently been
designed by PCB, and is yet to be constructed. It is an extension of an existing
development, and will contain a small road with several surrounding allotments, and a
drainage network independent of other surrounding networks. The network is
relatively small with two major pipe lines leading to a single outfall.

6.3 Previous Calculations

The system was initially modelled in DRAINS as this was the program used by the
company at the time. The catchment area was detailed using a simple percentage of
pervious and impervious areas, using the time area method. The program accounted for
losses through the soil using Hortons method for infiltration. As the system was
designed with DRAINS, the hydraulics of the system presented no upwelling at any pits,
which is an indication that a dynamic analysis will provide similar answers to the
DRAINS solution. As the catchment is a relatively small area and will not acquire any
significant flows (in comparison to much larger developments), no surface flow issues
were considered.

6.4 Storm Simulation

A single storm event from the IFD table was selected to compare all three programs, as
this provided adequate information required for a simulation comparison. The worst
case storm was found using DRAINS and replicated in the remaining two programs as
the design storm. This provided the catchment with specific rainfall and intensity data,
reducing the variables in the simulation and allowing for more valid comparisons. The
IFD data is provided in Appendix A.

6.5 Modelling the System

All Nodes (Pits) and links (Pipes/Channels) were checked for consistent location,
dimensions, and type, size and material properties throughout the transfers. The
catchment details were replicated between each node with attention to the percentage

60


of pervious and impervious areas. The modelling for XPStorm did not require a 2D flow
analysis, as the aim was to determine the differences between the programs
calculations and compare the results as simply as possible.
The system was transferred from DRAINS to 12d and simulated using a dynamic
analysis. The data was then exported from the 12d model to the XPStorm program,
where again, a dynamic simulation was performed. The hydrological component of the
modelling was simulated using the time area method. All three models used Hortons
infiltration loss model, with the same parameters for soil type and AMC. The
hydrological flows were recorded for each node and results from each program were
compared. As the same method was used it was anticipated that the results from the
three simulations would closely coincide.
Although the hydraulic results are directly related to the inflow entering the system
(hydrological component), the solutions obtained were compared to determine any
differences in the hydraulic analysis.
6.5.1

Transfer of data between programs

The first and foremost consideration when comparing three different programs was to
ensure the input data was exactly the same. This included hydrological data, hydraulic
drainage, pit details, rainfall data, storm events and durations. The following flowchart
displays compatibility between programs:

61

DRAINS

12d
XPStorm

Figure 61 Flowchart of the Programs Transfer Capabilities

As shown in Figure 61, 12d was found to be the one program that was compatible with
both XPStorm and DRAINS, and as such it was used as the base program. The transfer
from 12d to XPStorm was crucial and is a valuable to PCB, as current systems modelled
in 12d can now be transferred to the new program.
6.5.2

Comparison of data and results

The models were compared to determine any differences due to calculation techniques
and to investigate overall consistency of results. The comparison also highlighted how
different limitations in modelling can affect solutions and outputs from each program.
As each program was developed by different companies and programmers, their
outputs such as time steps, units and representation (graphs or tables) are presented in
varied ways. These differences have impacted on the validity of the comparison of
results, and to address these Excel spreadsheets were developed. The output from the
three programs contained large quantities of numerical data that was organised into
consistent tables. This data was rearranged and converted into similar forms, enabling
valid comparisons of graphs and results to be produced. . The entire data set was too
large to be presented in a hardcopy report (300+ pages per storm, per program of raw
data) and consequently only a select amount of concise and relative data is presented in
this report and the appendices.

62

6.6 Results
The three programs were simulated using the design storm, and their hydrological and
hydraulic results are compared in Figure 62. The average values obtained from DRAINS
and 12d were compared to the XPStorm solutions, highlighting any significant
variations.

HydrologicalFlowComparisons
120
100
80
Flow(m/s) 60
40
20
0
PITX3

PITY1

PITX4

PITX5

PITZ1

PITZ3

PITZ4

PITZA1

PITZ5

PITZ6

PitName
DRAINS

12d

XPStorm

XPStorm_Uniformloss

Figure 62 Hydrological Comparison of Drainage Models

Figure 62 shows that the predicted hydrological values are similar for both the DRAINS
and 12d models, while XPStorm produced higher flow rates, even though each of the
three models were running the same 1D hydrological method and infiltration loss
technique (Hortons). Although the values vary, they all follow a similar trend with the
exception of PITZ1.
Pits PITZ3 and PITZ4 have produced the same output results using all three programs,
as there was no pervious area allocated to those pits, i.e. all areas were impervious, with
no infiltration loss. This factor was later found to account for the variance in the results.
It was discovered that the difference in the hydrological results was directly related to

63


the losses model, which simulated a loss in the surface flow over pervious areas due to
infiltration.
All the programs ran using the Hortons loss method, with the exact type of soil and
AMC values selected; this is further outlined in Appendix A. As a result, numerous
checks were performed to validate the data being entered into the model for the
Hortons loss calculations. As DRAINS and 12d had the same infiltration losses, XPStorm
was seen to be the outlier. Technical support was sought and a solution for the variance
was not initially evident. Consequently, the use of a uniform loss method was added to
provide the best approximation for the results obtained from DRAINS and 12d. The
results from all three programs were compared to the actual numerical calculation of
the Hortons function as noted in Section 3.3.4. This is outlined in Figure 63.

InfiltrationLossComparison
80
70
60
50
Infiltration
Capacity(mm/hr)

40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

10
XPStorm(Horton)

60

80

100

120

140

160

Time(min)
12d(Horton)

Function(Horton)

XPStorm(UniformLoss)

Figure 63 Infiltration Loss Comparison

It can be seen in Figure 63 that there is poor correlation with all results for Hortons
methods. DRAINS is not able to produce the infiltration loss results, and therefore

64


cannot be included in this comparison. As the DRAINS hydrological results seen in
Figure 62 are similar to 12d, it can be assumed that the infiltration losses are also
similar. The uniform loss best represents the function trend, however it has no
mathematical association with the Hortons method. As the Hortons method and its
associated values in both DRAINS and 12d are incorporated into the programs software
by the developer, they were assumed to be correct.
The Hydraulic results are directly related to the hydrological solution; consequently a
comparison is deduced from their relative differences. The results are presented in
Figure 64, indicating the hydraulic flow through the pipe network.

HydraulicFlowComparison
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
Flow(m3/s) 1000
800
600
400
200
0

PitName
DRAINS

12d

XPStorm

XPStorm_Uniformloss

Figure 64 Hydraulic Flow Comparison

The hydraulic results correlate relatively well, with consideration to the hydrological
inflows. As expected, the XPStorm results are higher than the DRAINS and 12d solutions

65


following a similar pattern and result with respect to the inflow. The uniform loss
results from XPStorm were similar in the hydrological analysis and were slightly higher
in the hydraulic analysis. The higher flow differences are clearly displayed in Figure 64
and a more detailed graph displaying the lower flows is shown in Figure 65.

HydraulicFlowComparion(Detail)
350
300
250
200
Flow(m3/s)
150
100
50
0

PitName
DRAINS

12d

XPStorm

XPStorm_Uniformloss

Figure 65 Hydraulic Flow Comparison (Detailed)

The detailed results shown in Figure 65 generally follow the same pattern seen in
Figure 64. However, the XPStorm Uniform loss solutions are lower than the DRAINS
and 12d results, which is opposite to the results obtained for higher flows. With flows
less than approximately 250 m3/s, The DRAINS results are slightly higher than the 12d
results and the XPStorm Uniform Loss results, indicating that the DRAINS method may
overestimate results for lower flows. The greater momentum in unsteady dynamic
models (such as 12d or XPStorm) caused the higher flows to increase in magnitude, and
had a reduced effect on the lower flows.

66

6.7 Discussion and Conclusion

The results from scenario 1 indicated that there are differences between each programs
calculation techniques, with XPStorm overestimating hydrological flowrates when
compared to DRAINS and 12d. The most evident and substantial issue was found to be
the influence of the infiltration loss modelling. Although DRAINS and 12d were relatively
similar, some small variations were apparent, which related to issues in the simulation
of the time area method. The hydraulic analysis comparison showed that all results had
similar trends in relation to their hydrological inflows. The differences between the
unsteady DRAINS solution and unsteady dynamic solutions (12d and XPStorm) were
marginal, indicating that the system had few pressure variations within the pipe
network, and that either method would be acceptable for hydraulic calculations for the
given catchment.
The comparison of hydrological and hydraulic analyses was successful and provided
valuable information about the programs, and how their solutions can be compared in
future developments. Caution needs to be taken when comparing 1D hydrological flows,
especially between XPStorm and DRAINS /12d. Generally, the 1D surface flows
calculated in XPStorm were greater than those calculated in the other two programs.
It is recommended that further investigation into the variations of the Hortons loss
model be developed, and brought to the attention of the developers if a solution cannot
be obtained. Using the method incorrectly in XPStorm can greatly impact on the final
design of a drainage network, which could increase the cost of construction for an over
conservative design. In addition DRAINS and 12d results may offer more conservative
solutions, which could result in a drainage system that cannot handle the design floods.

67

7 SCENARIO 2 TWODIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

Reference Number: 07_49
Location: Aberglasslyn
Programs Used: XPStorm

7.1 Introduction and Aims

Due to the recent acquisition of the XP Storm program by PCB, there was little
knowledge regarding the modelling and running of the program, therefore there was a
need to assess its capabilities. A small scale situation was selected which allowed the
2D model to be constructed and enabled a simple program analysis to be conducted,
without encountering any major technical issues that can occur on a larger scale.
The twodimensional analysis was modelled and assessed to determine the effects of
particular obstacles that surface flow may encounter. Various situations were
investigated at a small urban intersection with a simple drainage network. As the
analysis was purely focused on 2D surface flow, and the programs DRAINS and 12d are
limited to 1D analysis techniques, the scenarios were only modelled using XPStorm.
Although the 1D programs are limited, they are still commonly used along with hand
calculations and assumptions to determine 2D effects. In addition to computer
modelling, a common practice to determine the flow widths at sections of road is the
use of hand calculations; this is also assessed, and compared with the results obtained
by the software.
The drainage network for this scenario is located at Aberglasslyn, near Maitland and
although not yet constructed, is nearing the completion of its design stage. The initial
drainage network design has been used for this study, although it is not the final design
determined by the company, as the intersection is still subject to change in the design
phase.

68


The focus is on two intersecting roads: one relatively flat with minimal fall, and the
other fairly steep. This type of intersection presents a common issue for drainage
designers, with the main concern being how to determine the flow widths of bypassing
storm water.

7.2 XPStorm Modelling

The modelling of the drainage network system in XPStorm allowed for a detailed
computer generated analysis of flow widths at the intersection. The network was
imported from the initial 12d model using the data transfer technique outlined in
Appendix F. The topography (including road design) of the designed surface was also
imported, allowing for the system to be replicated without changes to layout or relative
locations of the drainage network.
Technical assistance was obtained from XPSolutions noting that that aspects of the
finite solution, due to its limited 2D rather than 3D methods, may impact on the
capabilities of modelling the interaction between flow paths. The flow properties shown
in diagrams and tables represent the maximum and worst case scenario for the
simulation. When reviewing the results a simulation can be played over the duration of
the storm, showing the movement of flow, and how it reaches its destination.
7.2.1

Storm Simulated

A hypothetical storm analysis was simulated to highlight the potential risks of surface
flow at a road intersection. The design storm was modelled simply as an inflow entering
the road from an upstream catchment. The flow rate was previously obtained by PCB
using the 12d program at an overflowing pit upstream during a 100 year flood event.
XPStorm has the ability to simulate design storms using IFD tables and other methods,
however it was considered appropriate to simply use a rated inflow for the 2D surface
flow analysis. The storm lasted for approximately 30 min, which is relatively short,
allowing for a smaller grid size to be used. Shorter duration storms reduced the run
time of the model and increased its efficiency. The hydrograph for the storm event is
shown in Figure 71.

69

SurfaceFlowEnteringSystem
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Flow(m3/s)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Time(hours)

Figure 71 Hydrograph of design storm/flow used for 2D analysis

The flow shown in Figure 71 enters the intersection from the connecting steep road.
The location of the intersection and surrounding urban environment is shown in Figure
72.

70

Potential Flood Risk

High Velocity Surface Flow

Entering Intersection

Figure 72 Plan view of scenario 2 (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012)

The system shown in Figure 72 indicates that Road 2 is relatively steep before it
intersects with Road 1. The steep grade of Road 2 causes the flow speed to increase,
which can present issues once it reaches the intersection. The momentum and velocity
of a flow travelling into the intersection may have the potential to overtop the crest of
the adjacent road and flood either side of Road 1 and/or 2 at the intersection. This could
present risks to adjacent properties and drainage systems that were not designed to
accommodate the additional water. Also, as regulations state, flow widths must meet
the standards set by local councils and government authorities in order to deem the
design safe for the general public, as outlined in Section 4. The modelling of the
intersection is shown in Figure 73.

71


Flatter Intersection
Oversized Pipe Network
(500 mm)

Dish Drain (gully)

Secondary, Diversion Pit
(1.8EKI)

Pit Drainage Outfall and

edge of 2D analysis area

Crown of Road (ridge)

Downpipe Entering Road

Main Inlet Pit

(1.8EKI)

Flow Entering From Node 1

Figure 73 Modelling Layout (XPStorm)

Figure 73 displays a screenshot of the XPStorm model with relative points labelled. The
drainage system was oversized as the analysis was only concerned with the surface flow
of water. Subsequently, an oversized system will have a reduced chance of upwelling
pits or surcharging which may impact on the surface flow results.
7.2.2

Grid Sizes

The grid size was one of the fundamental parameters in a 2D finite analysis. As the grid
spacing was reduced, the accuracy and detail of the surface flow increased. The grid
spacing, however, was limited to the capabilities of the program and computer power.
Extremely small grid spacing caused the program to crash as a result of unstable finite
equations, which struggled to converge to a solution, causing the simulation to
terminate. An iterative process was performed to find the optimum grid size, by
providing the smallest grid spacing allowable without the program crashing. Table 71

72


presents the results of the grid spacing with a description of the model output. Figure
74 and Figure 75 display the graphical output of the models and highlight the
difference in the level of accuracy as a result of the varying grid sizes.
Table 71 Grid Sizing for 2D Model

Grid Size

Detail

Description

1 m

None

1.25 m

Finest

2 m

Poor

5 m

Very Poor

The grid size was too small for the model, and the program
failed to run, hence no solution
Smallest grid size found to work with model
An increase to a 2m grid reduced the detail of the flow,
especially at crucial points
A 5m gird did not give an accurate prediction of the overland
flooding in the model and gave ineffectual results for the
small catchment area

Figure 74 2D Solution for Outlet A at 1.25m Grid Spacing

73

Figure 75 2D Solution for Outlet A at 5m Grid Spacing

It can be seen in Figure 74 and Figure 75 that the detail greatly reduces as the grid
sizing increases. Kerbs and gutters or small inflections of height cannot be defined. In
reality, despite their small scale, kerbs and gutters channel significant surface flows, and
must be considered. To overcome this issue, a gully line was inserted along the base
line of the kerb, and given a varying height (invert level of kerb) along the length of the
road. This is represented by the small blue line along the edge of the road (Figure 74
and Figure 75). The program recognises the gully line as a small channel and routes the
water along it, as if it was a kerb. Similarly, ridge lines indicate a raised section along a
channel, such as the crown of the road. These are represented in XPStorm by the green
line along the centre of the road. The model was made as accurately as possible within
the design limits of the program. Technical support confirmed the correct use of
modelling components such as grid sizes, pits and 2D mesh layout.
The road surface was given a 2D mesh and a roughness factor (mannings n = 0.012)
which was connected to the drainage network, allowing for surface flows to be
accurately represented along the road. Standard pits have been used which are rated by

74


kerb inlet curves, as outlined in Appendix E. The pits are 1.8 Extended Kerb Inlets
(EKIs), and are commonly used within Australia. Although the pits are an essential part
of the flow analysis, their size does not impact on the comparative results obtained from
the scenario.
7.2.3

Previous assumptions and calculations

The system was initially modelled in 12d, using the dynamic 1D flow analysis method.
An analysis of the 2D surface flows was not achievable using the 12d model;
subsequently assumptions were made regarding the dynamic hydrological flow at the
intersection. To compensate for this lack of data, hand calculations were used to
determine the flow widths at given points along the kerb of the road.
7.2.4

Effects of Surface Flows due to Road Steepness

Road steepness has a direct impact on the surface flow of stormwater runoff. A
relatively flat road will allow water to store and pond. Ponding can occur on a flat
section of road due to water not moving and filling the pits to capacity, resulting in a
slow rate of drainage and flooding of a small section. This is highly common in
intersections that have roads of varying steepness meeting, resulting in a flat area at the
intersection. An example of ponding is shown in Figure 76.

75

Figure 76 Water Ponding at Flat Intersection, Cardiff 2012

In contrast, water flowing along steep roads has increased velocity and momentum,
which can potentially overshoot the designated pit. If a flow does not reach its
designated pit it must be diverted elsewhere to another downstream pit which may
reach its capacity more quickly with the added flow. Another alternative is that water
may enter an adjacent property causing significant flooding and damage. An example of
a very steep section of road with high velocity flows is given in Figure 77.

76

Figure 77 Steep Road Section (No Ponding), Garden Suburb 2012

The steepness of the road will affect the interaction of surface flow with any
obstructions. As slower moving water will have greater depth, interactions between
obstructions and downpipes can cause significant flooding, whereas faster flowing
water will be diverted over a greater distance. As the responsibility lies with the
engineer to account for such possibilities within the design, a 2D analysis can provide
solutions that are numerically supported and can graphically display results that can be
interpreted by managers and decision makers. The assumed affects of surface flow
interacting with the steepness of the road and various obstructions is detailed in Figure
78.

77

Possible Ponding
Due to excessive flow

Obstruction/Downpipe
Designated Capture Pit

Fast Water Diverting

over road, possibly
into properties

Fast water (flat road)

Slow water (flat road)
Figure 78 Effects of velocity and flow direction

It can be seen in Figure 78 that the flow paths are estimated to either divert completely
downstream (steep road, high velocity) or continue to flow back towards the
intersection and pond (flat road, low velocity). The gradient of the road at Aberglasslyn
was designed and modelled using 12d, then the design contours were exported to
XPStorm, where the storm was simulated. The grade (gradient, %) was reduced from
the initial design to give a very flat road of 0.5% and also increased to a steep road of
16%. A road steepness of 20% was trialled, however issues with the modelling limited
the maximum steepness of the road to approximately 1016%. This is further outlined
in Section 7.4.2.

7.3 Scenario A Effects of a Downpipe on Surface Flow

In Scenario A, the flow of a highly concentrated jet of water impacting on an adjacent
sheet flow just before the intersection, was assessed. This is a relevant concern as
stormwater downpipes from allotments are perpendicular to the road and can eject
high amounts of water in turbulent flow, possibly at high velocities and magnitudes. The

78


effect of this jetting water can have a direct impact on the upstream runoff surface flow
travelling down the road. As the magnitude and velocity increase, the jet of water may
have the potential to redirect the surface flow, causing it to miss the design pit or
possibly cross an intersection and miss the assumed route altogether. There are several
parameters which affect this analysis, such as the amount of flow from both the jet of
water and surface flow, the topography of the channelling road(s) and the location of
particular infrastructures such as pits relative to the downpipes. A graphical
representation of the downpipe interference is shown in Figure 79.

Catchment Area
(Impervious Roof)

Residential House

Head Pressure

Down Pipe

High Velocity Flow Exiting

Down Pipe onto Street

Road

Figure 79 Effects from Down Pipe

As the aim of the scenario was to determine if XPStorm could model the effects of
obstructions with surface flow (such as downpipes), a large amount of water was
entered into the downpipe link. This water allowed the pipe to operate at full capacity
under pressure, with a steep slope along the length of the pipe, producing high outflow
and velocity. This was performed to achieve a clear result and represent a worst case
scenario (during a major storm). This will result in very conservative solutions, where
the effects will be clear and trends can be deduced. Using XPStorm, the pipes capacity
was calculated for every step in size and an appropriate amount of water was provided

79


through all pipe sizes to ensure they ran at full capacity for at least 15 min during a 30
min storm.

Down Pipe Entering

Street

Diverted Flow

Obstructions

Figure 710 Effects of Downpipe on Steep Road, Garden Suburb 2012

The effects of a surface flow being rerouted, and not accounted for in drainage design,
leaves the designer legally vulnerable. An upstream pit failing to capture its design flow
may affect a property further downstream far beyond the assumed route of the flow.
Excessive flows may also accumulate, building momentum and magnitude, causing
extreme danger for residents in the path of the flow.
The model was simulated using a variety of pipe diameters to represent different flows.
The initial flow captured (without any downpipe) was recorded, and noted to be 100%
capture (this was represented by the hydrograph in Figure 71). The 100% represents
the amount of flow captured prior to the downpipe influencing the flow; it is not to be
mistaken with capturing 100% of the total surface flow. The range of downpipes were

80


modelled, using uniform sizes of 50, 100, 200 and 300 mm, and their contributing flow
was recorded. The most common residential downpipe is approximately 90 mm (PCB
Surveyors & Engineers, 2012). It is common for subdivided lots to have two or three
pipes at the one location, giving purpose for the 300 mm downpipe consideration.
7.3.1

Results

The effects of the downpipe were assessed and compared to the relative discharge
influencing the surface flow. As the downpipe size increased, the flowrate became
larger, which would have a greater impact on the direction and velocity of the surface
flows. The relative velocities and depths for the grade of each road are presented in
Figure 711 and Figure 712 respectively.

VelocityofFlowwithDownpipe
7
6
5
Velocity(m/s)

Grade0.5%

Grade4%

Grade9%

1
0
0

100

200

300

400

SizeofDownpipe(m)

Figure 711 Velocity of flow with effects of a downpipe

81

DepthofFlowWithDownpipe
0.25
0.2
0.15
Grade0.5%

Depth(m)
0.1

Grade4%

0.05

Grade9%

0
0

100

200

300

400

SizeofDownpipe(m)

Figure 712 Depth of flow with effects of a downpipe

The trends in Figure 711 and Figure 712 correlated with the assumptions previously
described. As the road steepness increased the velocities became greater, and depth of
flows decreased. This is shown at the beginning of each graph, with zero influence from
the downpipe. The velocity between the 4% and 9% grade however indicated
contradicting solutions, as the steeper 9% grade road initially had a slower velocity
than the flatter 4% grade road. As the steepness of the road increased the accuracy
decreased as outlined in Section 3.5.4. As the downpipe size increased, velocities also
increased along with the depth. The velocity of the 9% grade road had a sharp increase
when using a 300 mm downpipe, which suggests again that the model was becoming
inaccurate due to its finite element calculation techniques.
It was found that the influences of the downpipe reduced the amount of pit capture and
resulted in surface flows being diverted downstream. Table 72 displays the relative
discharges from the downpipes and their general influence on the nearby pit.

82


Table 72 Effects of Downpipes

Size of Downpipe Flow (max)(m3/s)

Small, 50mm
0.0034
Average, 100mm

0.0208

Average,
200mm

0.01375

Large, 300mm

0.03993

Effects Downstream
Minor disturbance
Moderate disturbance, with loss of
capture
High disturbance, with great loss of
capture
Significant effects, with significant
losses and diverted flows

It can be seen in Table 72 that as the pipe sizes increased, greater flowrates would have
impacts on the downstream areas of the system. The modelling of the system proved to
represent the influences of the downpipe reasonably well. The results obtained from the
downpipe analyses corresponded well to the estimated impacts and observed sightings.
Figure 713 shows the results of the effects of a varying downpipe with the changing
road gradient.

PercentageofCapturewithDownpipe
100%
80%
Percentageof
Capture

60%
0.5%Grade
40%

4%Grade

20%

9%Grade

0%
0

100

200

300

400

SizeofDownpipe(full)

Figure 713 Effects of Downpipes on Surface Flow

The results from Figure 713 indicate that the size of the downpipe and gradient of the
road are directly proportional to the percentage of flow captured from the nearby pit.
As the pipe size increased the effects on the total amount of flow diminished
substantially. The magnitude of loss was also related to the gradient of the road: as the

83


road became steeper the loss occurred more rapidly, as predicted with the diversion of
flows.
The overall effects at the downstream location of the intersection were also
proportional to the increase in gradient of the road and the relative downpipe size. The
downstream effects of the downpipe are displayed in Table 73. Complete graphical
outputs from the program are given in Appendix B.
Table 73 Downstream Effects of Downpipes

DownpipeWidth
(mm)
RoadSteepness(%)
0.5
4
9

50

100

200

300

None
None
None

Minor
Minimal
None

Minor
Minor
None

Moderate
Moderate
Minor

Severe
Severe
Severe

KEY
None Minimal or no water had crossed the intersection
Minimal/Minor/ Moderate Some water has crossed the intersection and been captured
by the alternate pit
Severe Large amounts of water crossed the road and the alternate pit could not handle
the large amount of flow, resulting in ponding or diverted water downstream.

The results shown in Table 73 indicate that a larger downpipe can cause flow to jump
an intersection and cross to the other side of the road, possibly causing significant
effects on other drainage networks or adjacent properties.
7.3.2

Discussion and Conclusion

The results indicate that there is a significant decrease in the amount of flow captured
as a result of the downpipe interference. As the pipe size increased, greater amounts of
flow were diverted away from the pit inlet, reducing the total amount of capture. This
indicates that there is a vector and volume relationship between the downpipe flows
and surface flows travelling down the street. If downpipes are located near the inlet of a
drainage pit, consideration and investigation into the effects should definitely be
assessed by the designer. Mitigation for such effects may include the relocation of the

84


downpipe or placing additional pits within the system at locations not affected by
downpipes. The risk of such an event is regarded to be foreseeable and therefore the
responsibility of the designer. Hence, the effects and location/size of downpipes are to
be seriously considered when designing a drainage network.

7.4 Scenario B Obstruction

A common issue with drainage networks are interferences caused by obstructions,
which can cause blockages in pits and also have the potential to divert flow away from
the designated inlet pit. Obstructions can range from a small build up of leaves to large
obstacles such as fallen trees. More common obstructions can be misplaced objects such
as wheelie bins or skate boards, and also vehicle tyres parked close to the edge of the
kerb. All of these obstructions can impact on the direction of water flow down a road. If
an obstruction occurs just prior to an inlet pit, significant issues can arise if the flow
cannot enter the pit. In this case the flow will be diverted downstream to the next pit,
which was not designed for the increase in flow. An example of a common obstruction is
shown in Figure 714. As the flow continues to travel downstream an accumulation of
water will increase the flows magnitude, which may have significant impacts on
downstream properties or infrastructure.

85

Diverted Flow

Figure 714 Misplaced Wheelie Bin Causing Flow Diversions, Garden Suburb 2012

The size of obstruction modelled and their possible cause is outlined in Table 74. The
obstructions were given a height greater than the water level, preventing the water
from spilling over the obstruction. This highlighted the effects of a large obstruction and
the diverted flow path within the model. Obstructions were modelled using a Ridge
Line which could be allocated a height and represented an infinitely strong and
impervious layer.
Table 74 Flow Characteristics with Modelled Obstructions

Size of Obstruction
Small, less than 0.2m
Medium, (1m)
Large (3m)
Extremely Large (5m)

Description
The obstruction may be as a result of a car or
truck tyre, build up of leaves etc.
The obstruction may be a result of a wheelie bin or
dumped items on the side of the road.
The obstruction may be due to debris from a
storm. This occupies less than half of the road
width.
The obstruction may be a result of fallen trees or
large amounts of debris after a major storm event.
This occupies more than half the road width.
86


7.4.1

Results

The flows were assessed for a variety of obstructions and steepness of road. The results
are displayed in Figure 715.

EffectsofObstructionsonCapturedFlow
0.035
0.03
0.025
FlowCapture 0.02
(m3/s)
0.015

Grade0.5%
Grade4%

0.01

Grade9%

0.005
0
0

SizeofObstruction(m)

Figure 715 Effects of Obstructions on Captured Flows with Relation to Road Grade

The captured flows shown in Figure 715 represent the flows captured in the main pit,
as indicated in Figure 73. Similar to the downpipe interference, as the road steepness
increased, captured flows reduced in proportion to the size of the obstruction. The
results of the flatter 0.5% gradient road indicates that water, although diverted, had a
greater ability to move around the obstruction and enter the designated pit. This is due
to the lower velocities as a result of a flatter section of road. The steeper 4% and 9%
gradient roads have very similar patterns, indicating that once a road reaches a
particular gradient, the flow will be diverted around the pit. A surface flow with a
reasonably high velocity (greater than 2.5 m/s) will be more affected by obstructions on
the road than slower moving flows. The diverted flows can affect downstream areas of
the catchment as displayed in Figure 716.

87

EffectsofObstructionsonDivertedFlow
0.14
0.12
0.1
FlowCapture
(m3/s)

0.08
Grade0.5%
0.06

Grade4%
Grade9%

0.04
0.02
0
0

SizeofObstruction(m)

Figure 716 Effects of Obstructions on Diverted Flows

The diverted flows shown in Figure 716 represent flows captured on the opposite side
of the road, in an alternate pit downstream from the main pit (shown in Figure 715).
The results have a unique trend, which corresponds to the steepness of the road and the
velocity at which the water is travelling. The flat 0.5% grade road indicates that the
water is not diverted until an obstruction greater than 3 m wide is encountered. The
rate at which the diverted flow is directed into the alternate pit increases rapidly, as the
flow has a low velocity and ponds at the intersection (either side). The water flow on
the slightly steeper 4% grade road has a much quicker response time compared to the
flat 0.5% grade. Diverted flows begin to flow into the alternate pit after hitting a 200
mm wide obstruction. The increase in capture is proportional to the obstruction width
and reduces slightly after hitting a 3 m wide obstruction, indicating that the alternate pit
has reached its capacity.
The effects on the downstream intersection have been summarised into Table 73 and
Table 75. Graphical representations of the 2D simulations are given in Appendix B.

88


Table 75 Downstream Effects due to Obstruction

EffectsDownstream
ObstructionWidth
(m)
RoadSteepness(%)
Grade0.5%
Grade4%
Grade9%

Obstruction

0.2

None
None
None

Minor
Minor
None

Minor
Minor
Minor

Minor
Moderate
Moderate

High
High
High

KEY
None Minimal or no water had crossed the intersection
Minor to Moderate Some water has crossed the intersection and been captured by the
alternate pit
High All water was diverted to alternate pit
It can be seen in Table 73 and Table 75 that the larger the downpipe flow or
obstruction, the greater the diverted flow. This was anticipated as the greater the
obstruction, the less chance water will have to enter a nearby pit and will be diverted
further downstream to another location.
7.4.2

Modelling Issues and Accuracy

As the 2D modelling system (XPStorm) was relatively new to the company, several
programming issues and technical difficulties arose. Although results were obtained,
further analysis into improving the capabilities and accuracy of the model are required
to refine the results presented. Technical support was sought from XPSolutions and the
models were simulated as well as possible given time the frame. Some issues that
limited the scope of the 2D analysis are presented in the following section.
7.4.2.1 Steepness of Road
The steepness of the road had effects on the accuracy of the model simulation, and
limited the range of simulations that could be compared. The initial three roads with
gradients of 0.5%, 4% and 9% respectively, all ran on the minimum grid size of 1.25 m.
However, attempts to model a steeper road, at a 16% grade, resulted in the simulation
terminating due to errors within the program. It was later deduced that the steeper
heights impacted on the finite elements average height calculations as the vectors did

89


not converge with one another (as described in equation 7, Section 3.6). Divergent
effects began to appear with the 16% grade road, as it required a larger grid size (2 m)
to operate and present a solution. The larger grid size provided enough area for an
average height, which allowed the program to converge the depths and velocities. The
larger grid size however caused a loss of accuracy and detail from the simulation.
Further investigation into the program capabilities revealed that steeper roads such as
20% grade required even greater grid sizes to operate. Errors displayed by XPStorm are
noted in Figure 717. The models accuracy was checked by technical support staff at
XPSolutions (Steve, 2012) and it was indicated that the model could not have smaller
grid sizes and was as accurate as possible for the required scenarios.

Extremely Deep
Water
Non Converging
Velocities

Non Converging Depth

Errors at Steep Sections

Figure 717 Steep Road (25%) @ 1.25m Grid Spacing, Unstable

As a result of the unstable 2D model, attempts were made to simulate the steep road
using greater grid sizes. This is an issue with both the computational power of the
computer system and the ability of the finite element modelling to simulate sections of

90


road greater than a gradient of 10 (which is approximately a grade of 18%) as outlined
in section 3.6. Figure 75 indicates the loss in accuracy due to the larger grid sizes,
making it difficult to compare the results with the initial analysis of flatter roads.

Figure 718 Steep Road Successful Simulation @ 2.5 Grid Spacing, Poor Accuracy

It should be noted that the results found from the initial three simulations (0.5%, 4%
and 9% grade) present a much more realistic solution, as roads are very rarely steeper
than 16% (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012). The purpose of simulating steeper roads
was to identify a trend/pattern. This was achieved in the initial three simulations, which

91


are all modelled with the same grid spacing and accuracy. Further investigation into the
simulation of steeper roads should be assessed when required.
The development of additional graphs using a steeper road (16% grade) indicated that
the patterns were similar. However, it did not follow the trends of the initial three
simulations. This is displayed in Figure 719, which indicates that the decreasing
capture rate relative to the road steepness does not continue with the 16% grade road,
indicating accuracy issues within the program.

PercentageofCapturewithDownpipe
120.00%
100.00%
80.00%
0.5%Grade

FlowCaptured 60.00%

4%Grade

40.00%

9%Grade
16%Grade

20.00%
0.00%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

DownpipeSize(mm)

Figure 719 Effects of Downpipe with Steeper Roads

It is shown in Figure 720 and Figure 721 that the steeper 16% grade road has a loss of
accuracy and validity of results when modelling the effects of an obstruction.

92

EffectsofObstructionsonCapturedFlow
0.035
0.03
0.025
FlowCapture
(m3/s)

0.02

Grade0.5%
Grade4%

0.015

Grade9%
0.01

Grade16%

0.005
0
0

SizeofObstruction(m)

Figure 720 Effects of Obstructions on Steeper Roads

EffectsofObstructionsonDivertedFlow
0.14
0.12
0.1
FlowCapture 0.08
(m3/s)
0.06

Grade0.5%
Grade4%
Grade9%

0.04

Grade16%

0.02
0
0

SizeofObstruction(m)

Figure 721 Diverted Flows on Steeper Roads

93


The trends and patterns of the 16% grade road, shown in Figure 720 and Figure 721
do not correlate with the initial results, which had a smaller grid sizing. The smaller grid
size results in a more accurate finite element analysis.
7.4.3

Discussion and Conclusion of 2D results

The solutions obtained from the 2D analysis using XPStorm provided expected results
that correlated well with assumed flow directions. The modelling provided numerical
solutions and graphical representations of surface flows interacting with other flows
from downpipes and obstructions. The interference of such obstructions reduced the
amount of flow captured from nearby pits and resulted in water being diverted
downstream causing some significant issues. The accuracy of the model was limited by
the grid sizing and computational power of the computer. Further investigation into
reducing the grid sizes further will provide more accurate solutions for future scenarios.
Although the grid sizes were relatively large and the model was limited to certain
restrictions, such as the steepness of the roads being assessed, it was still capable of
simulating the required scenario. XPStorm demonstrated its capability for modelling of
2D flow interactions within a small urban area and was concluded to provide a
successful solution, despite the inaccuracies for roads with gradients greater than 16%.

7.5 2D Analysis with Hand Calculations

The flow widths were initially calculated by hand, using hand calculation techniques as
outlined in Section 3.7. The network was initially modelled in 12d and included the
stormwater network for the entire subdivision. As the scenario is only concerned with a
small section of the subdivision, flow calculations were primarily focused at a given
location. The bypass flow at the top section of Road 1 was found using 12d, and results
were used in the flow width hand calculations. The flow widths were calculated
assuming the flow did not change, that is, assuming the upstream pit was completely
blocked and failed to capture any water. As such, the flow remained constant at 78 L/s
(0.078 m3/s) and this flow was used at every section of road. The calculations were in
1D and only accounted for a single grade in the road; therefore the width can only be
calculated for each section of grade along the road. The calculations do not account for
the change in velocity of any upstream/downstream effects of the system, which can

94


greatly impact on the accuracy of the calculations. The results are displayed in Table
76, with the corresponding long section of road displayed in Figure 722.
Table 76 Flow Widths from Hand Calculations

SECTION

1
2
3
4

GRADE
%

9
3.62
0.56
2.08

FLOW
L/s

78
78
78
78

WIDTH
m

1.645
1.99
2.895
2.228

Figure 722 Hand Calculations of long section of road (12d)

The results shown in Table 76 display the flow widths at the given locations along the
road, which is defined by its gradient as shown in Figure 722. If there is no change in
gradient, the result remains constant. There is no account for upstream effects, such as
additional flow interactions or momentum. Full calculations are given in Appendix C.

95


Figure 723 demonstrates the lack of usable data obtained from the 1D calculations as it
can only represent the flow widths at particular locations. No data is given for the
interactions or actual direction of flow, as these must be assumed by the designer. A
comparison to the exact data used in XPStorm is shown in Figure 724.

Figure 723 Hand calculated flow widths Plan view (78 L/s)

96

Figure 724 2D Simulations Compared to Hand Calculations (XPStorm) (78 L/s)

The flows shown in Figure 724 are much wider than the hand calculation results
shown in Figure 723. However, it should be noted that the depths along the edges are
relatively low and negligible. The flow analysis indicates the direction, depth and
velocity of the flow as it travels downstream. The grid sizing is a limiting factor in the
simulation and can be seen with the detail of the flow widths, especially at NODE 201
(Figure 724), where an outlying flow is shown. Although the detail is not fine, the data
obtained can be easily understood by designers and decision makers, making a 2D
analysis preferable for local authorities and councils to support a particular design or
issue raised.

97


7.5.1

Results from 1D compared to 2D model

The results obtained from the hand calculations provided information regarding the
flow widths, but details regarding the amount of captured flow must still be assumed.
The effects of upstream water creating momentum and increased flow widths are not
accounted for in the calculations, resulting in a static solution. This approach provided
no information in relation to the dynamics of the flow or their interactions with the
surrounding surfaces. In the absence of a 2D flow analysis program, the hand
calculations provided an idea of the effects of flow widths, and further reasoning could
develop an estimation of the effects of the surface flows. The use of 1D hand calculations
has provided some insight into the understanding of flow routes, and can aid in the
design of a drainage network.

98

8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Correlating results were found between the three programs assessed in scenario 1, and
a successful 2D modelling solution was found for scenario 2. Notably, only a portion of
the complete modelling capabilities and techniques used in the programs were
assessed. A detailed analysis of the programs full capabilities and relative solutions
would provide vast information, and may be useful in a range of scenarios that often
occur within industry. Reviewing the capabilities of all hydrological methods outlined in
the programs, and comparing the solutions with scale models or field results would
determine which models can best replicate a particular system. The hydraulic
capabilities of the programs could also be assessed in a similar manner.
The results obtained from scenario 1 indicate that further investigation is required into
the Hortons loss methods used by the programs. Detailed investigation into the
operation and derivation of the equation should be carried out and reported for future
reference. It is also important to highlight any errors within either of the programs,
especially with XPStorm, as it had vastly different results compared to DRAINS and 12d.
Scenario 2 provided results that were useful for PCB, and indicated that the XPStorm
program could meet their requirements. This scenario proved the program to be useful
when compared to alternate programs. Additional investigation into other 2D issues
could be performed for future investigations, and improvements of the modelling
accuracy may be achieved. The software may also prove useful for future design
requirements, as it can investigate scenarios to support design assumptions, and reduce
chances of liability issues arising as a result of assumptions and limited modelling
methods. Further review of the finite element modelling component of the program may
reveal some reasons regarding the limited accuracy and causes for the model to crash
when assessing steeper roads using smaller grid/element sizes.

99

9 CONCLUSION
The use and development of urban drainage modelling software is becoming
increasingly complicated as its analysis techniques and capabilities expand. Computer
modelling has become the standard for urban drainage design, however many programs
still use basic calculation techniques, which may not provide adequate results for
particular scenarios or issues. These less advanced computer based models require
some intuitive input from the designer, and can result in assumptions that compromise
the accuracy of the final design. Poor designs can impact on companies and designers, as
they are liable and have a responsibility for particular issues concerning the modelling
of surface flows and their interactions with urban surroundings.
The use of advanced 2D software can eliminate several assumptions and provide a
quantifiable result that is easily interpreted by designers, managers and present
graphical results that the community can easily understand. The use of such software is
highly advisable for complex areas in urban situations and can provide detailed
solutions for a wide range of scenarios, regarding the interaction of surface flow within
the urban environment.
As the technologies are relatively new, limitations and uncertain accuracy of these
programs are still evident and may impact on their current commercial use. An
understanding of the modelling techniques used and how they compare to one another
can indicate major differences and provide a design firm with valuable knowledge of the
programs capabilities. This project successfully achieved the proposed aim of exploring
the use of three software programs in a variety of drainage situations, and identified the
advantages and limitations of each program. Results of this project will be used by PCB
for future network drainage planning, and further analyses of 2D software.
The increased demand for complex for drainage software will continue to grow with the
development of urban areas throughout Australia and the world, and as such future
programs will continue to improve the accuracy and complexity of flow modelling.
Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these developments is essential for
design companies and will greatly impact on their solutions for drainage networks.

100

NOMENCLATURE
mm Millimetres
cm
Centre meters
m
Metres
m2
Square metres
m3
Cubic metres
L
Litres
ha
Hectares
hr
Hours
min Minutes

s
Seconds
%
Percentage

Degrees

Delta (lowercase), indicates Change in...

Delta (Uppercase), indicates Change in...
=
Equal to

Approximately equal to

Does not equal
>
Greater than
<
Less than

Denotes Average value of
u
Velocity in one direction (2D)
v
Velocity in one direction (2D)
Tc
Time of Concentration

101

REFERENCES
Department of Geography, (NVE) , 2007. Water velocities in Nidelva near Stavne Bridge.
[Online]
Available at: http://folk.ntnu.no/nilsol/cases/nidelva/
[Accessed 17 October 2012].
12D SOLUTIONS PTY LTD, 2010. 12d Model, Reference Manaul Version 9, Sydney, NSW :
12D SOLUTIONS PTY LTD.
ABC, 2011. 1233 ABC Newcastle, Wallsend better prepared for future flooding. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3111808.htm?site=newcastle
[Accessed 17 October 2012].
Alfakih, E. & Miramond, M., 2005. Urban storm water management and sustainability,
Lyon, France : URGC.
Anon., 2012. LMNO Engineering, Research, and Software, Ltd.. [Online]
Available at: http://www.lmnoeng.com/Hydrology/rational.htm
[Accessed 2012].
Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology, 2012. Bureau of Meteorology. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/
[Accessed October 2012].
Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2012. Revision Projects and Documentation Updating.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.ncwe.org.au/arr/
Barnard, T. E. et al., 2007. Contemporary Modeling of Urban Water Systems, Evolution of
an Integrated 1D/2D Modeling Package for Urban Draiange, s.l.: CHI.

102


Bentley Systems, Incorporated, 2002. Modified Rational Method, Haestad Methods
Solution Center. [Online]
Available at: http://docs.bentley.com/en/HMCivilStorm/Help15120.html
[Accessed 17 October 2012].
Bombardier, P., 2003. Design Standards for Urban Infastructure , Canberra, ACT :
Australian Government.
Burian, S. J. & Edwards, F. G., 2002. Historical Perspectives of Urban Drainage ,
Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
Carr, R. S. & Smith, G. P., 2006. Linking of 2D and Pipe hydraulic models at fine spatial
scales, Chatswood, NSW : DHI Water and Environment .
Carr, T. J., 2011. The Harappan Civilization. [Online]
Available at: http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappamohenjodaro.html
[Accessed 9 October 2012].
Cea, L., Stelling, G. & Zijlema, M., 2008. Nonhydrostatic 3D free surface layerstructured
finite volume model for short wave propagation, s.l.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chaudhry, M. H., 2008. OpenChannel Flow. 2nd Edition ed. New York, NY: Springer
Science +Business Media, LLC.
Chow, V. T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology, s.l.: McGrawHill Book Company.
Clarence Valley Council, 2006. Handbook of Stormwater Draiange Design, Yamba, NSW :
Clarence Valley Council.
Coterell, A., 1980. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilisations. s.l.:Rainbird Publishers .

103


CUPDR, 2006. Plumbing and Drainage, Sydeny, NSW: Committe on Uniformity of
Plumbing and Drainage Regulations in NSW, Department of Energy, Utilities and
Sustainability.
DAYARATNE, S. T., 2000. Modelling of Urban Stormwater Drainage Systems using ILSAX,
Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology, Australia.
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2006. Designing safer
subdivisions, Guidance On Subdivison design In Flood Prone Areas , Parramatta :
HawkesburyNepean Floodplain Management Strategy Sterring Committee, Metro
Graphics Group Pty Ltd.
Dept Natural Resources and Water, 2008. Queensland Urban Drainage Manual,
Queensland : Dept Natural Resources and Water.
DESA, 2011. Department of Economic and Social Affiars, Population Disvision, World
Urbanization Prospects, New York: United Nations.
Eastaugh, B. & SternalJohnson., C., 2012. Texas Hurricane. [Online]
Available at: http://texashurricane.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/tropicalstorm
allison10yearslater/
[Accessed 16 October 2012].
Engineers Australia, Water Engineering, 2012. Australian Rainfall and Runoff, Revision
Project 15: Two Dimensional Simulation in Urban Areas, representation of building in 2D
numerical flood models, Manly Vale, NSW : Water Research Laboratory, University of
New South Wales .
FEMA, n.d. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Homeland Security .

104


Gheorghiu, V., 2004. QUASI3D SIMULATION OF COMPRESSIBLE UNSTEADY FLOWS
THROGH ICEMANILOFDS, Hamburg, Germany: University of Applied Sciences Hamburg,
Germany.
Godunov, S. K., 1959. A Difference Scheme for Numerical Solution of Discontinuous
Solution of Hydrodynamic Equations. s.l.:US Joint Publ. Res.
Grosesen, E. v. & Soewono, E., 1997. Differential Equations: Theory, Numerics and
Applications, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Haestad, M., Dyhouse, G., Hatchett, J. & Benn, J., 2003. Floodplain Modeling Using HEC
RAS. Waterbury, CT: Haestad Press.
Kanellakis, C., 2012. Protocol addresses risk and liability. Newcastle, Engineers Australia .
Kuczera, G., 2011. Open Channel Lecture Notes, Newcastle : University of Newcastle.
Maitland City Council, 2008. Development Control Plan, Maitland, NSW : Maitland City
Council.
O'Loughlin, G. & Stack, B., 2012. DRAINS User Manual , Sydeny: Watercom Pty Ltd.
PCB Surveyors & Engineers , n.d. s.l.:s.n.
PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012. Maitland: s.n.
Phillips, B. C., Yu, S., Thompson, G. R. & Silva, N. d., 2005. 1D and 2D Modelling of Urban
Drainage Systems using XPSWMM and TUFLOW, Copenhagen, Denmark: 10th
International Conference on Urban Drainage.
Potter, M. C. & Wiggert, D. C., 2010. Mechanics of Fluids, Third Edition, SI. Stamford:
Cengage Learning .

105


REUTERS/Tim Wimborne, 2011. Brisbane Times. [Online]
Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/
[Accessed 27 October 2012].
Sangster, W. M., Wood, H. W., Smerdon, E. T. & Bossy, H. G., 1958. Pressure Changes at
Storm Drain Junctions, Engineering Series Bulletin No. 41, University of Missouri :
Engineering Experiment Station.
Sarukkalige, R., Basnayaka, A. P. & Werellagama, I., 2011. Numerical Modeling of Flood
Vulnerability in Urban Catchments for Flood Forecasting. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 383388.
Smith, J., Phillips, D. B. & Yu, S., 2006. Modelling Overland Flows and Drainage
Augmentations in Dubbo. Dubbo, NSW: s.n.
Stelling, G. S., 1984. On the construction of computational methods for shallow water flow
problems. Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
Steve, 2012. XPSolutions Technical Support [Interview] (4 October 2012).
Streeter, V. L. & Wylie, B. E., 1983. Fluid Mechanics. First SI Edition ed. Singapore:
McGrawHill Book Co.
Terstriep, M. L. & Stall, J. B., 1974. The Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator,ILLUDAS,
Urbana: Illinois State Water Survey.
The Institution of Engineers, Australia , 1987. Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR).
Barton, ACT: The Institution of Engineers, Australia .
Thompson, D. B., 2007. The Rational Method, Minden, Nevada: R.O. Anderson
Engineering.

106


TUFLOW, 2011. Flood and Coastal Simulation Software, s.l.: BMT WBM.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. FloodRunoff Analysis, Washington, DC : Department
of the Army.
UN, 2012. United Nations Department of Social Affairs. [Online]
Available at: http://esa.un.org/unup/CountryProfiles/countryprofiles_1.htm
[Accessed 27 September 2012].
UNHABITATE, 2006. World Urban Forum III, An international UNHabitat event on
urban sustainability , Vacnouver, Canada : UNHabitat .
University of Cambridge, 2012. Mass Transport. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ceb.cam.ac.uk/pages/masstransport.html
[Accessed 28 October 2012].
World Bank, 2012. [Online]
Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/
[Accessed 24 September 2012].
XP Software, 2011. XP solutions Technical Description, Portland, Oregon: s.n.
XP Software, 2012. xpstorm. [Online]
Available at: http://www.xpsoftware.com/products/xpstorm/
[Accessed 6 August 2012].
XPSolutions, 2011. XpStorm Reference Manual, s.l.: XPSolutions.

107

Appendix A Scenario 1 Data

Appendix B Scenario 2 Data (2D Analysis)
Appendix C 2D Hand Calculations
Appendix D Finite Element Modelling
Appendix E Hydrology, General Parameters
Appendix F Modelling Transfer (12d to XPStorm)
Appendix G XP Solutions Technical Support

Appendix H Consultation with Supervisor form and Turnitin

Receipt

108

A. Appendix Scenario 1 Data

Figures A1, A2 and A3 graphically display the modelling representation of each
program (DRAINS, 12d and XPStorm)

Figure A1 Drainage Layout (DRAINS), (Do not take note of results)

A1

Figure A2 Drainage Layout (12d), (Do not take note of results)

A2

Figure A3 Drainage Layout (XPStorm)

A3

Figure A4 displays the general plan used by PCB for scenario 1.

Figure A4 General Plan For Scenario 1 (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

A4

Figure A5 Drainage Long Sections (From 12d) (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

A5

IFD Data for Scenario 1

Table A1 was used in all three programs to define the storm intensities. (BOM, 2012)
Table A1 Rainfall IFD
Duration

ARI
INTENSITY
1
88
85
83
80
78
76
74
72
71
69
68
65
63
60
58
57
55
53
52
51
49.3
48.1
47
46
45
44.1
43.2
42.4
41.6
40.8
40.1
38.8
37.5
36.4
35.3

0
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
36
38

ARI
INTENSITY
2
113
109
106
103
100
97
95
92
90
88
87
83
80
77
75
72
70
68
66
65
63
62
60
59
58
56
55
54
53
52
51
49.6
48
46.5
45.2

ARI
INTENSITY
5
142
137
133
129
126
122
119
117
114
111
109
105
101
97
94
91
89
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
73
71
70
68
67
66
65
63
61
59
57

ARI
INTENSITY
10
159
154
149
144
141
137
133
130
127
125
122
117
113
109
105
102
99
96
94
91
89
87
85
83
81
80
78
77
75
74
72
70
68
66
64

ARI
INTENSITY
20
181
175
170
165
160
156
152
149
145
142
139
134
129
124
120
117
113
110
107
104
102
99
97
95
93
91
89
87
86
84
83
80
77
75
73

ARI
INTENSITY
50
210
203
197
191
186
181
177
173
169
165
162
155
149
144
140
135
131
128
124
121
118
115
113
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
93
90
87
85

ARI
INTENSITY
100
232
224
218
211
206
200
195
191
186
182
178
171
165
159
154
149
145
141
137
134
130
127
124
122
119
117
114
112
110
108
106
103
99
96
94

A6

40
45
50
55
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
270
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
720
840
960
1080
1200
1320
1440
1800
2160
2520
2880
3240
3600
3960
4320

34.3
32.2
30.3
28.7
27.3
23.8
21.1
19.1
17.6
16.3
15.2
14.3
13.5
12.8
12.2
11.6
11.1
10.3
9.62
8.54
7.72
7.07
6.55
6.11
5.74
5.43
4.96
4.59
4.29
4.03
3.81
3.62
3.17
2.83
2.57
2.36
2.19
2.04
1.91
1.79

43.9
41.2
38.8
36.8
35
30.4
27.1
24.5
22.5
20.8
19.4
18.3
17.3
16.4
15.6
14.9
14.3
13.2
12.4
11
9.91
9.08
8.41
7.86
7.38
6.98
6.39
5.91
5.52
5.2
4.92
4.67
4.09
3.66
3.33
3.06
2.83
2.64
2.47
2.33

56
52
49
46.5
44.2
38.5
34.3
31.1
28.5
26.4
24.7
23.2
21.9
20.8
19.9
19
18.2
16.9
15.7
14
12.7
11.6
10.8
10.1
9.45
8.93
8.19
7.6
7.11
6.7
6.35
6.04
5.31
4.76
4.34
3.99
3.71
3.46
3.25
3.06

62
58
55
52
49.5
43.1
38.4
34.8
32
29.7
27.7
26.1
24.6
23.4
22.3
21.3
20.4
18.9
17.7
15.7
14.2
13.1
12.1
11.3
10.6
10.1
9.24
8.58
8.04
7.58
7.18
6.84
6.02
5.41
4.93
4.55
4.22
3.95
3.71
3.5

71
66
63
59
57
49.3
43.9
39.9
36.6
34
31.7
29.8
28.2
26.8
25.5
24.4
23.4
21.7
20.3
18
16.3
15
13.9
13
12.2
11.6
10.6
9.88
9.26
8.74
8.28
7.89
6.95
6.26
5.71
5.27
4.9
4.58
4.3
4.06

82
77
73
69
66
57
51
46.4
42.6
39.5
37
34.8
32.9
31.2
29.8
28.5
27.3
25.3
23.7
21.1
19.1
17.5
16.3
15.2
14.3
13.5
12.4
11.6
10.9
10.3
9.73
9.27
8.18
7.37
6.74
6.22
5.79
5.42
5.09
4.81

91
85
81
76
73
63
57
51
47.2
43.8
40.9
38.5
36.4
34.6
33
31.6
30.3
28.1
26.3
23.4
21.2
19.4
18
16.9
15.9
15
13.8
12.9
12.1
11.4
10.8
10.3
9.12
8.23
7.52
6.95
6.47
6.06
5.7
5.39

A7

Storm Data for Scenario 1

Table A2 defines the storm patterns used for the simulation of scenario 1.

Table A2 ARR1987 Storm Data
ARR1987
MinimumTc(min)

Intensities(mm/hr)
2yr1hr
2yr12hr
2yr72hr
50yr1hr
50yr12hr
50yr72hr

Factors
SkewnessG
F2
F50
LatitudeS(deg)
LongitudeE(deg)

31
6.62
2.1
60.3
13
4.4

0.05
4.315
15.96
3244'
15133'

A8

Pit and Pipe Details

Table A3 and A4 define the Pit and Pipe details respectively, used for Scenario 1.
Table A3 Pit/Node Details
PIT/NODE
DETAILS
Name Type

Version9

Family

Size

PitX1
PitX2
PitX3
PitX4
PitX5
PitX7
PitY1
X1US
PitZ1

OnGrade
OnGrade
OnGrade
Sag
OnGrade
Node
Sag
Node
Sag

PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB

PCB

PCB

PitZ2

Sag

PCB

PitZ3
PitZ4
PitZ5
PitZ6
PitZA1

OnGrade
OnGrade
OnGrade
OnGrade
OnGrade

PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB

Ponding Pressure
Volume Change
(cu.m)
Coeff.
Ku
JunctionPit
5
JunctionPit
1.5
2.4EKI

0.5
2.4EKI
6
0.2
3.0EKI

1.5

2.4EKI
6
4.8

Junction
16
2.7
Pit
Junction
16
2.7
Pit
JunctionPit
1.7
JunctionPit
2.1
3.6EKI

2.2
3.6EKI

0.8
3.6EKI

2.7

Table A4 Pipe Details

PIPEDETAILS
Name
From

PPitX1
PitX1
PPitX2
PitX2
PPitX3
PitX3
PPitX4
PitX4
PPitX5
PitX5
PPitY1
PitY1
PPitZ1
PitZ1
PPitZ2
PitZ2
PPitZ3
PitZ3
PPitZ4
PitZ4
PPitZ5
PitZ5
PPitZ6
PitZ6
PPitZA1 PitZA1

To

PitX2
PitX3
PitX4
PitX5
PitX7
PitX4
PitZ2
PitZ3
PitZ4
PitZ5
PitZ6
PitX5
PitZ5

Length
(m)
39.159
41.464
55.984
14.153
16.652
8
19.566
28.197
29.556
44.911
30.762
33.135
25.964

U/SIL
(m)
22.416
20.329
17.011
12.116
12.003
12.646
21.22
19.867
17.165
16.859
13.5
13.041
14.094

D/SIL Slope
(m)
(%)
21.468 2.42
17.011
8
12.253 8.5
12.003 0.8
11.87
0.8
12.566
1
19.867 6.92
17.165 9.58
16.859 1.04
13.575 7.31
13.116 1.25
12.378
2
13.575
2

Type
Dia

(mm)
Class2RCP 750
Class3RCP 750
Class2RCP 750
Class2RCP 825
Class3RCP 825
Class3RCP 375
Class2RCP 300
Class2RCP 300
Class2RCP 300
Class2RCP 300
Class2RCP 375
Class2RCP 450
Class2RCP 375

I.D.
(mm)
762
762
762
838.2
838.2
381
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8
381
457.2
381

Rough

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

PipeIs

NewFixed
NewFixed
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New

A9

Catchment Details
Table A5 defines the catchment details that were used for Scenario 1. Blank Fields indicate that the program used default parameters,
as shown in Table A8.
Table A5 Catchment Data

Catchment
Area

ha
PITX2
3.805
PITX3
0.1469
PITY1
0.172
PITX4
0.2149
PITX5
0.2418
PITZ1
0.2769
PITZ3
0.03
PITZ4
0.03
PITZA1
0.2423
PITZ5
0.2545
PITZ6
0.3038

Depression

Storage
Impervious
1
Pervious
5

Impervious
%
65
65
85
65

10
100
100
65
65
65

Length
Slope
(Impervious) (Impervious)
m

25
10

10
9

Retardance
(Impervious)

0.012

0.012

Length
(Pervious)

50

135
135
56

95
95
135

Slope
(Pervious)
%

9
9
9

8
8
8

Retardance
(Pervious)
C

0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2

Tc

Tc

Impervious
10

Pervious
20

5
5

A10

Table A6 Overland Flow Route Details

OVERFLOWROUTEDETAILS
Name From
To

OFX1 PitX1
PitX2
OFX2 PitX2
PitX3
OFX3 PitX3
PitX4
OF57 PitX4
PitX5
OFX5 PitX5
PitX7

Travel
Time
(min)
2
2
2
1
3

OFY1

PitY1

PitX7

OF54
OF56
OFZ5
OFZ6
OFZA1

X1US
PitZ1
PitZ5
PitZ6
PitZA1

PitX2
PitZA1
PitZ6
PitX5
PitZ5

2
2
1
1
2

Cross
Section

Pathway4mwide
9mwideroad(halfsection)
9mwideroad(halfsection)
7mwideroad(halfsection)
Dummyusedtomodelflowacrossroadlow
points
Dummyusedtomodelflowacrossroadlow
points
Pathway4mwide
7mwideroad(halfsection)
9mwideroad(halfsection)
9mwideroad(halfsection)
7mwideroad(halfsection)

SafeDepth
MajorStorms
(m)
0.3
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.2

SafeDepth
MinorStorms
(m)
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05

Safe
DxV
(sq.m/sec)
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6

Bed
Slope
(%)
1
9
9
1
1

D/SArea
Contributing
%

0.2

0.05

0.6

0.3
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.2

0.15
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

6
1.4
1.44
1.44
1.44

0
100
100
100
100

0
90
90
0
0

A11

Table A7 Rainfall Intensities

A12

Table A8 Default Parameters

Default
Parameters
Impervious
%
TcMethod
Length
Slope(%)
Retardance
Tc(minor)
Tc(major)
DepressStorage

Pervious
%
TcMethod
Length
Slope(%)
Retardance
Tc(minor)
Tc(major)
Loss
DepressStorage

90
Direct
50
2.5
0.013
5
5
1

10
KinematicWave
100
2.5
0.15
10
10
DVerySlow
5

Rainfall Intensity Multiplier
IFD tables in Australia usually include average rainfall intensities over the duration of
the rainfall period. The design storms in ARR volume 2 work with the total rainfall
depth and therefore a conversion from intensity to depth is required (XP Software,
2012).
Rainfall depth (mm) = Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) * Storm Duration (min)/60

= 150 (mm/hr) x 15 (min) / 60

= 37.5

Losses
Soil Type: D
AMC: 1

A13

Table A9 Infiltration Model Parameters (horton losses) (O'Loughlin & Stack, 2012)

DRAINS & 12d Losses

Table A10 Loss Parameters (Horton)
Name

Number InitialLoss FinalLoss Decayrate AMC1 AMC2 AMC3 AMC4

mm/hr

mm/hr

mm

mm

mm

mm

AHighinfilSandgravel

250

25

50

100

150

BModwelldrained

200

13

38

75

100

CSlowinfiltration

125

25

50

75

DVeryslowclays

75

18

38

50

Modtoslow

2.5

162.5

9.5

31.5

62.5

87.5

Slowtoveryslow

3.5

100

4.5

21.5

44

62.5

A14

Table A11 12d infiltration Loss

Time Infiltration Time Infiltration Time Infiltration Time Infiltration
min
mm/hr
min
mm/hr
min
mm/hr
min
mm/hr
0
21.789
20
0
40
0
60
0
1
21.789
21
0
41
0
61
0
1
21.789
21
0
41
0
61
0
2
21.789
22
0
42
0
62
0
2
21.789
22
0
42
0
62
0
3
21.789
23
0
43
0
63
0
3
21.789
23
0
43
0
63
0
4
21.789
24
0
44
0
64
0
4
22.416
24
0
44
0
64
0
5
22.416
25
0
45
0
65
0
5
21.716
25
0
45
0
65
0
6
21.716
26
0
46
0
66
0
6
21.039
26
0
46
0
66
0
7
21.039
27
0
47
0
67
0
7
20.383
27
0
47
0
67
0
8
20.383
28
0
48
0
68
0
8
19.749
28
0
48
0
68
0
9
19.749
29
0
49
0
69
0
9
19.136
29
0
49
0
69
0
10
19.136
30
0
50
0
70
0
10
18.543
30
0
50
0
70
0
11
18.543
31
0
51
0
71
0
11
17.97
31
0
51
0
71
0
12
17.97
32
0
52
0
72
0
12
17.415
32
0
52
0
72
0
13
17.415
33
0
53
0
73
0
13
16.879
33
0
53
0
73
0
14
16.879
34
0
54
0
74
0
14
9.174
34
0
54
0
74
0
15
9.174
35
0
55
0
75
0
15
9.174
35
0
55
0
75
0
16
9.174
36
0
56
0
76
0
16
9.174
36
0
56
0
76
0
17
9.174
37
0
57
0
77
0
17
9.174
37
0
57
0
77
0
18
9.174
38
0
58
0
78
0
18
9.174
38
0
58
0
78
0
19
9.174
39
0
59
0
79
0
19
0
39
0
59
0

20
0
40
0
60
0

A15

XPStorm Losses
XPStorm required the same parameters for the Hortons loss equation, however, the k
value units are 1/sec, as opposed to 12d and drains 1/hr. Therefore, the following was
done in order to achieve the correct units. The input window is shown in Figure A6.

Figure A6 XPStorm Horton's Screenshot

K = 2 (h1)


= 1/(2 x 60 x 60) (s1)

= 0.00013889 (s1)




Table A12 displays the values obtained for the Hortons Loss Method in XPStorm

A16

Table A12 XPStorm Infiltration Loss (Horton)

t
Infiltration
(min)
mm/hr
1
0
2
0
3
21.993
4
21.993
5
21.993
6
21.993
7
20.056
8
12.36
9
8.137
10
5.819
11
4.547
12
3.849
13
3.466
14
3.256
15
3.14
16
3.077
17
3.042
18
3.023
19
3.013
20
3.007
21
3.004
22
3.002
23
3.001
24
3.001
25
3
26
3
27
3
28
3
29
3
30
3
31
3
32
3
33
3
34
3
35
3
36
3
37
3
38
3
39
3
40
3

t
Infiltration
(min)
mm/hr
41
3
42
3
43
3
44
3
45
3
46
3
47
3
48
3
49
3
50
3
51
3
52
3
53
3
54
3
55
3
56
3
57
3
58
3
59
3
60
3
61
3
62
3
63
3
64
3
65
3
66
3
67
3
68
3
69
3
70
3
71
3
72
3
73
3
74
3
75
3
76
3
77
3
78
3
79
3
80
3

t
Infiltration
(min)
mm/hr
81
3
82
3
83
3
84
3
85
3
86
3
87
3
88
3
89
3
90
3
91
3
92
3
93
0
94
0
95
0
96
0
97
0
98
0
99
0
100
0
101
0
102
0
103
0
104
0
105
0
106
0
107
0
108
0
109
0
110
0
111
0
112
0
113
0
114
0
115
0
116
0
117
0
118
0
119
0
120
0

A17

Table A13 displays the Uniform Loss Method results for XPStorm.
Table A13 XPStorm Infiltration (Uniform Loss)
t
Infiltration
(min)
mm/hr
1
0
2
0
3
21.993
4
21.993
5
21.993
6
21.993
7
21.993
8
40.656
9
40.656
10
40.656
11
40.656
12
40.656
13
63.976
14
61.975
15
60.04
16
58.169
17
56.359
18
54.608
19
52.915
20
51.277
21
49.693
22
48.161
23
46.68
24
45.246
25
43.86
26
42.52
27
41.223
28
39.969
29
38.756
30
37.583
31
36.448
32
35.351
33
34.289
34
33.263
35
32.27
36
31.31
37
30.381
38
29.482
39
28.614
40
27.773

t
Infiltration
(min)
mm/hr
41
26.96
42
26.174
43
25.414
44
24.678
45
23.967
46
23.279
47
22.614
48
21.97
49
21.348
50
20.746
51
20.164
52
19.601
53
19.056
54
18.529
55
18.02
56
17.527
57
17.05
58
16.589
59
16.143
60
15.712
61
15.295
62
14.892
63
14.502
64
14.124
65
13.759
66
13.406
67
13.065
68
12.735
69
12.415
70
12.106
71
11.807
72
11.519
73
11.239
74
10.969
75
10.707
76
10.454
77
10.21
78
9.973
79
9.744
80
9.523

t
t
Infiltration
(min)
(min)
mm/hr
81
9.309
121
82
9.102
122
83
8.902
123
84
8.708
124
85
8.521
125
86
8.34
126
87
8.165
127
88
7.995
128
89
7.831
129
90
7.673
130
91
7.519
131
92
7.371
132
93
7.228
133
94
7.089
134
95
6.955
135
96
6.825
136
97
6.7
137
98
6.578
138
99
6.461
139
100
6.347
140
101
6.237
102
6.131
103
6.029
104
5.929
105
5.833
106
5.74
107
5.65
108
5.563
109
5.479
110
5.398
111
5.319
112
5.243
113
5.169
114
5.098
115
5.029
116
4.963
117
4.898
118
4.836
119
4.776
120
4.718

Infiltration
mm/hr
4.661
4.607
4.554
4.503
4.454
4.406
4.36
4.315
4.272
4.23
4.19
4.151
4.113
4.077
4.041
4.007
3.974
3.942
3.911
3.881

A18

Table A14 Hortons Loss (function)

A19

Table A15 and A15Display the Hydrological and hydraulic Flow output respectively
from each program.
Table A15 Hydrological Comparison of Drainage Models (ILSAX (Time Area and
Hortons Loss))
Catchment
NODE/LINK
PITX2
PITX3
PITY1
PITX4
PITX5
PITZ1
PITZ3
PITZ4
PITZA1
PITZ5
PITZ6

FLOWm/s
DRAINS 12d
885
40
63
55
60
31
12
12
61
64
75

884
38
57
55
62
16
12
12
62
65
78

Difference*

XPStorm

XPStorm_Uniformloss

1298.00
33.00
65.00
73.00
82.00
68.00
12.00
12.00
83.00
87.00
104.00

996
38
59
56
63
11
12
12
63
67
80

46.7
15.4
8.3
32.7
34.4
189.4
0
0
34.9
34.9
35.9

* The difference between XPStorm and the average of DRAINS & 12d.
Table A16 Hydraulic Comparison of Drainage Models
PIPE
LINK
X2X3
X3X4
Y1X4
X4X5
X5OUTLET
Z1Z2
Z2Z3
Z3Z4
Z4Z5
Z5Z6
Z6X5
ZA1Z6

DRAINS
885
916
61
1010
1280
29
29
39
49
164
236
59

12d
883
908
62
987
1211
16
16
26
36
156
231
62

FLOWm/s
XPStorm
XPStorm_Uniformloss
1295.00
995
1344.00
1034
60.00
56
1463.00
1144
1840.00
1431
67.00
10
67.00
10
79.00
21
90.00
31
242.00
156
330.00
229
74.00
61

A20

B. Appendix Scenario 2 Data (2D Analysis)

Table B1 Surface Flow Data obtained from 12d.
Time
Hours
0
0.00238
0.004761
0.007142
0.009523
0.011904
0.014285
0.016666
0.019047
0.021428
0.023809
0.02619
0.028571
0.030952
0.033333
0.035714
0.038095
0.040476
0.042857
0.045238
0.047619
0.05
0.052381
0.054761
0.057142
0.059523
0.061904
0.064285
0.066666
0.069047

Flow
m3/s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001191
0.002377
0.003564
0.00475
0.005936
0.007122
0.008309
0.009495
0.010681
0.011867
0.013054
0.01424
0.015426
0.016612
0.017798
0.018985
0.020171
0.021357
0.022543
0.02373
0.024916
0.026102

Time
Hours
0.071428
0.073809
0.07619
0.078571
0.080952
0.083333
0.085714
0.088095
0.090476
0.092857
0.095238
0.097619
0.1
0.102381
0.104761
0.107142
0.109523
0.111904
0.114285
0.116666
0.119047
0.121428
0.123809
0.12619
0.128571
0.130952
0.133333
0.135714
0.138095
0.140476

Flow
m3/s
0.027288
0.028474
0.029661
0.030847
0.032033
0.033219
0.035904
0.038589
0.04169
0.044858
0.048026
0.051195
0.054363
0.057531
0.0607
0.063868
0.067037
0.0702
0.072215
0.074198
0.07618
0.078163
0.080146
0.082128
0.084111
0.086094
0.088077
0.09006
0.092043
0.094026

Time
Hours
0.142857
0.145238
0.147619
0.15
0.152381
0.154762
0.157142
0.159523
0.161904
0.164285
0.166666
0.169048
0.171428
0.17381
0.17619
0.178571
0.180951
0.183333
0.185715
0.188095
0.190476
0.192856
0.195238
0.19762
0.2
0.202381
0.204761
0.207143
0.209523
0.211905

Flow
m3/s
0.096009
0.097992
0.099975
0.101959
0.103942
0.105925
0.107909
0.109892
0.111876
0.113859
0.115843
0.11686
0.117877
0.118894
0.119912
0.120929
0.120489
0.120008
0.119527
0.119047
0.118566
0.118085
0.117604
0.117124
0.116643
0.116162
0.115682
0.115201
0.114721
0.11424

Time
Hours
0.214286
0.216666
0.219048
0.221428
0.22381
0.22619
0.228571
0.230953
0.233333
0.235715
0.238095
0.240476
0.242856
0.245238
0.24762
0.25
0.252381
0.254761
0.257143
0.259523
0.261905
0.264286
0.266666
0.269048
0.271428
0.27381
0.27619
0.278571
0.280953
0.283333

Flow
m3/s
0.11376
0.11328
0.1128
0.112319
0.111839
0.111359
0.110879
0.110399
0.109919
0.109439
0.108959
0.108479
0.107999
0.107519
0.107039
0.10656
0.104445
0.102329
0.100214
0.098099
0.095984
0.094658
0.093355
0.092051
0.090748
0.089445
0.088142
0.086838
0.085535
0.084232

B1

Time
Hours
0.285715
0.288095
0.290476
0.292856
0.295238
0.29762
0.3
0.302381
0.304761
0.307143
0.309523
0.311905
0.314286
0.316666
0.319048
0.321428
0.32381
0.32619
0.328571
0.330951
0.333333
0.335715
0.338095
0.340476
0.342856
0.345238
0.347618
0.35
0.352381
0.354761

Flow
m3/s
0.082929
0.081626
0.080323
0.07902
0.077717
0.076414
0.075112
0.073809
0.072506
0.071203
0.069901
0.068598
0.067296
0.065993
0.06469
0.063388
0.062085
0.060783
0.059481
0.058178
0.056876
0.054979
0.053082
0.051185
0.049288
0.047391
0.04683
0.046307
0.045783
0.04526

Time
Hours
0.357143
0.359523
0.361905
0.364285
0.366666
0.369048
0.371428
0.37381
0.37619
0.378571
0.380951
0.383333
0.385713
0.388095
0.390476
0.392856
0.395238
0.397618
0.4
0.40238
0.404761
0.407143
0.409523
0.411905
0.414285
0.416666
0.419046
0.421428
0.42381
0.42619

Flow
m3/s
0.044737
0.043797
0.042791
0.041784
0.040777
0.03977
0.038763
0.037757
0.03675
0.035743
0.034736
0.033729
0.032722
0.031715
0.030708
0.029701
0.028694
0.027687
0.02668
0.025673
0.024666
0.023658
0.022651
0.021644
0.020637
0.01963
0.018622
0.017615
0.016608
0.015601

Time
Hours
0.428571
0.430951
0.433333
0.435713
0.438095
0.440476
0.442856
0.445238
0.447618
0.45
0.45238
0.454761
0.457141
0.459523
0.461905
0.464285
0.466666
0.469046
0.471428
0.473808
0.47619
0.478571
0.480951
0.483333
0.485713
0.488095
0.490475
0.492856
0.495238
0.497618

Flow
m3/s
0.014593
0.014072
0.013564
0.013056
0.012703
0.012349
0.011996
0.011643
0.01129
0.010937
0.010583
0.01023
0.009877
0.009524
0.00917
0.008817
0.008463
0.00811
0.007757
0.007403
0.00705
0.006696
0.006343
0.005989
0.005636
0.005282
0.004929
0.004575
0.004222
0.003868

Time
Hours
0.5
0.50238
0.504761
0.507141
0.509523
0.511903
0.514285
0.516666
0.519046
0.521428
0.523808
0.52619
0.52857
0.530951
0.533333
0.535713
0.538095
0.540475
0.542856
0.545236
0.547618
0.55
0.55238
0.554761
0.557141
0.559523
0.561903
0.564285
0.566666
0.569046

Flow
m3/s
0.003514
0.003161
0.002807
0.002454
0.0021
0.001746
0.001392
0.001039
0.000685
0.000593
0.000501
0.00041
0.000318
0.000226
0.000134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

B2

SurfaceFlowEnteringSystem
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Flow(m3/s) 0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.02

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Time(hours)

Figure B1 Table B 1 Surface Flow Data obtained from 12d.

Table B2 to B7 display the total amount of flow (flowing and captured) for the analysis
of the 2D system.
Table B2 Flow Captured With Obstruction
FlowCaptured
ObstructionWidth
(m)
RoadSteepness(%)
Grade0.5%
Grade4%
Grade9%
Grade16%

0.2

0.0321
0.031
0.0264
0.0316

0.032
0.0243
0.0208
0.0215

0.0186
0.0052
0.004
0.0107

0.0117
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

B3

Table B3 Diverted Flow Captured With Obstruction

FlowDiversion
ObstructionWidth
(m)
RoadSteepness(%)
Grade0.5%
Grade4%
Grade9%
Grade16%

0.2

0
0
0
0.0239

0
0.001
0.0011
0.0333

0
0.0304
0.0066
0.0153

0
0.0902
0.0511
0.0509

0.0855
0.1152
0.0527
0.0509

Table B4 Flow Captured from Downpipe (No Surface Flow)
FLOW(Downpipe)
DownpipeWidth
(mm)
RoadSteepness(%)
0.5
4
9
16

50

100

200

300

0
0
0
0

0.0034
0.0034
0.0017
0.0024

0.0199
0.0208
0.0193
0.0162

0.1375
0.1236
0.1347
0.1106

0.1995
0.3525
0.3993
0.3349

Table B5 Total Flow of Downpipe and Surface Flow
FLOWTotal
DownpipeWidth
(mm)
RoadSteepness(%)
0.5
4
9
16

50

100

200

300

0.0536
0.031
0.0264
0.0253

0.057
0.0344
0.0281
0.0277

0.0735
0.0518
0.0457
0.0415

0.1911
0.1546
0.1611
0.1359

0.2531
0.3835
0.4257
0.3602

B4



Table B6 Total Flow Captured
FLOWDP+Total
DownpipeWidth
(mm)
RoadSteepness(%)
0.5
4
9
16

50

100

200

300

0.0536
0.031
0.0264
0.0253

0.0549
0.0321
0.027
0.0257

0.0604
0.0339
0.0296
0.028

0.082
0.0452
0.0326
0.0416

0.0793
0.0688
0.0321
0.0869

Table B7 Percentage of Flow Captured
FLOW%Capture
DownpipeWidth
(mm)
RoadSteepness(%)
0.5%Grade
4%Grade
9%Grade
16%Grade

50

100

200

300

100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

96.32%
93.31%
96.09%
92.78%

82.18%
65.44%
64.77%
67.47%

42.91%
29.24%
20.24%
30.61%

31.33%
17.94%
7.54%
24.13%

B5

XPStorm Graphical Solutions

The following images and graphs display the surface flows for scenario 2, and where
relevant the pit inlet captures. Note that LINK 1 (NODE 101) represents the main inlet
located on the upstream left hand side of the surface flow. LINK 2 represents the pit
(NODE 201) on the adjacent side of the road to represent diverted flows that are
captured. Results for the second pit are only displayed when water enters LINK 2.

GRADE 0.5%

Figure B2 Surface Flows, Grade 0.5%

B6


Figure B3 Pipe Flow Data

B7

Downpipe Flow, Grade 0.5

Figure B4 50mm, Qmax = 0.0034 m3/s

Figure B5 100mm, Qmax = 0.0257 m3/s

B8


Figure B6 200mm, Qmax = 0.1562 m3/s

Figure B7 300mm, Qmax = 0.4469 m3/s

B9

Interaction with Downpipe and Surface Flow

0.5% Grade
50mm Outlet Pipe

Figure B8 Effects from Downpipe, 50mm @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B9 Pipe flow Data, 50mm (DP) @ 0.5% Grade

B10


Figure B10 Effects of Downpipe, 100mm @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B11 Pipe Flow Data, 100mm (DP) @ 0.5% Grade

B11

Figure B12 Effects of Downpipe, 200mm @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B13 Pipe Flow Data, 200mm (DP) @ 0.5% Grade

B12


Figure B14 Effects of Downpipe, 300mm @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B15 Figure C 14 Pipe Flow Data, 300mm (DP) @ 0.5% Grade

B13

Obstruction
Grade 0.5%

200mm obstruction

B14


Figure B16 Obstructed Flow, 200mm @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B17 Pipe Flow with 200mm Obstruction

B15


Figure B18 Obstructed Flow, 1m @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B19 Pipe Flow with 1m Obstruction

B16


Figure B20 Obstructed Flow, 3m @ 0.5% Grade (Alternate A)

Figure B21 Pipe Flow with 3m Obstruction (Alternate A)

B17


Figure B22 Obstructed Flow, 5m @ 0.5% Grade

Figure B23 Pipe Flow with 5m Obstruction

B18

GRADE 4%

Figure B24 Surface Flows, 4% Grade

Figure B25 Pipe Flow Grade 4%

B19


Figure B26 50mm, Qmax = 0.0034 m3/s

Figure B27 100mm, Qmax = 0.0208 m3/s

B20


Figure B28 200mm, Qmax = 0.1236 m3/s

Figure B29 300mm, Qmax = 0.3525 m3/s

B21


Figure B30 Effects of Downpipe, 50mm @ 4% Grade

Figure B31 Pipe flow Data, 50mm (DP) @ 4% Grade

B22


Figure B32 Effects of Downpipe, 100mm @ 4% Grade

Figure B33 Pipe flow Data, 100mm (DP) @ 4% Grade

B23

Figure B34 Effects of Downpipe, 200mm @ 4% Grade

Figure B35 Pipe flow Data, 200mm (DP) @ 4% Grade (Noise)

B24


Figure B36 Effects of Downpipe, 300mm @ 4% Grade

Figure B37 Pipe flow Data, 300mm (DP) @ 4% Grade

B25

Obstruction, Grade 4%

Figure B38 Obstructed Flow, 200mm @ 4% Grade

Figure B39 Pipe Flow with 200mm Obstruction

B26


Figure B40 Obstructed Flow, 1m @ 4% Grade

Figure B41 Pipe Flow with 1m Obstruction

B27


Figure B42 Obstructed Flow, 3m @ 4% Grade

Figure B43 Pipe Flow with 3m Obstruction

B28


Figure B44 Obstructed Flow, 5m @ 4% Grade

Figure B45 Pipe Flow with 5m Obstruction

B29

Design Grade 9%

Figure B46 Flow 9% Grade

Figure B47 Pipe Data 9% Grade

B30


Figure B48 50mm Downpipe, Qmax = 0.0017 m3/s

Figure B49 100mm Downpipe, Qmax = 0.0193m3/s

B31


Figure B50 200mm Downpipe, Qmax = 0.1347 m3/s

Figure B51 300mm Downpipe, Qmax = 0.3993m3/s

B32


Figure B52 50mm DP @ 9% Grade

Figure B53 Pipe Data, 50mm DP @ 9% Grade

B33


Figure B54 100mm DP @ 9% Grade

Figure B55 Pipe Data 100mm DP @ 9% Grade

B34


Figure B56 200mm DP @ 9% Grade

Figure B57 Pipe Data, 200mm DP @ 9% Grade (Noise)

B35


Figure B58 300mm DP @ 9% Grade

Figure B59 Pipe data, 300mm DP @ 9% Grade

B36

Obstruction, Grade 9%

Figure B60 Obstructed Flow, 200mm @ 9% Grade

Figure B61 Pipe Flow with 200mm Obstruction

B37


Figure B62 Obstructed Flow, 1m @ 9% Grade

Figure B63 Pipe Flow with 1m Obstruction (Noise)

B38

Figure B64 Obstructed Flow, 3m @ 9% Grade

Figure B65 Pipe Flow with 3m Obstruction

B39


Figure B66 Obstructed Flow, 5m @ 9% Grade

Figure B67 Pipe Flow with 5m Obstruction

B40

16% Grade (Grid Spacing 2 m)

Figure B68 Failure to run at 1.25m Grid @ 16%

Figure B69 Surface flow @ 16% (1.5m grid)

B41


Figure B70 Pipe capture @ 16% (1.5m Grid)

Figure B71 50mm Downpipe @ 16% Grade, Qmax = 0.0024

B42


Figure B72 100mm Downpipe @ 16% Grade Qmax = 0.0162 m3/s

Figure B73 200mm Downpipe @ 16% Grade Qmax = 0.1106 m3/s

B43


Figure B74 300mm Downpie @ 16% Grade Qmax = 0.3349

B44


Figure B75 50mm DP @ 16% Grade

Figure B76 Pipe Data 50mm DP @ 16% Grade

B45


Figure B77 100mm DP @ 16% Grade

Figure B78 Pipe Data, 100mm DP @ 16% Grade

B46


Figure B79 Surface Flow 200mm Downpipe @ 16% Grade

Figure B80 Pipe Data 200 DP @ 16% Grade

B47


Figure B81 Surface flow, 300mm DP @ 16% Grade

Figure B82 Pipe Data, 300mm DP @ 16% Grade

B48

C. Appendix 2D Hand Calculations

Figure C1 Plan View of intersection, Hand Calculations (Drawn R.Diercke) (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

Figure C2 Typical Cross Section for Road 1 (Drawn R.Diercke) (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

C1


Figure C3 Typical Cross Section for Road 2 (Drawn by R.Diercke) (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

Figure C4 Roll Kerb Calculations (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

C2


Figure C5 Long Section of Road for hand Calculations (Drawn R.Diercke) (PCB Surveyors & Engineers )

ROLL KERB & GUTTER - INPUT PARAMETERS

Gutter
dimensions:

Kerb height
Kerb widths
Invert depth

Road
dimensions:

Road width
Road crossfall

Right footway:
(if crown, use 100)

Right Extent

Left footway:

Left Extent
crossfall

crossfall

BK
AD - AL
AB-DE

0.105
0.215
0.025

DG

3.55
3

m
0.235
m

LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

9.0%

Z5:
Z1:

2.238095
8.6

n1

0.012

m
%

Z2:

33.33333

n2

0.014

Z3:

-1

n3

0.035

-100

4.5
4

m
%

Z4:

25

n4

0.035

C3

Flow
Parameters:

Solve gutter flow parameters for known flow

DE

Depth

GH

PQ

LK

RS

Qcap
3

FLOW

Width

Area
2

Velocity

VxD

m /s

L/s

m/s

m2/s

0.063631

0.03863

0.07800

78

1.645

0.0404

1.931

0.12

ROLL KERB & GUTTER - INPUT PARAMETERS
Gutter
dimensions:

Kerb height
Kerb widths
Invert depth

Road
dimensions:

Road width
Road crossfall

Right footway:
(if crown, use 100)

Right Extent

Left footway:

Left Extent
crossfall

crossfall

BK
AD - AL
AB-DE

0.105
0.215
0.025

DG

3.55
3

m
0.235
m

LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

3.6%

Z5:
Z1:

2.238095
8.6

n1

0.012

m
%

Z2:

33.33333

n2

0.014

Z3:

-1

n3

0.035

-100

4.5
4

m
%

Z4:

25

n4

0.035

C4

Solve gutter flow parameters for known flow

DE
GH PQ LK
Depth
m
0.073328

0
0.04833

m
0

m
0

RS

Qcap

m
0

m
0

FLOW

m /s
0.07800

L/s
78

Flow
Parameters:
Width

Area
2

m
1.990

m
0.0580

Velocity

VxD

m/s
1.344

m2/s
0.10

ROLL KERB & GUTTER - INPUT PARAMETERS

Gutter
dimensions:

Kerb height
Kerb widths
Invert depth

Road
dimensions:

Road width
Road crossfall

Right footway:
(if crown, use 100)

Right Extent

Left footway:

Left Extent
crossfall

BK
AD - AL
AB-DE

0.105
0.215
0.025

DG

3.55
3

crossfall

m
0.235
m

LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

0.6%

Z5:
Z1:

2.238095
8.6

n1

0.012

m
%

Z2:

33.33333

n2

0.014

Z3:

-1

n3

0.035

-100

4.5
4

m
%

Z4:

25

n4

0.035

Solve gutter flow parameters for known

flow
DE
GH PQ LK
Depth
m
0
m
m
m
0.098757
0.07376
0
0
0

RS
m
0

Qcap
m3/s
0.07800

FLOW
L/s
78

Flow
Parameters:
Width
m
2.895

Area
m2
0.1201

Velocity
m/s
0.649

C5

VxD
m2/s
0.06

ROLL KERB & GUTTER - INPUT PARAMETERS

Gutter
dimensions:

Kerb height
Kerb widths
Invert depth

Road
dimensions:

Road width
Road crossfall

Right footway:
(if crown, use 100)

Right Extent

Left footway:

Left Extent
crossfall

BK
AD - AL
AB-DE

0.105
0.215
0.025

DG

3.55
3

crossfall

m
0.235
m

LONGITUDINAL SLOPE

2.1%

Z5:
Z1:

2.238095
8.6

n1

0.012

m
%

Z2:

33.33333

n2

0.014

Z3:

-1

n3

0.035

-100

4.5
4

m
%

Z4:

25

n4

0.035

Solve gutter flow parameters for known flow

DE
GH
PQ LK
Depth
m
0
m
m
m
0.08002
0.05502
0
0
0

RS
m
0

Qcap
m3/s
0.07800

FLOW
L/s
78

Flow
Parameters:
Width
m
2.228

Area
m2
0.0721

Velocity
m/s
1.081

C6

VxD
m2/s
0.09

C7

D. Appendix Finite Element Modelling

The governing equations for shallow water are functions of x and y axis, they assume
that variations in water density and temperature are insignificant and that the pressure
variation is hydrostatic (Grosesen & Soewono, 1997). The equations are shown in
Figure D1 (below).

Figure D1 Stelling finite Difference Equations (Grosesen & Soewono, 1997)

D1

E. Appendix Hydrology, General Parameters

Suggested Mannings n values (Kuczera, 2011), (PCB Surveyors & Engineers, 2012)
& (Chaudhry, 2008).
The following values represent the friction of a material and are quantified refered to as
Mannings n. A lower value represents a smoother surface and vice versa. The value is
used in the dynamics of fluids for friction losses.
Material
Concrete
Concrete Pipe/Box Sections
Concrete (Trowel finish)
Concrete (formed, without finish)

n
0.0120.014
0.012
0.0120.015
0.0130.018

Brick

0.0140.016

Rock lining or Riprap

Earth: smooth no weeds
Earth: weeds and gravel
Rock cut
Natural Rivers: Clean and straight
Natural Rivers: Meandering
Natural Rivers: weavy, winding, overgrown
Short grass
Long grass

0.0250.030
0.02
0.0250.035
0.0350.040
0.0250.03
0.0330.04
0.0750.15
0.0300.035
0.0350.050

E1

DRAINS UPDATES

F2

Pit Inlet Capacities

The following pit inlet capacities were used in both scenarios, and defined the capture rate
of the pits.
Table E1 Pit Inlet Ratings (1)
1.8EKI
Qin

%Cap
0
100
0.034
100
0.04
99
0.044
97.5
0.05
95
0.06
91
0.08
82.5
0.09
79
0.1
75.5
0.15 63.33333
0.2
55
0.25
47.6
SAG wizard:
1.8m perimeter
0.2x1.8m area
0.3 pond. Dpth

Qout
0.000
0.034
0.040
0.043
0.048
0.055
0.066
0.071
0.076
0.095
0.110
0.119

1.8EKI >6%
Qin
%Cap
0
100
0.034
100
0.04
99.5
0.05
97
0.06
93.5
0.07
90
0.08
86
0.09
82.77778
0.1
79
0.15
65.53333
0.2
55.75
0.25
48.4
SAG wizard:
1.8m perimeter
0.2x1.8m area
0.3 pond. Dpth

Qout
0.000
0.034
0.040
0.049
0.056
0.063
0.069
0.075
0.079
0.098
0.112
0.121

2.4EKI
Qin
0
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25

%Cap
100
100
97
93
89
85.5
82
78.5
65
55
47.48

Qout
0.000
0.040
0.049
0.056
0.062
0.068
0.074
0.079
0.098
0.110
0.119

SAG wizard:
2.4+0.9 perimeter
2.4x0.2 open area
0.25 pond.depth

Table E2 Pit Inlet Ratings (2)
2.4EKI >6%
Qin
%Cap
0
100
0.04
100
0.05
98
0.06
94.66667
0.07
91
0.08
87
0.09
84
0.1
80.5
0.15
66.5
0.2
56.5
0.25
48.5

Qout
0.000
0.040
0.049
0.057
0.064
0.070
0.076
0.081
0.100
0.113
0.121

3.0EKI (all grades)

Qin
%Cap
0
100
0.04
100
0.05
99.6
0.06
96.5
0.07 93.42857
0.08
90
0.09 86.44444
0.1
83
0.15
69.2
0.2
58.7
0.25
50.5
SAG wizard:
3+0.9perimeter
3x0.2area
0.3ponddepth

Qout
0.000
0.040
0.050
0.058
0.065
0.072
0.078
0.083
0.104
0.117
0.126

3.6EKI
Qin
0
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3

%Cap
100
100
96.66667
95.57143
93
90.44444
87.5
75
65
57
50

Qout
0.000
0.050
0.058
0.067
0.074
0.081
0.088
0.113
0.130
0.143
0.150

SAG wizard:
3.6+0.9Perimeter
3.6x0.2area
0.3m pond.depth

F3

Table E3 Pit Inlet Ratings

1.8EKISAG
%
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36

Qcap
0
0.003
0.008
0.016
0.024
0.033
0.044
0.055
0.068
0.081
0.094
0.109
0.124
0.14
0.157
0.174
0.191
0.209
0.228
0.247
0.267
0.284
0.298
0.307
0.314
0.321
0.328
0.335
0.342
0.349
0.356
0.362
0.369
0.376
0.382
0.389
0.396

2.4EKISAG
%
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260

Qcap
0.000
0.005
0.015
0.028
0.044
0.061
0.081
0.101
0.124
0.148
0.173
0.200
0.228
0.257
0.287
0.318
0.351
0.384
0.418
0.454
0.490
0.527
0.565
0.604
0.644
0.685
0.726

3.0EKISAG
%
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260
0.270
0.280
0.290
0.300
0.310

Qcap
0.000
0.006
0.018
0.034
0.052
0.072
0.095
0.120
0.146
0.175
0.205
0.236
0.269
0.303
0.339
0.376
0.414
0.454
0.494
0.536
0.579
0.623
0.668
0.714
0.761
0.809
0.858
0.908
0.959
1.011
1.064
1.117

3.6EKISAG
%
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260
0.270
0.280
0.290
0.300
0.310

Qcap
0.000
0.007
0.021
0.039
0.060
0.084
0.110
0.138
0.169
0.202
0.236
0.273
0.311
0.350
0.391
0.434
0.478
0.524
0.570
0.619
0.668
0.719
0.771
0.824
0.878
0.934
0.990
1.048
1.107
1.167
1.227
1.289

F4

F. Appendix Modelling Transfer (12d to XPStorm)

Import 12d data to XPSTORMDeveloped By Ryan Diercke (PCB)
12d
Once a job is complete and final in 12d it can be exported to XPSTORM using the
following steps,
Drainage Network Editor from the quick toolbar (left hand side)
Pick Edit
Pick the drainage layout (any drainage line) from 12d, usually titled
Drainage Network, and accept
DEFAULTS tab
Pipes tab
Pipe propertiesRoughness type Set to Manning

Select Apply
Import/Export
I/O format: Select XP SWMM
I/O file name: Give an appropriate name: e.g. 03134_32_XPSWMM
Ensure Export is selected
Run
The file should appear in the 12d directory, as an XPX File.

XP STORM
Open XP Storm and select Set Up Wizard... from the opening window.
Name the new file, and select save. Note: this is not where you select the 12d
file.
Provide a Job Title name
Provide desired simulation dates. Note: The simulation dates can be ignored and
adjusted at a later time if preferred.
Add the Global Database File (12d file)
Ensure no selections are present (delete any previous entries)
Add
Locate the 12d exported XPX File.
Ensure the box is ticked, select Finish. Note: The following data entry
points (Node Defaults, Link Defaults) are not required for this process.

F1

A check screen will appear, ensure the correct files have been selected,
and if entered, the correct scenario dates are entered. Select OK.
A list of warnings may appear, warnings are generally okay, errors will
need to be noted and addressed.
View the imported file
View Fit Window
The screen should now display the correct drainage layout from 12d
Import rainfall, pit and infiltration data.
File Merge... Only have Merge Global Databases selected File
Locate the database file.
X:\_XPSTORM\_Database Files\Database_A Open
Check the import of data was successful
Configuration Global Data Infiltration, Rainfall and Pit Rating
Curves should all have Record names/Data.

F2

G. XP Solutions Technical Support

Called: 4/10/2012 at 2.30pm
Registered with XPStorm, under Pulver Cooper and Blackley
Spoke with Steve

Suggested to flatten road, make vectors more evident

When flow exits the pipe and enters a 2D model it is converted to a
depth/volume. Therefore vectors may not interact as well?
Suggested a 3D model would best replicate my needs, however stated it would
be very complex and not many people use it for those reasons. Usually 3D is used
for harbours and tidal patterns.
Suggested a reference to the SWMMS technical manual
Could not advise on Horton infiltration loss, further investigation required

G1