Previous Page

ues. Normally, a weighted average (e.g., through optimization) of the values is adopted for each of the coefficients. It is not infrequent to see a model misused or abused. Sometimes this is due to the lack of understanding about how the model works. Sometimes it is due to the lack of appreciation of the operational modes. For example, data used for calibration should not be used again for verification. Yet, this situation happens again and again. In such a case of using the same data for calibration and verification, the difference between the model output and the recorded data is simply a reflection of the numerical errors and the deviation of the particular data set from the weighted average situation. Not all models require calibration. Presumably, some strictly physically based models have their coefficient values assigned based on available information and no calibration is needed. However, in rainfall-runoff modeling, some degree of spatial and temporal aggregation of the physical process is unavoidable. Therefore, calibration is desirable, if not necessary.

14.9 DETENTIONANDRETENTIONSTORAGE Detention and retention basins are widely used to control the increased runoff due to urbanization of undeveloped areas. These basins can also offer excellent water quality benefits since pollutants are removed from the stormwater runoff through sedimentation, degradation, and other mechanisms, as the runoff is temporarily stored in a basin. Detention basins are sometimes called dry ponds, because they store runoff only during wet weather. The outlet structures are designed to completely empty the basin after a storm event. Retention basins are sometimes called wet ponds since they retain a permanent pool.

Post development hydrograph (pond inflow) Required Pond Volume Flow Rate Pre-developnent peak flow rate Routed post-developnent hydrograph (pond outflow)

FIGURE 14.43 Routing of runoff through detention basin.

Emergency Spillway Geotextile Treatment Endwall Tailwater Fill Clay Core Water Surface Flow

Maintenance Shoulder

Dutlet Structure

Protection Ahtl-seep Collar Pipe bedding Riprap Energy Dlssipator Over-size barrel FIGURE 14.44 Basic elements of detention basin.

14.9.1 Detention Basins The primary function of a detention basin is to control the quantity of stormwater runoff. Most stormwater management policies require that the postdevelopment peak flow rates be reduced to predevelopment peak flow rates for one or more specified design return periods such as 2, 10, and 25 years. Peak flow reduction is achieved by routing the postdevelopment runoff through a detention basin, that is by detaining the runoff temporarily in a basin. Figures 14.43 illustrates the effect of a detention basin on storm water runoff. The schematic diagram given in Fig. 14.44 shows the basic elements of a detention basin. In addition, sediment forebays are often used for partial removal of sediments from the stormwater runoff before it enters the detention basin. Energy dissipating structures such as baffle chutes are used at inlets. Most detention basins also have a trickle flow ditch or gutter in the bottom sloped towards the outlet to provide drainage of the pond bottom. 14.9.1.1 Detention basin design guidelines. Specific design criteria for detention basins vary in different local ordinances. Some general guidelines are summarized herein. Similar guidelines can be found elsewhere in the literature [ASCE, 1996; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1996; Loganathan et al. 1993; Stahre and Urbonas, 1990; Urbonas and Stahre, 1993; Yu and Kaighn, 1992]. The main objective of a detention basin is to control the peak runoff rates. The outfall structures should be designed to limit the peak outflow rates to allowable rates. A detention basin should also provide sufficient volume for temporary storage of runoff. The inlet, outlet, and side slopes should be stabilized where needed to prevent erosion. The side slopes should be 3H/IV or flatter. The channel bottom should be sloped no less than 2 percent toward the trickle ditch. Detention basin length to width ratio should be no less than 3.0. Outlets should have trash racks. Coarse gravel packing should be provided if a perforated riser outlet is used. An emergency spillway should be built to provide controlled overflow relief for large storms. A 100-year storm event can be used for the emergency spillway design. 14.9.1.2 Outlet structures. Detention basin outlet structures can be of orifice-type, weirtype, or combinations of the two. Schematics of basic outlet structures are shown in Fig. 14.45. Discharge through an orifice outlet is calculated as Q = k0a0V2^H~o (14.88)

where a0 = the orifice area, k0 = the orifice discharge coefficient, and H0 = the effective head. If the orifice is submerged by the tailwater, H0 is the difference between the headwater and tailwater elevations. If the orifice is not submerged by the tailwater, it is assumed that Q = O if the headwater is below the centroid of the orifice. Otherwise, H0 is set equal to the difference between the headwater elevation and the orifice centroid. This approximation is acceptable for small orifices. To account for partial flow in large orifices, the inlet control culvert flow formulation can be used to determine the orifice flow rates. Short outflow pipes smaller than 0.3 m (1.0 ft) in diameter can also be treated as an orifice provided that H0 is greater than 1.5 times the diameter. Typical values of k0 are 0.6 for square-edge uniform entrance conditions, and 0.4 for ragged edge orifices (FHWA, 1996). Weir-type structures include sharp-crested weirs, broad-crested weirs, spillways, and v-notch weirs. Flow over spillways, broad-crested weirs, and sharp-crested weirs with no end contractions is expressed as G = W^H/5 (14.89)

RECTANGULAR WElR FRONT VIEW

RECTANGULAR WEIR SIDE VIEW

UNSUBMERGEO ORIFICE

SUBMERGED ORIFICE

EMBANKMENT

OVER-SlZEDBARRELL SIDE VIEW OF STAND PIPE OR INLET BOX FIGURE 14.45 Detention-outlet structures.

where kw = the weir discharge coefficient, Lc = the effective crest length, and H0 = the head over the weir crest. The weir discharge coefficient depends on the type of the weir and the head. The head over the weir is the difference between the water surface elevation in the detention basin and the weir crest. For sharp-crested weirs with end contractions Q = kw (Lc - 2H0)V^H0I-* and for V-notch weirs Q = kv (jj)V2^(tan f) H (14.91) (14.90)

where kv = the V-notch discharge coefficient, $ = the notch angle, and H0 = the head over the notch bottom. Riser pipes act like a weir at low heads and like an orifice at higher heads. It is also possible that the flow will be controlled by the outflow barrel at even higher heads. In many applications, the outflow barrel is oversized to avoid the flow control by the barrel. In that case the outflow through the structure is calculated for a given head both using the weir and orifice flow equations, and the smaller of the two is used. If a trash rack is installed, the clear water area should be used in the calculations. It should be noted that many engineers design riser pipes so that orifice-type flow will not occur, because it is often observed that vortices form in the structure under orifice flow conditions. Sometimes antivortex structures are installed to avoid this problem. Multiple outlets are used if the design criteria require that more than one design storm be considered. Figure 14.46 displays schematics of several multiple-outlet structures. 14.9.1.3 Stagestorage relationships. The stage-storage relationship is an important detention basin characteristic. For regular-shaped basins, this relationship is obtained from the geometry of the basin. For instance, for trapezoidal detention basins that has a rectangular base of W X L and a side slope of z, the relationship between the volume, S, and the flow depth d is S = L Wd + (L + W) zd1 + y z2# (14.92)

FIGURE 14.46 Example multiple outlet structures.

For irregular-shaped detention basins, first the surface area, A5, versus elevation, h, relationship is obtained from the contour maps of the detention basin site. Then S2 = S1 + (h2 - H1) Asl
+ As2 2

(14.93)

where S1 and A51 correspond to elevation hl9 and S2 and As2 correspond to h2. Equation (14.93) is applied to sequent elevations. A more accurate relationship is S2 = S1 + ^A ^A51 + A52 + VA51A52J (14.94)

The stage-storage relationship for most human-made and natural basins can also be approximated by S = bhc (14.95) where b and c = fitting parameters. Figure 14.47 displays approximate relationships between the parameter b and c, the base area, length to width ratio, and the side slope for trapezoidal basins. 14.9.1.4 Detention pond design aids. The conventional procedure for the hydraulic design of a detention basin is a trial-and-error procedure, and it consists of the following steps: 1. Calculate the detention basin inflow hydrograph(s) for the design return period(s) being considered. A rainfall-runoff model, such as HECl, TR-20, or SCSHYDRO, can be used for this purpose. For urbanizing areas, the inflow hydrograph(s) are normally those calculated for postdevelopment conditions.

Rectangular Pond LW = 3:1

Rectangular Pond LW = 4:1

bottom area m 2 orft 2

bottom area m 2 orft 2

FIGURE 14.47 Detention basin stage-storage parameters. (After Currey and Akan, 1998).

2. Set the hydraulic design criteria. In most applications, the postdevelopment peak(s) are required to be reduced to the magnitude(s) of the predevelopment peak(s) for the design return period(s). If predevelopment peak(s) are not available, a rainfall-runoff model can be used to calculate them. The hydraulic design criteria may also restrict the maximum water surface elevation in the detention basin. 3. Trial design a detention basin. A trial design consists of the stage-storage relationship, and the types, sizes and elevations of the outlet structures. 4. Route the inflow hydrograph(s) through the trial-designed detention basin and check if the design criteria set are met. If not go back to Step 3. Also, if the criteria are met, but the outflow peak(s) are much smaller than the allowable value(s), then the trial basin is overdesigned. Again, go back to Step 3. The level-pool routing procedure is adequate for most detention basin design situations. This procedure is based on the solution of the hydrologic storage routing equation ^jL = I-Q (14.96)

where / = inflow rate and t = time. Unless a computer program is used, Eq. (14.96) is solved by employing a semigraphical method like the storage indication method, which can be found in any standard hydrology textbook. Obviously a good trial design is the key in this procedure. Designing a detention basin can become a tedious and lengthy task if the trial designed basins are not chosen carefully. Various charts and equations are available in the literature that can be used as trial design aids. Most of these aids are based on predetermined solutions to Eq. (14.96) in dimensionless form (Akan, 1989a; Akan, 1990; Currey and Akan, 1998; Kessler and Diskin, 1991; McEnroe, 1992). Others are based on assumed inflow and outflow shapes (Abt and Grigg, 1978; Aron and Kibler, 1990) or results of numerous routings for many detention basins (Soil Conservation Service, 1986; Wycoff and Singh, 1976). Table 14.20 presents various design aid equations, where Ip = the peak inflow rate (peak discharge of postdevelopment hydrograph), Qp = the allowable peak outflow rate, Smax = the required storage volume, and SR = the volume of runoff. The use of these design aids can be illustrated through a simple-example. Suppose the rainfall excess resulting from a design rainfall is 3.5 in. over a 2,178,000 ft2 urban watershed, and the runoff hydrograph has a peak of Ip = 212ft3/s occurring at tp = 30 min = 1800 s. A detention basin is to be designed to reduce the peak flow rate to Qp= 120 ft3/s. A weir-type outlet will be used that has kw = 0.40. It is also required that the depth of water above the weir crest not to exceed 6.50 ft. A trapezoidal detention basin is suggested width a length-to-width ratio of 4 and sideslopes of 3H/IV. To size the required basin, let the surface area of the detention basin at the weir crest elevation be 40,000 ft2. Then from Fig. 14.47, b = 42,500 and c = 1.055. By definition, SR = (3.5/12)(2,178,000) = 635,250 ft3. Using the equations suggested by Currey and Akan (1998) from Table 14.20, we obtain 5max = 302,715 ft3, /zmax = 6.43 ft, and Lc = 2.29 ft. Note that /zmax < 6.50 ft., so the suggested basin with a base area of 40,000, ft2 should work. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), (1986) equations given Table 14.20 are recommended if the standard SCS design rainfall hyetographs are to be used. Also, these equations are not restricted to single outlet detention basins. Suppose a detention basin is required to control the stormwater runoff for 2-year and 25-year events. Given for the 2year event are Ip = 91 ft3/s, Qp = 50 ftVs, SR = 408,480 ft3, and for the 25 =year event Ip = 360 ftVs, Qp= 180 ftVs, SR = 928,750 ft3. A two-stage weir outlet is suggested with kw = 0.40, and the maximum water depth above the lower weir crest is not allowed to exceed 5 ft. The design is to be based on SCS 24-h Type II rainfall. Suppose a trapezoidal deten-

Table 14.20 Design Aid Equations for Detention and Retention Storage Equation S^ SR 1.291(1 -Qp/Ipy> (W411 smax _ i _ fc p > SR UJ Smax S* Qp / Number of Outlets
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified

Outlet Type(s)
Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified

Remarks Based on numerical simulations Tb = time base of inflow hydrograph Triangular inflow hydrograph, trapezoid outflow hydrograph Triangular inflow and outflow hydrograph For SCS 24-h Types I and IA rainfall For SCS 24-h Types II and III rainfall td = storm duration, Tc = time of concentration Trapezoidal inflow hydrograph, rising limb of outflow hydrograph is linear, Constant reservoir surface area, valid for
0.2 < ^ < 0.9 P Constant reservoir surface area, valid for 0.2 < Qs- < 0.9 p

Reference Wycoff and Singh (1976) Abt and Grigg (1978) Baker (1979)

%^ - 0.660 - L7^\ + 1.96^]2 - 0.730^) ^R (.'P) I lp J I *p J ^p - 0.682 - 1.43(^1 + 1-64Jy^ ~ 0.804^|

Soil Conservation Service (1986) Soil Conservation Service (1986) Aron and Kibler (1990)

Smax

tj+T = Iptd - G,(JL2-1)

^P = 0.932 - 0.792 ^ ^R *p %^ - 0.872 - 0.861^ 1 *R P

Single

Weir type Orifice type

Kessler and Diskin (1991) Kessler and Diskin (1991)

Single

Table 14.20 (Continued) Equation

Number of Outlets Single Single

Outlet Types(s) Weir type Orifice type

Remarks

Reference McEnroe (1992) McEnroe (1992)

Gamma function inflow hydrograph Gamma function inflow hydrograph

%i = 0.97 - 1.42 Qs. 1 + 0.821 (^) - 0.46 (%) 1 ^R P (P J (PJ

%^ = 0.922 - 0.787 [^l ^R \ 1P J

Z, "max

( 0.922 S - 0.787 =S- V/' Q S R R P

Single

Weir type

\l.5/c
b

Gamma function inflow hydrograph, stage-storage relationship: 5 = bhc, h = stage, Lc = weir crest length, kw = weir discharge coefficient, g = gravitional acceleration

Currey and Akan (1998)

L-

Q O kw V2g 0.922^-0.787^^] * P

( h ~

O \ 0.847 SR - 0.841 ^- SR P J
Single Orifice type Gamma function inflow hydrograph, Currey and Akan stage-storage relationship: S = bhc, (1998) h = stage, a0 = orifice area, k0 = orifice discharge coefficient, g = gravitational acceleration

\
%^ = 0.847 - 0.841 1 [^l S R { PJ

\5/C b O a ~ o , +L V 2g k 0.847 K R - 0.841 ^ SJK\ S \ Ip

tion basin with a length-to-width ratio of 4 and side slopes of 3H/ IV is suggested. From Table 14.20, 5max - 928,750 [0.682 - 1.43(180/360) + 1.64(180/36O)2 - 0.804 (180/360)3] = 256,800 ft3. Likewise, Smax = 105,400 ft3 for the 2-year event. To determine the base area (or the surface area of the detention basin at the lower crest elevation), use Eq. (14.92) with S = 256,800 ft3, L = 4W, z = 3, and d = 5 ft. Solving the equation for W, we obtain approximately W = 104 ft, and then L = 416 ft. To size the lower crest for the 2-year event use Smax = 105,400 ft3. Now substituting S = 105,400 ft3, W = 104 ft, L = 416 ft and z = 3 in Eq. (14.92) and solving for d, we obtain the maximum head over the lower crest for the 2-year event as being 2.25 ft. Next, using the weir equation (Eq. 14.89) with Q = 50 ft3/s, kw = 0.40, h = 2.25 ft, and g = 32.2 ft/s2, we obtain L0 = 4.61 ft for the lower crest. Let the upper crest be placed 2.30 ft above the lower crest. To size the upper crest, the 25-year event is considered. The maximum head over the lower crest will be 5 ft. At this head the lower crest will discharge 165 ftVs [from Eq. (14.89)]. Therefore, the upper crest should be sized to pass (180 165) =15 ft3/s under a head of (5.00 - 2.30) = 2.70 ft. From the weir formula [Eq. (14.89)] we obtain Lc = 1.05 ft for the upper crest. 14.9.2 Extended Detention Basins Extended detention basins are effective means of removing particulate pollutants from urban storm water runoff. As shown in Fig. 14.48, an extended detention pond has two stages. The bottom stage is expected to be inundated frequently. The top stage remains dry except during large storms.

Top View Top Stagetai(Normally Dry, Main ned as Meadow) 25Foot Buffer Butler with Landscaped Shrubs for Habitat Bottom Stage

Side-slopes 3:1 Maximum Embankment

Outfall Emergency Spil way

DETENTION TIME: 24 to0.405 to 1.50 Inches/Impervious Acre DETENTION VOLUME: 7 Hours Side View 2 Year Water Surface Elevation Top Stage (Normally Dry) with Hood Antila-seep Col rs

Bottom RunoffSiVoledme Accept Stage z u to of Mean Storm Shallow Marsh Encased in Gravel Jacket (6 to 12 inches) FIGURE 14.48 Extended detention basin. (After Schueler, 1987).

14.9.2.1 Detention volume and time. An extended detention basin is designed to detain a certain quantity of runoff, sometimes referred to as the water quality volume, for a certain period of time to achieve the targeted level of pollutant removal. The volume to be detained and the duration over which this volume to be released vary in different stormwastet management policies. For example, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (1992) requires that a quantity of runoff calculated as 0.5 inch times the impervious watershed area be released over 30 h in southeastern Virginia. Prince George County Department of Environmental Resources (1984) requires the runoff volume generated from the 1-year, 24-hour storm be released over a minimum of 24 h. American Society of Civil Engineers (1998) outlines a procedure to size extended basins serving up to 1.0 km2 (0.6 m3) watersheds. In this procedure, the volume of water to be detained per unit watershed area, P0, is estimated as P0 = ar(0.858i3 - 0.78/2 + 0.774/ + 0.04)P6 (14.97)

where ar = a regression coefficient, / = the watershed imperviousness expressed as a fraction, and P6 = the mean storm precipitation depth that can be obtained from Fig. 14.49. The value of the regression coefficient ar is 1.109, 1.299, and 1.545 for detention volume release times of 12, 24, and 48 h, respectively. Interpolation of these values is allowed for durations between 24 and 48 h. The use of this procedure can be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose an extended detention basin is to be designed for a 150-acre watershed in Norfolk, Virginia that is 40 percent impervious. Determine the required size if the detained runoff is to be released over 36 hours. From Fig. 14.49, P6 = 0.67 in for Norfolk, Virginia. Because the watershed is 40 percent impervious, / = 0.40. Also, interpolating the ar values between 24 and 48 h, ar = 1.422 for 36 h. Then, from Eq. (14.97), we obtain P0 = 0.27 in. Therefore, the volume of runoff to be detained is (150) (0.27/12) = 3.38 aq-ft = 147,233 ft3. It is advisable to increase this volume by about 20 percent for sedimentation.

FIGURE 14.49 Mean storm precipitation depth in inches. (After ASCE, 1998).

Trash Rack Side View Gravel Jacket

Perforated Riser Wire Mesh

Barrel

b. Inlet Controlled Perforated Pipe Extended Detention Orifices ReplDean-outCap (or aceable Stone ToLOW Flof Oriwice Gravel Wire Mesh

c. Internally Controlled Perforated Pipe Internal Orifice Regulation To Low Flow Orifice Gravel Sand

Pipe Wrapped with Filter Fabric FIGURE 14.50 Extended detention pond outlets. (After Schueler, 1987). 14.9.2.2 Extended detention outlet structures. The outlets for extended detention basins are designed to slowly release the captured runoff from the basin over the specified emptying time to allow settling of particulate pollutants. We sometimes refer to these outlets as water quality outlets. Low-flow orifices are often used as outlet structures. Figure 14.50 displays various methods for extending detention times. As pointed out by Schueler (1987) and ASCE (1998), however, extended detention outlet structures are generally prone to clogging. This makes the design of outlet structures difficult since the hydraulic performance of a clogged outlet will be uncertain and different from what it is designed for. Regular cleanouts must be performed. A hydrograph routing approach is probably the best way to size an extended detention basin and the water quality outlet. However, this requires an inflow hydrograph. In practice, as discussed in the preceding section, only the volume of captured runoff is considered for pollutant removal. There are no broadly accepted procedures to convert this volume to an inflow hydrograph. Therefore, the water quality outlets are often sized by using approximate hydraulics. This can be illustrated by a simple example.

Suppose an extended detention basin has a bottom length of 80 ft, a width of 20 ft, and side slopes of 3:1(//:V). The outlet is to be sized so that it will release a water quality volume of 10,200 ft3 over a period of 40 h. To determine the depth of water corresponding to this volume, Eq. (14.92) is written as 10,200 = (80)(20)J + (80 + 20)3d2 + (4/3)32J3. By trial and error, d = 3.6 ft. Let the outlet structure be comprised of !/2-in circular ragged edge orifice holes cut around a riser pipe. Let the average elevation of the holes be 1 ft above the pond bottom. Therefore, the average head over the orifice holes is (3.6 1.0)/2 = 1.3 ft. To empty 10,200 ft3 over 4 O h = 144,000 s, the average release rate is 10,200/144,000 = 0.0708 ftVs. Noting that the orifice area of a 0.5 in. hole is 0.00136 ft2, and k0 = 0.40 for ragged edge orifices, we can write Eq. 14.88 as 0.0708 = AT(0.40)(0.00136)V2(32.2)Vf3 where Af is the number of orifice holes. Solving for N we obtain N = 14.22. Therefore, we use 14 holes evenly distributed. 14.9.2.3 Extended detention basin design considerations. Additional design considerations for extended detention basins can be found in various publications (ASCE, 1998; FHWA, Schueler, 1987; Urbonas and Stahre, 1993). Briefly, the basin should gradually expand from the inlet, toward the outlet. A length-to-width ratio of 2 or higher is recommended. Side slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 (H:V) and flatter than 20:1 (H:V). A riprap, concrete, or paved low-flow channel is required to convey trickle flows. A twostage design is recommended with a 1.5- to 3.0 ft-deep bottom stage and a 2.0- to 6.0ft-deep upper stage. A wetland marsh created in the bottom stage will help remove soluble pollutants that cannot be removed by settling. The detention basin inlet should be protected to prevent erosion. If the outlet is not protected by a gravel pack, some form of trash rack should be used. A sediment forebay is recommended to encourage sediment deposition to occur near the point of inflow 14.9.3 Retention Basins Retention basins or wet ponds retain a permanent pool during dry weather as shown in Fig. 14.51. A high removal rate of sediment, biological oxygen demand (BOD), organic nutrients, and trace metals can be achieved if stormwater is retained in the wet pond long enough. During wet weather, the incoming runoff displaces the old stormwater from the permanent pool from which significant amounts of pollutants have been removed. The new runoff is retained until it is displaced by subsequent storms. The permanent pool therefore will capture and treat the small and frequently occurring stormwater runoff which generally contain high levels of pollutant loading. The storage volume provided above the permanent pool is used to control the runoff peaks caused by the specified design storm events. 14.9.3.1 Permanent pool volume. Among all the factors influencing the pollutant removal efficiency of a retention basin, the size of the permanent pool is the most important. As pointed out by Schueler (1987), in general, "bigger is better." However, after a threshold size is reached, further removal by sedimentation is negligible.

Minim/Vedel led Wide Sdfelyum 10afoot Ledge Grassed Stabilized Intel Pool Should be 3-8 Feet Deep and Wedge-Shaped Riser with Hood

Embankment

Ouifa*

Minimum 25 Foot Wide Buffer Around Pool Ri er wllh sHood Anil-seep Collars pulflow FIGURE 14.51 Retention basin. (After Yu and Kaighn, 1992). The required size of the permanent pool in relation to the contributing watershed area varies in different stormwater management policies. For example, FHWA (1996) and Yu and Kaign (1992) recommend a permanent pool size three times the water quality volume defined for extended detention basins. Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (1984), Maryland, requires a volume greater than 0.5 in. times the total watershed area. ASCE (1998) recommends that Eq. (14.97), be used with a drain time of 12 hours to determine the permanent pool volume. It is also recommended that a surcharge extended detention volume, equal to the permanent pool volume, be provided above the permanent pool. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986) provides geographically based design curves to determine the permanent pool surface area as percent of the contributing watershed area (see Fig. 14.52). Hartigan (1989) and Walker (1987) treat a retention basin as a small euthrophic lake and employ empirical models to size the retention pond. This procedure is outlined by ASCE (1998). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986) presented a procedure to evaluate the long-term pollutant removal efficiency of retention basins depending on the basin size and the rainfall statistics of the project area. This procedure was developed by DiToro and Small (1979), and is outlined in various publications (Akan, 1993; Stahre and Urbonas, 1990; Urbonas and Stahre, 1993). 14.9.3.2 Retention basin design considerations. Wet ponds can be designed to control the peak runoff rates from rare and large storm events if additional storage volume is provided above the permanent pool. The size of the additional volume can be determined by using the procedures described for detention basins. The outlet structures for retention basins include a low flow outlet to control the runoff from frequent storm events and overflow devices to control the runoff from larger storms. Typical outflow structures are shown in Fig. 14.53 (Schueler, 1987).
cme

IoO Vani'wWajefsurfiDce Etevalloonn Year riief' Surface Uteyqll

'^ay.tosray

S ! ! is
Rocky Mountains, Denver Northeast Southeast Basin depth = 3.5 ft Runoff coefficient = 8.20

Basin surface area as % of contributing catchment area FIGURE 14.52 Design curves for solids settling, for low-density residential land use. (After USEPA, 1986).

Removable Cap . lnlemaffy Controlled Slotted Slandpipe Standing Water G(VMi JKkM

b. Negatively Stopd Pipe trom Riser Embankment NegativelOn* Fool BdowDrews Water at LMM y Sloped Pipe Pool tamanmcPDOl e. HoortetJ Orifice on Riser ConcrU Box Riser Extended OrrRce

Permanent

Front View

Side View

FIGURE 14.53 Retention basin outlet structures. (After Schueler, 1987).

Additional design considerations have been presented by Schueler (1987). In summary, the pond should be wedge-shaped, narrowest at the inlet and widest at the outlet. A minimum length to width ratio of 3:1 should be used. The pond depth should average 3-6 ft, with a shallow underwater bench around the pond's perimeter. Side-slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) and not flatter than 20:1 (H:V). If the soils at the pond site are highly permeable, the pond's bottom should be lined by impervious geotextile or a 6-in clay liner. The inlets and outfalls should be protected by riprap or other means to prevent erosion. Wet ponds should be surrounded by a 25-ft buffer strip planted with water-tolerant grasses and shrubs. A sediment forebay should be constructed near the inlet of the pond with extra storage equal to the projected sediment trapping over a 20- to 40-year period. 14.9.4 Computer Models for Detention and Retention Basin Design As discussed in the preceding sections, a trial-and-error procedure is used for hydraulic design of retention and detention basins. A basin is first trial-designed, and then the design hydrographs are routed through the basin to verify if the design criteria are met. Therefore, any reservoir routing computer program can be useful for designing detention and retention basins. The widely known TR-20 (Soil Conservation Service, 1986) and HEC-I (Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1990), for instance, have reservoir routing schemes and can be used for pond design. These models are in public domain. Commercially available pond routing software are a lot more user-friendly, and they include Watershed Modeling Standalone (www.eaglepoint.com). The commercially available models allow a variety of different outlet structures and simulation of multiple storm events. Also available are PONDOPT (www.cahh.com) and BASINOPT (www.cahh.com) which include an analysis option for reservoir routing as in the other pond models. These two models also have a unique design option which performs all the iterations internally. The ponds are sized and the outlet invert elevations and sizes are determined by the program for multiple-return periods.

74. W

SEWER HYDRAULIC SIMULATION MODELS

A model is defined here as a method or simulation algorithm that has been coded into a computer program for computations and applications. Numerous models have been developed for sewer networks. These sewer models can be classified in different ways as follows: 1. According to the purpose of the model: (a) design modelshydraulic design, or Optimal design, risk-based design; (b) evaluation/predictions models, (c) planning models. 2. According to the objective of the project: (a) flood control or (b) pollution control. 3. According to the extent of space consideration: (a) overland surface only, (b) sewer system only, or (c) sewer system and overland surface. 4. According to the nature of wastewater: (a) sanitary sewer models or (b) storm and combined sewer models. 5. According to water-quality considerations: (a) quantity only, (b) quality only (rare), or (c) quantity and quality. 6. According to time considerations of rainfall input: (a) single-event models or (b) multiple-event continuous models.

7. According to probability considerations: (a) deterministic or (b) probabilisticpure statistical or stochastic. 8. According to systems concept: (a) lumped system or (b) distributed system. 9. According to hydrologic principles considered: (a) hydrologic (principle of mass conservation) or (b) hydraulic (principles of conservation of mass and momentum or energy). In the first classification, the design models are for the determination of the size of the sewers and perhaps also their slope and layout of either a new sewer systems or an extension or modification of an existing system. The evaluation/prediction models are those used to simulate the flow in an existing or predetermined sewer system for which the size, slope, and layout are already specified. Their use is to compute the flow in the sewers to check the adequacy of sewer capacity, system performance, operation, management of pollution abatement, flood mitigation, and so forth. Or, the model may be incorporated as part of a real-time operation system. The planning models are those models used for strategy planning and decision making for urban or regional storm and waste water management, usually applied to a larger time and spatial frame than the design or evaluation models. The design models design the sewers in a network for a hypothetical future event which is represented by the design storms of specified return period or risk level. The evaluation/prediction models simulate the runoff produced by a rainstorm of the past, present, future, or the flow from other sources. The planning models usually consider a relatively long continuous period of time covering many rainstorms and dry periods in between. The planning models utilize the least hydraulic consideration of flow on overland areas and in sewers. Often, a simple water budget balance suffices. A typical example is the STORM model (Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1974). Supposedly, for the purpose of reliable flow simulation, the evaluation/prediction models require the highest level of hydraulic sophistication and accuracy. However, many lower level models do exist. Due primarily to the discrete sizes of commercial pipes, usually a moderate level of hydraulics is adequate for the design models (Yen and Sevuk, 1975; Yen et al., 1976). Most of the existing sewer models are evaluation/prediction models. Aside from the design models derived from the rational method, there are actually very few true sewer design models; among them only two models, ILSD (Yen et al., 1976, 1984) and WASSP (Price, 1982b), have published user's guides and arrangements for release of programs. Some of the evaluation/prediction models have the ability to compute the diameter required for gravity flow of a specific discharge. However, they are not true design models because different sewers should be designed for different rainstorms of different durations corresponding to the different time of concentration of the sewers. Hence, many computer runs are required to complete the design of a network using these models. In the last classification, the hydraulic models can further be classified according to the level of hydraulics shown in Eq. (14.1) or (14.2) as follows: dynamic wave models, noninertia models, nonlinear kinematic wave models, and linear kinematic wave models. It is impossible to summarize and report the hydraulic properties of all the exiting sewer models in this chapter. Therefore, only selected models are made in this presentation. Since this article deals with the hydraulics of sewers, in the following section, only the hydraulics of selected models are discussed. For models that allow more than one hydraulic level for flow routing, they are presented according to their respective highest hydraulic level. For information and comparison of the nonhydraulic aspects of the models, the reader should refer to other references such as those by Brandstetter (1976), Chow and Yen (1976), and CoIyer and Pethick (1976) in addition to the original model developers' reports or papers. Models without hydraulic consideration of the sewer flow, such

as the rational method models, are excluded. When water quality transport simulation is sought, nearly all the models perform the flow routing first and allow another pollutant transport modelusually in concentration formcoupled with the routing result for simulation. Only the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) has the quality portion integrated in the model as a modular block. 14.10.1 Hydraulic Properties of Selected Dynamic Wave Sewer Models Well=known models, in which the highest hydraulic level, the dynamic wave simulation is employed, are listed in Table 14.21. In the table, the subscript o denotes the sewer receiving outflow from the junction. All these models were developed for flow simulation rather than for design of sewers in a network. CAREDAS, UNSTDY, HYDROWORKS, and MOUSE are proprietary models. Among the nonproprietary models, only two [ISS and Stormwater Management Models Extended Transportation (SWMM-EXTRAN)] have user's manuals published and available to the public. For dynamic wave and noninertia models, the junction conditions and surcharge transition conditionsif surcharge is allowedare important for reliable and realistic simulation of the flow. However, for most of the models listed in Table 14.21, information about the details and assumption on the surcharge transition and on junctions is inadequately given. Also, except ISS which cannot handle flow having a Froude number greater than 1.6, it is not known whether the other models can handle supercritical flow with roll waves, and if so, what assumptions are involved. In the following, dynamic wave models listed in Table 14.21 are briefly discussed in three groups, namely, the explicit scheme model (SWMM-EXTRAN), the models that handle only open-channel sewer flows, and the models that handle both open-channel and surcharge sewer flows. The allowed network size given in Table 14.21 is that indicated in the quoted literature. For most models, this number has been increased with later developments. 14.10.1.1 Explicit scheme model: SWMM-EXTRAN. The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) developed under continuous support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is one of the best known among all the sewer models. The Extended Transport block (EXTRAN) (Roesner and Shubinski, 1982; Roesner et al., 1984) was added to the SWMM Version III to provide the model with dynamic wave simulation capability. The entire sewer length is considered as a single computational reach, and the dynamic wave equation is written in backward time difference between the time levels n + 1 and n for the sewer, and expressed explicitly as

1+

on2 Af Vl _ _ A A 2W^ IV' Q.+ 2VnM+ Vn "'" *-Af Z Z1A ' n ) ^ - h -h, - 8\ "'" Af LJ

(14.98)

where all the symbols have been defined previously, the subscript u = the upstream end of the sewer (that is, entrance) and d = the downstream end of the sewer (that is, exit), the bar indicates the average of values at the entrance and exit, and presumably AA = An+1 An is also the average of the values at the sewer ends. The junction condition used is the continuity equation, Eq. (14.47), expressed explicitly in terms of the depth and discharge values at the time nAf as

TABLE 14.21 Summary of Hydraulic Properties of Selected Dynamic Wave Sewer Network Models Model Open-Channel Flow Interior Junction Numerical Para Sf Sewer Solution De 'tention Equations Scheme meters Downstream Scheme Storage Condition Yes and Surcharge Flow Net work References Size Transition Surcharge Numerical Solution Condition Hydraulics Scheme Scheme Reported or Programmed

SWMM- Explicit h, Q Manning Junction water One sweep, EXTRAN surface or pipe by pipe assumed condition

ISS

Characteristic

Employ open- Explicit One sweep, 200 Roesner and Z<2 = dsldt All pipes pipe by pipe Hf = h0 entering a channel Shubinski junction are eqinations (1982); full or the wit ;h junction Roesner et al. head computed highest (1984) entering using assumed pipe is adjustment submerged factors, excess water lost h, V Darcy- Junction water Simultaneous Yes ZG = <fa/# and NA NA 54 Sevuk et al Weisbach surface or on overlapping H0 = H- (W2g) (1973); Sevuk critical depth segments; and Yen or Z<2 = O and pipe by pipe (1982) h, = h0 h/d>Q.9l Preissmann slot 28 (for Chevereau dynamic et al. (1978); wave) Cunge and Mazaudou (1984) 26 Sjoberg (1976, 1982)

CAREDAS Four-point h, Q Chezy or Junction water Simultaneous Yes ZQ = dsldt and /ij = h0 implicit Manning surface (double sweep)

DAGVL-A Implicit, h, Q Manning Junction water Simultaneous continuity surface or (double sweep) six-point, critical depth momentum four-point, w = 0.55

Yes

Zg - dsldt Q >Qf and H0 = H- (KV1IIg) orZQ^O and H1 = h0

Preissmann slot

TABLE 14.21 (Continued) Summary of Hydraulic Properties of Selected Dynamic Wave Sewer Network Models Model Open-Channel Flow Interior Junction Numerical Para Sf Sewer Solution Detention Equations Scheme meters Downstream Scheme Storage Condition Surcharge Flow Network References Transition Surcharge Numerical Solution ^e Condition Hydraulics Scheme Scheme Reported or Programmed Preissmann slot 300 Book et al (1982); Chen and Chai (1991); Labadie et al. (1978) 40 JoMe (1984a, b)

UNSTDY Four-point H, Q Manning Junction water Simultaneous Yes implicit surface or (double sweep) sluice gate

0 - dsldt Not given and /i. = h0

Joliffe

Four-point h, Q Manning Junction water Simultaneous No ^LQ = O Not given Preissmann slot implicit, surface and hi = h0 w = 0.55, 0.6, 0.75, or 1.0 SURDYN Four-point h, Q Manning Junction water Simultaneous Yes Zg = dsldt and Q > Qfor Quasi-steady Implicit Simultaneous 10 Pansic (1980) implicit, surface or H0 = H-(KV1IZg) submerged dynamic, w = 0.55 critical depth or ZQ = O exit junction head and hi = h0 losses considered MOUSE Six-point h, Q Manning Junction water Simultaneous Yes 1,Q = dsldt Not given Preissmann slot (87) Abbott et al implicit, surface (double sweep) and (1982); DHI 2 w -0.5 H0 = H- (KV Kg) (1994); Hoffor "LQ = O Clausen et al and h{ = H0 (1982) SPIDA/ Four-point h, Q Colebrook- Junction water Simultaneous Yes "LQ = dsldt Preissmann slot 5000 Wallingford HYDRO- implicit White or surface or (double sweep) and Software WORKS Manning critical depth H0 = H- (KWFIg) (1991, 1997)

Hn + 1 = Hn + ^- QX + Qj>n) A j

(14.99)

where the subscript j indicates junction. The junction dynamic relation is simplified as a common water surface [Eq. (14.51)]. Equations (14.98) and (14.99) are solved explicitly by using a modified Euler method and half-step and full-step calculations. Courant's stability criterion is adopted to select the computational Af. In EXTRAN, when a junction is surcharged, instead of properly applying the continuity equation (Eq. 14.53), it assumes the point-type junction continuity relationship (Eq. 14.50) applies. On the basis of this point-type junction continuity equation, an expression of the junction water head is derived through an improper application of the chain rule of differentiation, for which a Taylor expansion would have been more appropriate. The unsatisfactory result was apparently recognized, and remedies were attempted through the introduction of an adjustment factor and the assumption on the numerical iterations to either reach a maximum number set by the user or the algebraic sum of the inflows and outflows of a junction being less than a tolerance. In an earlier version of EXTRAN that was applied to a project in San Francisco, California, an attempt was made to artificially modify the geometry of the junction so that numerical solution could be obtained. The SWMM-EXTRAN, with its explicit difference formulation, solves the flow sewer by sewer by using the one-sweep explicit solution method with no need for simultaneous solution of the sewers of the network. Therefore, it is relatively easy to program. Nonetheless, because of the assumptions on the surcharge condition, and also the stability and convergence (accuracy) problems of the explicit scheme for the open-channel condition, on a theoretical basis EXTRAN is inferior to other dynamic wave models listed in Table 14.21. The other models, of course, have their share of problems concerning the assumptions on the transitions between open-channel and surcharge flows, between supercritical and subcritical flows, and on roll waves. 14.10.1.2 Dynamic wave model handling only open-channel flow: ISS. The Illinois Storm Sewer System Simulation (ISS) model (Sevuk et al. 1973) solves the dynamic wave equation using the first-order scheme of the method characteristics. The SaintVenant equations [Eqs. (14.2) and (14.5)] or similar type partial differential equations are transformed mathematically into two sets of characteristic equations, each set consisting of a pair of ordinary differential equations which are solved numerically using a semiimplicit scheme. The formulation can be found in Sevuk and Yen (1982). The junction conditions used for a storage junction are Eq. (14.47), together with the equations in Table 14.15, for sewer exits, and for sewer entrances Eq. (14.48) with K1 = O, that is, H=(W2g) + h + Z (14.100) For a point junction, the equations are Eq. (14.50), together with Eqs. (14.51) or (14.52). The ISS model program considers direct backwater effects for up to three sewers in a junction. For junction with more than three joining sewers, the excess sewers (preferably those with small backwater effects from the junction) are treated as direct inflow, that is, Qj in Eqs. (14.47) or (14.50). The flow in the network is solved by using the overlapping segment method. The outlet of the network can be any one of the following: (1) a free fall, (2) flow continuing to approach normal flow, (3) a stage hydrograph h = f(i), (4) a rating curve Q = f(h), (5) a velocity-depth relationship v = f(h\ and (5) a discharge-time relationship Q = f(t).

When used to compute the required pipe diameter of a sewer, ISS is the only model among those listed in Table 14.21 that uses a maximum depth criterion to ensure gravity flow in the sewer for the design situation. Other models compute the required pipe diameter on the basis of the peak discharge that does not guarantee gravity flow because, for unsteady flow, maximum depth usually does not occur at the same time as the maximum discharge in a sewer. The ISS model can easily be modified to account also for surcharge flow by adding the Preissmann hypothetical slot. 14.10.1.3 Dynamic wave models handling both open-channel and surcharge flows. Among the seven models belonging to this group listed in Table 14.21, four of them CAREDAS, UNSTDY, Joliffe, and HYDROWORKSare numerically similar, using a four-point implicit scheme and adopting the Preissmann fictitious open slot to simulate surcharge flow. Details of the four-point implicit scheme can be found in Liggett and Cunge (1975) and Lai (1986). In fact, the same four-point numerical scheme is also used in SURDYN (Pansic, 1980). SURDYN is the only model in this group of seven that simulates the surcharge flow by using the standard pressurized conduit approach and solving it simultaneously with the open-channel flow. The surcharge equation used in this model is a quasi-steady dynamic equation obtained by dropping the local acceleration (9V/3f) term in Eq. (14.2). For the rising transition from open-channel flow, surcharge is assumed to occur when the discharge exceeds Qf or when the pipe exit is submerged. Falling transition from surcharge to open-channel flow is assumed to occur when the pipe entrance is not submerged, when the discharge falls less than Qf or when the pipe exit is not submerged. Pansic (1980) reported that the model simulates the unsteady flow reasonably well. But oscillations often occur at transitions between open-channel and surcharge conditions. This oscillation problem is partly numerical, partly hydraulic, and partly due to assumptions. Among these models, HYDROWORKS, MOUSE, UNSTDY, and CAREDAS are proprietary. They are briefly introduced in the following: 1. HYDROWORKS. The dynamic wave sewer flow routing option of HYDROWORKS is based on an earlier model SPIDA from the same company, Hydraulics Research, in England. HYDROWORKS also contains noninertial (WALLRUS) and nonlinear kinematic wave (WASSP-SIM) sewer routing options. The model can handle a looped-type network as well as a dendritic type. For dynamic wave routing, the inertia terms are linearly phased out from a Froude number equal to 0.8-1.1. Essentially, for supercritical flow, the noninertia approximation is used. For pressurized flow, the hypothetical slot width is assumed one-twentieth of the maximum pipe diameter. 2. MOUSE. This model was upgraded from Danish Hydraulic Institute's (DHI) System 11-sewer (SIl-S) model. It was first released in 1985 and subsequently updated with personal computer PC technology advancements. It uses the Abbott-Ionescu six-point implicit scheme (Abbott and Basco, 1990) which is relatively stable and consistent but costly in computation. The model allows loop network. In addition to dynamic wave routing, it also has noninertia (identified in the model as diffusion wave) and kinematic wave routing options for sewers. 3. UNSTDY. The UNSTDY model uses four-point noncentral implicit schemes to solve the Saint-Venant equations for subcritical flow. Supercritical flow is simulated by using the kinematic wave approximation. The model can solve a looped network in the system.

TABLE 14.22 Summary of Hydraulic Properties of Noninertia Sewer Network Models Model Numerical Scheme
HVM

Open-Channel Flow Parameters Sf h,Q

Sewer Downstream Solution Scheme Condition

Interior Junctions Detention Junction Storage Equation

Surcharge Flow Standard pressurized pipe flow

References

Colebrook- Unspecified or Pipe by pipe rating curve White

DAGVL- Implicit, six-point h, Q DIFF continuity four-point momentum w = 0.55 MOUSE Six-point implicit h, Q w = 0.5 NISN Four-point implicit h, Q

Manning

Junction water surface or critical depth Junction water surface Junction water surface or critical depth

Simultaneous (double sweep) Simultaneous (double sweep) Simultaneous, over-lapping segment

Yes

ZQ = dsldt and h0 = H -(KV2Vg) or ZQ = O and h{ = h0

Geiger and Dorsch (1980); Klym et al. (1972); Vogel and Klym (1973) Preissmann slot Sjoberg (1982)

Manning Manning

Yes Yes

Preissmann slot DHI (1994) ZQ = Q and hf = H0. ZQ = O and ht = h0 or Preissmann slot Pagliara and ZQ = dsldt and Yen (1997) H0 = H- (KW2g)

4. CAREDAS. This is one of the earliest full dynamic wave sewer flow routing models developed by SOGREAH at Grenoble, France. This is the first model to incorporate the Preissmann slot to simulate surcharge flow. In applying CAREDAS, a sewer network is first checked for the sewers with sufficiently steep slope for which the kinematic wave equation can be applied as an adequate approximation. The dynamic wave model is applied to each group of the connected, gently sloped sewers.

14.10.2 Hydraulic Properties of Noninertia Sewer Models The noninertia approximation of the unsteady flow momentum equation [Eq. (14.1)] is probably the most efficient option among the dynamic-wave momentum equation options to solve unsteady open-channel sewer flow problems. It accounts for downstream backwater effect, and it allows reversal flow. Computationally, it is much simpler than the full dynamic wave option. It is only for rare highly unsteady cases that the noninertia option is inadequate and the full dynamic wave or the exact momentum options are required. However, only a few noninertia sewer models have been developed; only four are reported in the literature and they are summarized in Table 14.22. The proprietary HVM-QQS model was developed by Dorsch Consult (Klym et al., 1972; Vogel and Klym, 1973) at Munich, Germany. It has been misquoted as a dynamic wave model (Brandstetter, 1976). Examination of the equations [Eqs. (3) and (4) in Vogel and Klym, 1973] reveals that, in fact, it is a noninertia model. It was stated that to avoid simultaneous solution of all the sewers in the network, further assumptions were made. One assumption is to let Sf = S0(QfQ0)2, where Q0 is defined as a normal flow discharge corresponding to S0, but it is not clear what depth is used in computing Q0. Another issue that the sewer downstream boundary condition at the exit is either unspecified or a rating curve h = h(Q), or the exit depth hydrograph h(f) is known. In fact, with unspecified downstream boundary condition, this model does not really account for the backwater effect, and thus, it omits one of the important advantageous properties of the noninertia model. No information is given on whether the flow equations are solved implicitly or explicitly. The DAGVL-DIFF model was developed at the Chalmers University of Technology (Sjoberg, 1982) at Goteborg, Sweden. The equations in the model are solved in a manner similar to the dynamic wave model DAGVL-A and were found generally satisfactory. No further development or support of the DAGVL models has been provided since the development of S11S/MOUSE. The proprietary DHI (1994) model MOUSE contains noninertia and kinematic wave sewer routing options in addition to dynamic wave routing. The noninertia option simulates the flow the same way as the dynamic wave option; thus, it does not take full advantage of the simplicity and computational efficiency of the noninertia modeling. The NISN model (Pagliara and Yen, 1997) utilizes the overlapping segment method to solve for the flow in a network. For each segment, the flow equations are solved simultaneously using the Preissmann four-point implicit scheme. Junction storage and headloss are allowed. There is no network size limit for this model. 14.10.3 Nonlinear Kinematic Wave Models Unlike the dynamic wave and noninertia sewer models, there exist many kinematic wave models. Only a few nonlinear kinematic wave models are listed in Table 14.23 for dis-

TABLE 14.23 Sewer Hydraulic Properties of Selected Nonlinear Kinematic Wave Models Model Sewer Parameters Hydraulics Nonlinear A, Q kinematic wave ILSD-B2 Nonlinear h, Q kinematic wave ILSD-B3 Muskingum- h, Q Cunge WASSP- Muskingum- h, Q SIM Cunge USGS Open-Channel Flow Sf Numerical Solution Scheme Scheme Cascade Interior Junction I1Q = dsldt
ZQ = O

Transition Condition Q>Qf

Surcharge Flow Surcharge Interior Solution Hydraulics Juntion Scheme

References

Manning Explicit

Manning Four-point Cascade implicit Manning Four-point implicit DarcyQuasi Weisbach explicit and ColebrookWhite Manning Four-point implicit, w = 0.55 Cascade

2(2 = 0

One sweep, IQ = dsldt pipe by pipe

Store excess Pipe by pipe Dawdy et al. water, release (1978) later NA NA NA NA Yen and Sevuk (1975), Yen et al. (1976) NA NA NA NA Yen et al (1976) Unsteady H calculated, Implicit Price Q>Qf or assumed dynamic headlosses simultaneous (1982a, b) submergence equation considered relaxation conditions

Q = Qf

SWMMTRANSPORT

Improved A, Q nonlinear kinematic wave

One sweep, ZQ = O Q>Qf unless storage pipe by block is used pipe

Q = Qf

Store excess Pipe by pipe Huber and water, release Heaney later (1982), Huber et al (1984); Metcalf & Eddy Inc. et al (1971)

cussion. All of the models listed in these tables, except the USGS model, have provision to compute the required diameter for a specified discharge using the Manning or DarcyWeisbach formula. All the nonlinear kinematic wave models listed in Table 14.23 consider the backwater effect from upstream (entrance) of the sewer within the realm of a single sewer and not beyond, and not the backwater effect from downstream (sewer exit). The kinematic wave models, unable to compute reliably the sewer flow cross-section area A, depth /*, and velocity V, are of questionable usefulness in coupling with a waterquality equation for water-quality evaluation. Unless the downstream backwater effect is always insignificant, otherwise a water-quantity model having a hydraulic level of noninertia approximation or higher should be used. Nonlinear kinematic wave models may be classified further according to the manner the flow equations are formulated for solution. The first group includes the models solving directly the nonlinear kinematic wave equations. The first two models in Table 14.23, [U.S. Geological Survey's Distributed Routing Rainfall-Runoff Model (USGS) (Dawdy et al., 1978)] and [Illinois Least-Cost Sewer System Design Model, option B2 (ILSD-B2) (Yen et al., 1976)] belong to this group. The second group includes the models that solve an explicit linear algebraic equation of the Muskingum equation form. The Illinois Least-Cost Sewer System Design Model, option B3 (ILSDB3) (Yen et al., 1976) and the British Hydraulics Research's Wallingford Storm Sewer Design and Analysis Package Simulation Method (WASSP-SIM) (Price, 1982a,b) belong to this group. The third group consists of the models using other modified nonlinear kinematic wave equations for solution such as the TRANSPORT Block in SWMM (Metcalf and Eddy, et al., 1971). 1. ILSD-B2 and USGS models. In the first group, the continuity equation is written as a finite difference algebraic equation of one variable (usually h or Q) or two variables (e.g., /z, Q or A, Q) and solved iteratively with the aid of the simplified momentum equation, S0 = S^ where Sf is approximated by Manning's or similar formulas to relate the depth or area to discharge. A formulation used in Yen and Sevuk (1975) and adopted in ILSD-B3 is given in the following as an example. Noting that B(h) = 3A/d/z and G(h) = dQ/dh, Eq. (14.4) can be rewritten as B(h)^ + G(h)^ = Q For partially filled circular pipes (Fig. 14.3),
(<$>} B(h) = Dsm\j\

(14.101)

(14.102)

and by using Manning's formula w-^fhswFr-1] -^^('-rHf) + =W i ?- 1 )] where the central angle <|) in radians is (Fig. 14.3): ty = 2cos -1 [1 - (2h/D)] (14.104) Consider the four computational grid points boxed by the time levels n and n + 1 and space levels i and i + 1, Eq. (14.101) can be transformed into the following implicit four-point forward-difference equation:

2^ [(fi,> + 1 + , + 1, H- lXfct. + 1 + A, + U + , - fcu - fc, + !,)] + ^ [(Gu + i + C,+ u + ,)(*, + , + ,- A4. + ,)] = O (14.105)

This equation is nonlinear only with respect to the unknown flow depth hi + lttl + l since Bi + i,H + i and Gi + ltH + 1 are both expressed in terms of the depth [Eqs. (14.102) and (14.103)], and hence it can readily be solved by using Newton's iteration method. The solution proceeds sewer by sewer from upstream toward downstream. Within each sewer, the flows for all the reaches are determined for a given time before proceeding to the next time step. In ILSD, there are actually several sewer flow routing schemes of different hydraulic levels, including options B2 and B3 listed in Table 14.23 and the option of hydrograph time lag adopted in ILSD-I and 2. The objective of ILSD is to develop an efficient and practical optimization model for the least cost system design of sewer networks. Therefore, the sensitivity and significance of the sophistication of hydraulics on optimal design of sewer systems were investigated. It was found that for the purpose of designing sewers, because of the discrete sizes of commercially available pipes, unsophisticated hydraulic schemes often suffice, and hence the hydrograph time lag method, instead of options B2 and B3, is adopted in ILSD-I and 2. Yen and Sevuk (1975) also arrived at a similar conclusion that for design, a low hydraulic level routing method is often acceptable, whereas for evaluation and simulation of flow in sewers, a high hydraulic level routing is usually required. In the USGS model, the finite difference equation is formulated from Eq. (14.47) similar to ILSD-B2. However, the nonlinear relation between QlQf and A/Af is approximated by a straight line, and the flow area A is expressed explicitly as 4+ U+I=M11+4+,.J (14.106)

Hence, solution for all the reaches within a sewer must be obtained at each time for the time increments. However, for the sewers in a network, the solution technique can be either the cascade method or the one-sweep method. No information on which one is used in the model is given in the literature. 2. SWMM-TRANSPORT. Only one model in the third group of modified nonlinear kinematic wave models is listed in Table 14.23. The SWMM is a comprehensive urban storm water runoff quality and quantity simulation model for evaluation and management. A good summary of the model is given in Huber and Dickinson (1988), Huber and Heaney (1982), and Metcalf and Eddy et al. (1971). It has two sewer flow routing options, TRANSPORT and EXTRAN, not counting the crude gutter-type routing in the RUNOFF block. EXTRAN was discussed above. TRANSPORT is the original sewer-routing submodel built in the progam. In TRANSPORT, the continuity equation is first normalized using the just-full steady uniform flow discharge Qf and area Ap then the equation is written in finite differences and expressed as a linear function of the normalized unknowns AlAf and Q/Qf at the grid point x = (i + I)Ax and r = (n + I)Ar: (&Qf)t
+

i, + i + C1(AIAf),

+u +

! + C2 = O

(14.107)

where C1 and C2 = functions of known quantities. From the simplified dynamic equation Sf = S0 and Manning's formula, we have

(QIQ) = ARVlAfif" = /(AM7)

(14.108)

Accordingly, curves of normalized discharge-area relationship Q/Qf versus A/Af for steady uniform flow in pipes of different cross-sectional geometries are established and solved together with Eq. (14.107) for Q/Qfand AIA^ In the kinematic wave method of solving Eqs. (14.107) and (14.108), in addition to the initial condition, only one boundary condition is needed, which is usually the inflow hydrograph at the sewer entrance. No downstream boundary condition is required, and hence, no backwater effect from the downstream can be accounted for if the flow is subcritical. However, in TRANSPORT through a formulation of friction slope calculation using the previous time values at the spatially forward point, the downstream backwater effect is partially accounted for at one time step behind. In routing the unsteady nonuniform flow by using Eqs. (14.107) and (14.108), the value of Qf is not calculated as the steady uniform full-pipe discharge. Instead, it is adjusted by assuming that -s _ a* _ v*v-s _ *, + j,-*u _ v<2 + l,~ vf, a4109) (14J09) '~ 5 & Ia* S 2iAJ To improve computational stability, it is further assumed in TRANSPORT that at any iteration k, Q^ is taken as the average of previous and current values: that is,
s 5

Q = 9 >Q - i) + ^ AR ~/" 2 TA* OMA/AV J f 2nVA* V2 V2 1i/2 C Ar 4- h + '<* 1} ^0AX + ft.(jt _ 1} -ft.h + 1)(jt _ 1} + ' " - * + M* ~ D

(14.110)

where all the values of h and V are those at the previous time wAr that are known if the one-sweep or implicit solution method is used to solve for the flow in individual sewers at incremental times. Incorporating Eq. (14.109) for S7 in Manning's formula yields a quasi-steady dynamic wave approximation instead of the kinematic wave. Thus, use of Eq. (14.110) to compute Qf indirectly gives a partial consideration of the downstream backwater effect with a time lag. This improvement of the kinematic wave approximation makes SWMM TRANSPORT hydraulically more attractive than the standard nonlinear kinematic wave models. Presumably, the partial accounting of the downstream backwater effect is effective as long as the flow does not change rapidly with time, and no hydraulic jump or hydraulic drop is allowed. A hydraulic comparison of EXTRAN to improvement and advantages over TRANSPORT has not been reported and would be interesting. Nonetheless, since the downstream boundary condition is not truly accounted for, it is recommended in SWMM TRANSPORT that for a sewer with a large downstream storage element from which the backwater effect is severe, the water surface is assumed as horizontal from the storage element going backward until it intercepts the sewer invert. Moreover, when the sewer slope is steep, presumably implying high-velocity supercritical flow, the flood may simply be translated through the sewer without routing, that is, shifting of the hydrograph without time lag. Also, if the backwater effect is expected to be small and the sewer is circular in cross section, the gutter flow routing method in the RUNOFF Block may be applied to the sewer as an approximation. In SWMM, large junctions with significant storage capacity and storage facilities are called storage elements, equivalent to the case of storage junction (that is, dsldt J= O), which was discussed above. Only the continuity equation, Eq. (14.35), is used in storage element routing. No dynamic equation is considered except for the cases with weir or orifice outlets. Small junctions are treated as point-type junctions with dsldt = O.

3. ILSD-B3 and WASSP-SIM. In the second group of nonlinear kinematic wave models, both ILSD-B3 and WASSP-SIM adopt the Muskingum-Cunge method. The Muskingum routing formula can be written for discharge at x = (i + I)Ar and t = (n + I)Ar as Qt + m +i = C1Q11n + C2G411 + ! + C3Q1- + u in which
c = Cl

(14.111)

KX + 0.5Ar K(I -X) + 0.5Ar 0.5Ar A.X W-x> + osti

(U m}

(I4.li2a)

yi '

<l4

/1/1 11 ou\ -"2b)

fi-g:3;S% where A^ is known as the storage constant having a dimension of time and X a factor expressing the relative importance of inflow. Cunge (1969) showed that by taking K and Ar as constants, Eq. (14.111) is an approximate solution of the nonlinear kinematic wave equation [Eqs. (14.4) and (14.102) or Eq. (14.104)]. He further demonstrated that Eq. (14.111) can be considered as an approximate solution of Eq. (14.104) if

K = &x/c
and
1

(14.113) (14.114)

X = ^-(e/cA*)

where is the "diffusion" coefficient and c is the celerity of the flood peak that can be approximated as the length of the reach divided by the flood peak travel time through the reach. Assuming K = Ar and denoting a = 1 2X, Eq. (14.111) can be rewritten as a^ + . = f^c t . +I^ct.+ , + 2 ^ a + l . (14.H5)

In the traditional Muskingum method, X and, consequently, a are regarded as constant. In the Muskingum method as modified by Cunge, a is allowed to vary according to the channel geometry and is computed as a = KQfS0(Ax)2B (14.116)

in which B is the surface width of the flow and S0 the sewer slope. The values of a are restricted to being between O and 1 so that C1, C2, and C3 in Eq. (14.112) will not be negative. It is the variation of a, and hence C1, C2, and C3, that classifies the MuskingumCunge method as a nonlinear kinematic wave approximation. The Muskingum-Cunge method offers two advantages over the standard nonlinear kinematic wave methods. First, the solution is obtained through a linear algebraic equation [Eq. (14.111) or Eqs. (14.115) and 14.116)] instead of a partial differential equation, permitting the entire hydrograph to be obtained at successive cross sections instead of solving for the flow over the entire length of the sewer pipe for each time step as for the standard nonlinear kinematic wave method. Second, because of the use of Eq. (14.116), a limited degree of wave attenuation is included, permitting a more flexible choice of the time and space increments for the computations as compared to the standard nonlinear kinematic wave method.

In ILSD-B3, the coefficient a in Eq. (14.115) is computed at each grid point by using Eq. (14.116), while B and K both change with respect to time and space. The values of K are computed by using Eq. (14.113) with the celerity c evaluated by c = ag/aA or for a partially filled pipe using Manning's formula
c

(i4.ii7)

= **L S0- D f 1 - 4f [5 + sin WiVl* - l)l n \ 4> / L \2/\ * /J

(14.118)

The initial flow condition is the specified base flow as in ILSD-B2. The upstream boundary condition of the sewer is the given inflow hydrograph. The flow depth and other geometric parameters at the sewer entrance can be computed from the geometric equations given in Fig. 14.3. The junction condition used is the continuity relationship, Eq. (14.53). The solution is obtained over the entire time period at a flow cross section before proceeding to the next cross section. The solution then proceeds downstream section by section and then sewer by sewer in a cascading sequence. More details on the computational procedure of ILSD-B3 can be found in Yen et al. (1976). The British model WASSP is a sewer design and analysis package consisting of four submodels (Price, 1982b): A modified rational method for design of sewers, a hydrograph method for design of sewers using the Muskingum-Cunge routing, an optimal design method, and a simulation method using the fixed parameter Muskingum-Cunge technique for open-channel routing in sewers and the unsteady dynamic equation for surcharge flow computations. Open-channel flow is routed using Eq. (14.111) with the coefficients C1, C2, and C3 expressed as functions of c and JLI = QIIBS0. In computation, c is taken as the full-pipe velocity and (I is evaluated at hlD = 0.6. Sewers under open-channel flow are solved pipe by pipe, using a directionally explicit algorithm to calculate the discharge at the sewer exit. The space increment Ax along the sewer is selected automatically in terms of Af to enhance computational accuracy. Connected surcharged sewers are solved simultaneously. For surcharge flow, a time increment as small as a few seconds may be necessary if surges occur. The transition between open-channel flow and surcharge flow is assumed to occur when the discharge exceeds Q^ when the sewer entrance and exit are submerged, or when the water depth in the junction is higher than the sewer flow depth plus the entrance or exit headloss (Bettess et al num., 1978). At a junction, only the continuity equation is considered for open-channel flow. For surcharge flow, in addition to the continuity equation, junction headloss is considered and incorporated into the surcharge unsteady dynamic wave equation. The headloss coefficient is assumed to be 0.15 for a junction with straight pipes, 0.50 for 30 bend pipes, and 0.90 for 60 bend pipes. Some details of WASSP-SIM are reported in Price (1982b).

REFERENCES Abbott, M. B., and Basco, D. R., Computational Fluid Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990. Abbott, M. B., K. Havn0, N. E. Hoff-Clausen, and A. Kej, "A Modelling System for the Design and Operation of Storm-Sewer Networks," in M. B. Abbott and J.A. Cunge, eds., Engineering Applications of Computational Hydraulics, Vol. 1, Pitman, London, 1982, pp. 1136. Abt, S. R., and N. S. Grigg, "An Approximate Method for Sizing Detention Reservoirs," Water Resources Bulletin, 14(4):956-965, 1978. Ackers, P., "An Investigation of Head Losses at Sewer Manholes," Civil Engineering Public Works Review, 54:882884 and 1033-1036, 1959.

Akan, A. O., "Similarity Solution of Overland Flow on Pervious Surface," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 111(7): 1057-1067, 1985a. Akan, A. O., "Overland Row Hydrographs for SCS Type II Rainfall," Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, ASCE, lll(3):276-286, 1985b. Akan, A. O., "Kinematic-Wave Method for Peak Runoff Estimation," Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 111(4):419^25, 1985c. Akan, A. O., "Overland Flow on Pervious Converging Surface," Nordic Hydrology, 19:153-164, 1988. Akan, A. O., "Detention Pond Sizing for Multiple Return Periods," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 115(5):650-665, 1989a. Akan, A. O., "Time of Concentration Formula for Overland Flow," Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 115(4):733-735, 1989b. Akan, A. O., "Single-Outlet Detention-Pond Analysis and Design," Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, 116(4):527-536,1990. Akan, A. O., Urban Stormwater Hydrology, Technomic, Lancaster, PA, 1993. Akan, A. O., and B. C. Yen, "Unsteady Gutter Flow into Grate Inlets," Civil Engineering Studies Hydraulic Engineering Series, 36, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1980. Akan, A. O., and B. C. Yen, "Mathematical Model of Shallow Water Row Over Porous Media," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 107(HY4):479-494, 1981a. Akan, A. O., and B. C. Yen, "Diffusion Wave Flood Routing in Channel Networks," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 107(HY6):719-732, 1981b. American Society of Civil Engineers, Hydrology Handbook, 2d ed., Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 28, ASCE. Reston, Virginia, 1996. American Society of Civil Engineers, Urban Runoff Quality Management, Manual and Report on Engineering Practice, No. 87, ASCE. Reston, Virginia, 1998. Archer, B., F. Bettess, and P. J. Colyer, "Head Losses and Air Entrainment at Surcharged Manhole," Report. ITl85, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, UK, 1978. Arnell, V, "Description and Validation of the CTH-Urban Runoff Model," Report A5, Department of Hydraulics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1980. Aron, G., and D. F. Kibler, "Pond Sizing for Rational Formula Hydrographs," Water Resources Bulletin, 26(2):255-258, 1990. ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of the Watershed Management Committee, "Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models," Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 119(3):429^H3, 1993. Baker, W. R., "Storm-Water Detention Basin Design for Small Drainage Areas," Public Works, 108(3):75-79, 1979. Behlke, C. E., and H. D. Pritchett, "The Design of Supercritical Flow Channel Junctions," Highway Research Record No. 123:17-35, National Research Council Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, 1966. Bermeuleu, L. R., and J. T. Ryan, "Two-Phase Slug Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Tubes," Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 49:195-201, 1971. Best, J. L., and I. Reid, "Separation Zone at Open-Channel Junctions," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 110(11):1588-1594, 1984. Bettess, R., R. A. Pitfield, and R. K. Price, "A Surcharging Model for Storm Sewer Systems," in P. R. Helliwell, ed., Urban Storm Drainage, Procedings 1st International Conference, pp. 306-316 Pentech Press, London and Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1978. Blaisdell, F. W., and P. W. Mason, "Energy Loss at Pipe Junction," Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Division, ASCE, 93(IR3):59-78, 1967; Discussions, 94(IR2):280-282, 1968. Bo Pedersen, F, and O. Mark, "Head Losses in Storm Sewer Manholes: Submerged Jet Theory," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 116(11):1317-1328, 1990. Bodhaine, G. L., "Measurement of Peak Discharge at Culvert by Indirect Methods," Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter A3, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 1968.

Book, D. E., J. W. Labadie, and D. M. Morrow, "Dynamic vs. Kinematic Routing in Modeling Urban Storm Drainage," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 154-163, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Bowers, C. E., "Studies of Open-Channel Junctions," Technical Paper, No. 6, Series B, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950. Brandstetter, A., "Assessment of Mathematical Models for Urban Storm and Combined Sewer Management," Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-600/2-76-175a, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976. Chaudhry, M. H., Applied Hydraulic Transients, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, Princeton, NJ, 1979. Chen, Y. H., and S.-Y. Chai, "UNSTDY Combined Storm Sewer Model User's Manual," Report, Chen Engineering Technology, Fort Collins, CO, 1991. Chevereau, G., F. Holly, and A. Preissmann, "Can Detailed Hydraulic Modeling be Worthwhile when Hydrologic Data is Incomplete?" in P. R. Helliwell, ed., Urban Storm Drainage, Proc. 1st International Conference, pp. 317-326, Pentech Press, London and Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1978. Chow, V. T, Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959. Chow, V. T, ed., Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964. Chow, V. T., and B. C. Yen, "Urban Stormwater RunoffDetermination of Volumes and Flowrates," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-76-116, Municipal Environmental Research Lab., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976. CoIyer, P. J., and R. W. Pethick, "Storm Drainage Design Methods: A Literature Review," Report No. INT 154, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, UK, 1976. Cunge, J. A., "On the Subject of a Flood Propagation Computation Method," Journal of Hydraulic Research, 7: 205-230, 1969. Cunge, J. A., and B. Mazaudou, "Mathematical Modelling of Complex Surcharge Systems: Difficulties in Computation and Simulation of Physical Situations," in P. Balmer, P. A. Malmqvist, and A. Sjoberg, eds., Proc. 3rd International Conference Urban Storm Drainage, 1:363-373, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1984. Cunge, J. A., and M. Wegner, "Integration Numerique des Equations d'Ecoulement de Barre de Saint-Venant par un Schema Implicite de Differences Finies: Application au Cas d'Une Galerie Tantot en Charge, Tantot a Surface Libre," La Houille Blanche, 1:33-39, 1964. Cunge, J. A., F. M. Holly, and A. Verwey, Practical Aspects of Computational River Hydraulics, Pitman, London, 1980. Currey, D. L., "A Two-Dimensional Distributed Hydrologic Model for Infiltrating Watersheds with Channel Networks," M.S. thesis, Old Dominion University, Departament of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norfolk, VA, 1998. Currey, D. L., and A. O. Akan, "Single Outlet Detention Pond Design and Analysis Equation," in S.R. Abt, ed., Water Resources Engineering 98, Proc. Int'l Water Resources Conf., Memphis, TN, 1:796-801, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1998. Dawdy, D. R., J. C. Schaake, Jr., and W. M. Alley, "User's Guide for Distributed Routing RainfallRunoff Model," Water Resources Investigation, U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 78-90, 1978. DeGroot, C. F., and M. J. Boyd, "Experimental Determination of Head Losses in Stormwater Systems," Proc. 2d National Conference on Local Government Engineering, pp. 19-22, Brisbane, Australia, September 1983. DHI, "MOUSE: Reference Manual Version 3.2," Danish Hydraulic Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994. Federal Highway Administration, Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular, No. 22, Washingtun, DC, 1996. Fried, E., and I. E. Idelchik, Flow Resistance, Hemisphere, New York, 1989. Fujita, S., "Experimental Sewer System: Its Application and Effects," in W. Gujer and V Krejci, eds., Urban Stormwater Quality Planning and Management, pp. 357-362, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1987.

Geiger, W. F., and H. R. Dorsch, Quantity-Quality Simulation (QQS): A Detailed Continuous Planning Model for Urban Runoff Control," Report EPA-600/2-80-011, U.S. EPA, 1980. Hager, W.H., Abwasser-Hydraulik: Theorie und Praxis, Springer-Verlag KG, Berlin, Germany, 1994. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, Best Management Practices Design Guidance Manual for Hampton Roads, 1991. Harms, R. W., "Application of Standard Unit Hydrograph in Storm Sewer Design," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 257-265,Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO,1982. Harris, G. S., "Development of a Computer Program to Route Runoff in The Minneapolis-St. Paul Interceptor Sewers," Memo M121, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1968. Hartigan, J. P., "Basis for Design of Wet Detention Basin BMPs," in L. A. Roesner et al., eds., Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 1989. Hoff-Clausen, N. E., K. Havn0, and A. Kej, "System 11 SewerA Storm Sewer Model," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 137-146, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Howarth, D. A., and A. J. Saul, "Energy Loss Coefficients at Manholes," in P. Balmer, et al., eds. Procedings 3rd International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, 1:127-136, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1984. Huber, W. C., and R. E. Dickinson, "Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User's Manual," Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1988. Huber, W. C., and J. P. Heaney, "The USEPA Storm Water Management Model, SWMM: A Ten Year Perspective," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 247-256, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Huber, W. C., J. P. Heaney, S. J. Nix, R. E. Dickinson, and D. J. Polmann, "Storm Water Management Model Users Manual Version III," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-84-109a, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1984. Hydrologic Engineering Center, "Urban Runoff: Storage, Treatment and Over Flow Model STORM," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center Computer Program 723-58-L2520, Davis, CA, 1974. Hydrologic Engineering Center, "HEC-I Flood Hydrograph Package, User's Manual," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA, 1990. Izzard, C.F., "Hydraulics of Runoff from Developed Surfaces," Proceedings Highway Research Board, Vol. 26,129-146, 1946. Johnston, A. J., and R. E. Volker, "Head Losses at Junction Boxes," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 116(3): 326-341, 1990. Joliffe, I. B., "Accurate Pipe Junction Model for Steady and Unsteady Flows," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 92-100, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Joliffe, I. B., "Computation of Dynamic Waves in Channel Networks," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 110(10):1358-1370, 1984a. Joliffe, I. B., "Free Surface and Pressurized Pipe Flow Computations," in P. Balmer et al., eds. Proceding 3rd International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, 1:397^405, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1984b. Jun, B. H., and B. C. Yen, "Dynamic Wave Simulation of Unsteady Open Channel and Surcharge Flows in Sewer Network," Civil Engineering Studies Hydraulic Engineering Series No. 40, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1985. Kanda, T., and T. Kitada, "An Implicit Method for Unsteady Flows with Lateral Inflows in Urban Rivers," Proceedings 17th Congress Internatinal Association for Hydraulic Research, BadenBaden, Germany, 2:213-220, 1977.

Keifer, C. J, C. Y. Hung, and K. Wolka, "Modified Chicago Hydrograph Method," in B. C. Yen, ed., Storm Sewer Design, pp. 62-81, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1978. Kessler, A., and M. H. Diskin, "The Efficiency Function of Detention Reservoirs in Urban Drainage Systems," Water Resources Research, 27(3):253-258, 1991. Kibler, D.F., ed., Urban Stormwater Hydrology, Water Resources Monograph No. 7, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1982. Klym, H., W. Koniger, F. Mevius, and G. Vogel, "Urban Hydrological Processes," paper presented in the Seminar on Computer Methods in Hydraulics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 1972. Labadie, J. W, D. M. Morrow, and R. C. Lazaro, "Urban Stormwater Control Package for Automated Real-Time Systems," Project Report No. C6179, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO, 1978. Lai, C., "Numerical Modeling of Unsteady Open-Channel Flow," in B. C. Yen, ed., Advances in Hydroscience, Vol. 14, pp. 162-333, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1986. Larson, C. L., T. C. Wei, and C. E. Bowers, "Numerical Routing of Flood Hydrographs Through Open Channel Junctions," Water Resources Research Center Bulletin, No. 40, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1971. Lee, K. T., and B. C. Yen, "Geomorphology and Kinematic-Wave-Based Hydrograph Derivation," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 123(1):73-80, 1997. Liggett, J. A., and J. A. Cunge, "Numerical Methods of Solution of the Unsteady Flow Equation," in K. Mahmood and V. Yevjevich, eds., Unsteady Flow in Open Channels, VoL 1, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1975. Lin, J. D., and H. K. Soong, "Junction Losses in Open Channel Flows," Water Resources Research, 15:414-418, 1979. Lindvall, G., "Head Losses at Surcharged Manholes with a Main Pipe and a 90 Lateral," in P. Balmer, PA. Malmqvist, and A. Sjoberg, eds. Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, 1:137-146, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1984. Lindvall, G., "Head Losses at Surcharged Manholes," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology (Joint Proceedings 4th International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage and IAHR 22nd Congress, Lausanne, Switzerland), pp. 140-141, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1987. Loganathan, G. V., D. F. Kibler, and T. J. Grizzard, "Urban Stormwater Management," in L. W. Mays, ed., Handbook of Water Resources Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996. Maidment, D., Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993. Marsalek, J., "Head Losses at Sewer Junction Manholes," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 110(8):1150-1154, 1984. Marsalek, J., "Head Losses at Selected Sewer Manholes," Special Report No. 52, American Public Works Association, Chicago, IL, 1985. Mays, L. W., "Sewer Network Scheme For Digital Computations," Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(EE3):535-539, 1978. McEnroe, B. M., "Preliminary Sizing of Detention Reservoirs to Reduce Peak Discharges," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 118(11):1540-1549, 1992. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., University of Florida, and Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Storm Water Management Model," Water Pollution Control Research Series, 11024 DOC, Vol. 1-4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Miller, D.S., Internal Flow Systems, 2d ed., Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1990. Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, "Stormwater Management Pond Design Review Checklist," Stormwater Management Division, Rockville, MD, 1984. Morgali, J., and R. K. Linsley, "Computer Analysis of Overland Flow," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 91(HY3):81-100, 1965.

Morita, M., R. Nishikawa, and B.C. Yen, "Application of Conjunctive Surface-Subsurface Flow Model to Infiltration Trench," Proceedings 7th IAHR/IAWQ International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, pp. 527-532, Hannover, Germany, 1996. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, BMP Handbook for the Occoquan Watershed, Annandale, VA, 1987. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Evaluation of Regional BMPs in the Occoquan Watershed, Annandale, VA, 1990. Pagliara, S., and B. C. Yen, "Sewer Network Hydraulic Model: NISN" Civil Engineering Studies Hydraulic Engineering Series No. 53, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1997. Pansic, N., "Dynamic-Wave Modeling of Storm Sewers with Surcharge," M. S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1980. Papadakis, C. N., and H. C. Preul, "University of Cincinnati Urban Runoff Model," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 98(HYlO): 1789-1804, 1972. Price, R. K., "A Simulation Model for Storm Sewers," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 184-192 Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982a. Price, R. K., "The Wallingford Storm Sewer Design and Analysis Package," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 213-220 Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982b. Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources, "Stormwater Management Design Manual," MD, 1984. Radojkovic, M., and C. Maksimovic, "Internal Boundary Conditions for Free Surface Unsteady Flow in Expansions and Junctions," Proceedings 17th Congress International Associatin for Hydraulic Research, Baden-Baden, Germany, 2:367-372, 1977. Radojkovic, M., and C. Maksimovic, "Development, Testing, and Application of Belgrade Urban Drainage Model," Proceedings 3rd IAHR/IAWQ International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 4:1431-1443, 1984. Ramamurthy, A. S., and W. Zhu, "Combining Flows in 90 Junctions of Rectangular Closed Conduits," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 123(11): 1012-1019, 1997. Rhodes, E., and D. S. Scott, "Cocurrent Gas-Liquid Flow," Procedings International Symposium on Research in Concurrent Gas-Liquid Flow, pp. 1-17 University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1968. Roesner, L. A., and R. P. Shubinski, "Improved Dynamic Routing Model for Storm Drainage Systems," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 164-173, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Roesner, L. A., R. P. Shubisnki, and J. A. Aldrich, "Stormwater Management Model User's Manual Version III, Addendum I EXTRAN," Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-84-109b, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1984. Sangster, W M., H. W. Wood, E. T. Smerdon, and H. G. Bossy, "Pressure Changes at Storm Drain Junctions," Bulletin No. 41, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 1958. Sangster, W. M., H. W. Wood, E. T. Smerdon, and H. G. Bossy, "Pressure Changes at Open Junctions in Conduit," Transactions, ASCE, 126, Part 1:364-396, 1961. Schueler, T. B., "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs," Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board, 1987. Serre, M., A. J. Odgaard, and R. A. Elder, "Energy Loss at Combining Pipe Junction," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 120(7):808-830, 1994. Sevuk, A. S., "Unsteady Flow in Sewer Networks," Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1973. Sevuk, A. S., and B. C. Yen, "Comparison of Four Approaches in Routing Flood Wave Through Junctions," Proceedings 15th Congress International Association for Hydraulic Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 5:169-172, 1973.

Sevuk, A. S., and B. C. Yen, "Sewer Network Routing by Dynamic Wave Characteristics," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 108(HY3):379-398, 1982. Sevuk, A. S., B. C. Yen, and G. E. Peterson, II, "Illinois Storm Sewer System Simulation Model: User's Manual," Research Report No. 73, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1973. Shen, H. W., and R. M. Li, "Rainfall Effects on Sheet Flow over Smooth Surface," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 99(HY5):771-792, 1973. Singh, V. P., Kinematic Wave Modeling in Water Resources: Surface Water Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996. Sjoberg, A., "Calculation of Unsteady Flows in Regulated Rivers and Storm Sewer Systems," Report, Division of Hydraulics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1976. Sjoberg, A., "Sewer Network Models DAGVL-A and DAGVL-DIFF," in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 127-136, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Soil Conservation Service, "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds," Technical Relase 55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1986. Stahre, P., and Urbonas, B., Stormwater Detention, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, 1990. Stephenson, D., Pipe/low Analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984. Taitel, Y, N. Lee, and A. E. Dukler, "Transient Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes: Modeling the Flow Pattern Transitions," J. AICHE, 24:920-934, 1978. Takaaki, K., and S. Fujita, Planning and Dimensioning of a New Sewer SystemExperimental Sewer System for Reduction of Urban Storm Runoff, Kajima Institute Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 1984. Taylor, E. H., "Flow Characteristics at Rectangular Open Channel Junctions," Transactions, ASCE, 109:893-902, 1944. Terstreip, ML, and J.B. Stall, "The Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator, ILLUDAS," Bulletin 58, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, 1974. Tholin, A. L., and C. J. Keifer, "Hydrology of Urban Runoff," Transactions, ASCE, 125:1308-1379, runbach 1960. Townsend, R. D., and J. R. Prins, "Performance of Model Storm Sewer Junctions," Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 104(HY1):99-104, 1978. Toyokuni, E., and M. Watanabe, "Application of Stormwater Runoff Simulation Model to Matsuyama City Drainage Basin," Proceedings 3rd IAHR/IAWQ International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, pp. 555-564 Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1984. University of Cincinnati, "Urban Runoff Characteristics," Water Pollution Control Research Series, 11024DQU, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970. Urbonas, B., and P. Stahre, Stormwater, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff Quality," EPA 440/5-97-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1986. Vermeuleu, L. R., and J. T. Ryan, "Two-Phase Slug Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Tubes," Journal Chemical Engineering, 49:195-201, 1971. Vogel, G., and H. Klym, "Die Ganglinien-Volumen-Methode," paper presented at the Workshop on Methods of Sewer Network Calculation, Dortmund, Germany, 1973. Walker, W. W, "Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins," Lake and Reservoir Management Vol. Ill, North American Lake Management Society, Washington, DC, 1987. Wallingford Software, "SPIDA User ManualVersion Alpha-3," Hydraulic Research, Ltd., Wallingford, UK, 1991. Wallingford Software, "HYDROWORKS User Manual", Hydraulic Research Ltd., Wallingford, UK, 1997. Webber, N. B., and C. A. Greated, "An Investigation of Flow Behaviour at the Junction of Rectangular Channels," Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineering, (London), 34:321-334, 1966.

Wood, D. J., "The Analysis of Row in Surcharged Storm Sewer Systems," in Proceedings International Symposium on Urban Storm Runoff, pp. 29-35, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 1980. Wycoff, R. L., and U. P. Singhm, "Preliminary Hydrologic Design of Small Flood Detention Reservoirs," Water Resources Bulletin, 12(2):337-349, 1976. Wylie, E. B., and V. L. Streeter, Fluid Transients, FEB Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1983. Yen, B. C., "Methodologies for Flow Prediction in Urban Storm Drainage Systems," Research Report No. 72, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1973a. Yen, B. C., "Open-Channel Flow Equations Revisited," Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 99(EM5):979-1009, 1973b. Yen, B. C., "Further Study on Open-Channel Flow Equations," Sonderforschungsbereich 80, Report No. SFB80/T/49, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1975. Yen, B.C., "Hydraulic Instabilities of Storm Sewer Flows," in PR. Helliwell, ed., Urban Storm Drainage (Proceedings 1st International Conference), pp. 282-293, Pentech Press, London and Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1978a. Yen, B. C., ed., Storm Sewer System Design, Department, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1978b. Yen, B. C., "Some Measures for Evaluation and Comparison of Simulation Models" in B. C. Yen, ed., Urban Stormwater Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 341-349, Water Resources, Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1982. Yen, B. C., "Hydraulics of Sewers," in B. C. Yen, ed., Advances in Hydroscience, Vol. 14, pp. 1-122, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1986a. Yen, B.C., "Rainfall-Runoff Process on Urban Catchments and Its Modelings," in C. Maksimovic and M. Radojkovic, eds., Urban Drainage Modelling, pp. 3-26, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1986b. Yen, B. C., "Urban Drainage Hydraulics and Hydrology: From Art to Science," (Joint Keynote at 22nd IAHR Congress and 4th International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, EPF-Lausanne, Switzerland), Urban Drainage Hydraulics and Hydrology, pp. 1-24, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1987. Yen B. C., "Hydraulic Resistance in Open Channels," in B.C. Yen, ed., Channel Flow Resistance: Centennial of Manning's Formula, pp. 1-135, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1991. Yen, B. C., "Hydraulics for Excess Water Management," in L. W. Mays, ed., Handbook of Water Resources, pp. 25-1 - 25-55, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996. Yen, B. C., and A. O. Akan, "Flood Routing Through River Junctions," Rivers 76, 1:212-231, ASCE, New York, 1976. Yen, B. C., and A. O. Akan, "Effects of Soil Properties on Overland Flow Infiltration," Journal of Hydraulic Research, IAHR, 21(2): 153-173, 1983. Yen, B. C., and V. T. Chow, "Local Design Storms, Vol. I to III," Report No. FHWA-RD-82-063 to 065, U.S. Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1983. Yen, B. C., and J. A. Gonzalez, "Determination of Boneyard Creek Flow Capacity by Hydraulic Performance Graph," Research Report 219, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1994. Yen, B.C., and A. S. Sevuk, "Design of Storm Sewer Networks," Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(EE4):535-553, 1975. Yen, B. C., V. T. Chow, and A. O. Akan, "Stormwater Runoff on Urban Areas of Steep Slopes," Environmental Protection Technical Series, EPA-600/2-77-168, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1977. Yen, B. C., H. G. Wenzel, Jr., L. W. Mays,, and W. H. Tang, "Advanced Methodologies for Design of Storm Sewer Systems," Research Report No. 112, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1976.

Yen, B. C., S. T. Cheng, B.-H. Jun, M. L. Voorhees, H. G. Wenzel, Jr., and L. W. Mays, "Illinois Least-Cost Sewer System Design Model: ILSD-1&2 User's Guide," Research Report No. 188, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1984. Yevjevich, V., and A. H. Barnes, "Flood Routing Through Storm Drains, Parts I-IV," Hydrologic Papers No. 43^-6, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1970. Yu, S. L., and R. J. Kaighn, Jr., "VDOT Manual of Practice for Planning Stormwater Management," Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, 1992.