Wasif M.SC thesis-IDF Curves For Lahore PDF

Evaluation of Alternative Techniques for
Stormwater Management under Local

Conditions
SESSION 2003/II
WASIF ALI
(2003/II-MS-ENV-11)
Advisor
PROF. DR. WARIS ALI
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & RESEARCH,

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
LAHORE, PAKISTAN.
2009
Evaluation of Alternative Techniques for
Stormwater Management under Local Conditions
By:
WASIF ALI
(2003/II-MS-ENV-11)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
August 2009
__________________________ ___________________________
Dr. Waris Ali Col. (R) Rana Aziz-ur-Rehman
Professor, External Examiner
Research Advisor and
Internal Examiner
__________________________ ___________________________
Director
Institute of Environmental Dean of the Faculty
INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & RESEARCH,

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
LAHORE, PAKISTAN
In The Name Of Allah, the Most Beneficent and the Most Merciful
ABSTRACT
Stormwater drainage systems are crucial infrastructure assets that protect our cities from
flooding and waterborne diseases. The man has influence the hydrological cycle which
results in many drainage problems. The most critical effect of modern development is the
increase in impervious area which produces larger quantities of runoff within very shorter
period of time. This leads to higher peaks of stormwater runoff and lesser groundwater
table recharging rate. During the recent years, more frequent and extensive flooding has
been occurring in Lahore. To reduce the impact of urban runoff, alternative techniques
have been developed for certain given conditions such as land use, groundwater table,
sub soil strata and cost of the land.
Engineering analyses of rainfall data are essential for the design of any drainage facility
hence the available rainfall data of Lahore were collected and analyzed. Because of the
non-availability of the short duration rainfall data, the autographic records for certain
years were analyzed to develop the relationship with 3-hrs data. Frequency analysis is
done to develop the IDF curves. Furthermore, the 6-hrs rainfall pattern for different
frequencies were developed and used in SWMM software for the analyses of different
BMPs.
The application of BMPs involves a variety of stakeholders in both the public and private
arenas and therefore their development and design can be subject to differing degrees of
uncertainty with regard to the relevance of influencing political, organizational, technical
and environmental factors. There are many factors by which the most suitable BMP and
set of BMPS can be selected to achieve the design objective for a specific area. Some
general guidance for some selection parameters is provided in the second chapter of this
report and based upon these factors different options were analyzed.
Partially combined system is the first option which was analyzed using the WASA criteria
to calculate the depth and duration of flooding in this system for different storm
frequencies. As the diameters remain the same for all frequencies in this model hence
another option (i.e. separate storm sewer) was designed and analyzed for different return
periods. All of the diameters of the network were calculated for zero flooding so that one
can compare the diameters with the diameters of previous option. The calculated
diameters in this model are quite large which makes this option impracticable in local
conditions. Therefore the existing parks were modeled as temporary storage and it forms
the third option. The results of this model shows that diameter of the network can be
reduced up to 50% of the diameters which were calculated in second option.
Based upon these results it was decided to utilize the open space (as per LDA bye-laws)
in each house and modeled it as storage during storm event. The results of this model
show that marginal reduction (i.e. up to 64%) can be made in the network’s sizes.
The results of these options show that both these BMPs are practically feasible and
economically viable for our local condition. Using the above mentioned BMPs, cost of the
stormwater network can be reduced up to 76% of the cost of separate storm sewer
option.
i
Dedicated to
My Respected Teacher
Prof. Dr Javed Anwar Aziz
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Alhamdolillah, all praises and gratitude to the Almighty Allah who bestow upon me the
enlightenment and courage to fulfill my commitments towards my research thesis.
First and foremost, I wish to convey my truthful admiration and humble thanks to my
worthy project advisor, Prof. Dr. Waris Ali for the invaluable guidance and supervision for
the completion of project. He has been a constant source of inspiration and
encouragement throughout the compilation of the project. His kind support, able
instructions, valuable suggestions, painstaking attention and friendly counseling provided
me a backing in achieving my objectives which otherwise seemed to be extremely
difficult.
I express my gratitude to Engr. Shahid Ahmad Siddiqi. His advices, constructive criticism,
and critical remarks were of utmost importance and rampant honor to me and it is my
privilege to acknowledge his guidance. I am also thankful to Prof Dr. Ata-ur-Rehman
(CEWRE), Engr. Shah Rukh (NESPAK), Engr. Rizwan Ahmad (PES) who really gave me
wealth of ideas and illustrative material regarding hydrological concepts and analyses
which sharpen my knowledge.
I also like to convey my sincere thanks to Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Director of PBO Lahore, who
endorsed me to work freely on the project by allowing me to get the respective rainfall
data. His friendly attitude was a source of courage for me to complete this comprehensive
study.
This acknowledgment would not be completed if don’t mention the names of my friends,
Engr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Engr Azhar Saleem and Engr. Usman Rafi. They were the
continuous source of motivation and inspiration for me during this project.
Last but not the least, I express my approbation to all my family members who have
borne with me patiently during the compilation of this project.
Author
Engr. Wasif Ali
(August, 2009)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................i
DEDICATION ..............................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS.......................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................. 1-2
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND........................................................................................... 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 1
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY ...................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2............................................................................................ 3-32
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 3
2.1 STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM .................................................... 3
2.2 CONVENTIONAL STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ................. 3
2.3 ALTERNATIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ..................... 4
2.4 DEFINITION OF BMPs CATEGORIES AND TYPES .............................. 4
2.5 BRIEF DISCRIPTION OF BMPs................................................................. 7
2.5.1 Vegetated Roof........................................................................................ 8
2.5.2 Roof Top Runoff Control........................................................................ 8
2.5.3 Recharge Garden / Bioretention ............................................................ 10
2.5.4 Dry Well / Seepage Pit .......................................................................... 11
2.5.5 Modular Poras Paver System ................................................................ 12
2.5.6 Vegetated Swale .................................................................................... 13
2.5.7 Inflitration Trench ................................................................................. 16
2.5.8 Infiltration Basin ................................................................................... 17
2.5.9 Wet Pond / Retention Basin .................................................................. 18
2.5.10 Dry Extended Detention Basin.............................................................. 19
2.6 BMPs SELECTION PARAMETER........................................................... 20
2.6.1 Impact Area and Design Objectives...................................................... 20
2.6.2 Onsite versus Regional Control............................................................. 20
iv
2.6.3 Watershed Factors ................................................................................. 21
2.6.4 Terrain Factor ........................................................................................ 21
2.6.5 Stormwater Treatment Suitability ......................................................... 21
2.6.6 Physical Suitability Factors................................................................... 21
2.6.7 Community and Environmental Factors ............................................... 21
2.7 RAINFALL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 22
2.7.1 Frequency or Recurrence Interval ......................................................... 22
2.7.2 Regression Analysis .............................................................................. 22
2.7.3 Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves......................................... 22
2.7.4 Computation of IDF Curves from Long Duration Storms .................... 23
2.8 STORMWATER CALCULATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES ............ 23
2.8.1 Time of Concentration (Tc) ................................................................... 23
2.8.1.1 Overlan Flow.................................................................................. 23
2.8.1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow ........................................................... 24
2.6.1.3 Channel Flow ................................................................................. 24
2.8.1.4 Pipe Flow........................................................................................ 24
2.8.2 Rational Method .................................................................................... 25
2.8.2 Runoff Curve Number Method ............................................................. 27
2.8.2 NRCS Unit Hydrograph Method........................................................... 29
2.9 COMPUTER MODELS.............................................................................. 29
2.9.1 Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) ........................................ 29
2.9.2 NRCS Models (winTR-55) ................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3.......................................................................................... 31-41
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................ 31
3.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 31
3.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERSTICS ............................................................. 31
3.2.1 Location................................................................................................. 31
3.2.2 Topography ........................................................................................... 31
3.2.3 Hydro-geological features ..................................................................... 34
3.2.4 Ground Water Decline .......................................................................... 34
3.2.5 Climate .................................................................................................. 38
3.3 LAND USE AND DEVELOPEMNT ......................................................... 39
3.4 BUILDING BYE-LAWS ............................................................................ 39
3.4.1 LDA Bye-laws....................................................................................... 39
3.4.2 LCCHSL Bye-laws ............................................................................... 40
3.5 MOHLANWAL HOUSING SOCIETY ..................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4.......................................................................................... 42-58
RAINFALL ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 42
4.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 42
4.2 COLLECTION OF RAINFALL DATA..................................................... 42
4.3 ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY RAINFALL ............................................ 43
4.4 PREPARATION OF IDF CURVES ........................................................... 47
4.4.1 Determination of Short Duration Data .................................................. 47
v
4.4.2 Correlation between 3-Hrs and shorter Duration Rainfall .................... 50
4.4.3 Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Curves ......................................... 53
4.5 PRAINFALL DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR LAHORE ....................... 55
4.6 DETERMINATION OF “KNEE OF THE CURVE” ................................. 56
CHAPTER 5.......................................................................................... 59-81
DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF STORMWATER SYSTEMS........................ 59
5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 59
5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................. 59
5.2.1 Return Period......................................................................................... 59
5.2.2 Design Rainfall...................................................................................... 59
5.2.3 Analysis / Design Tool.......................................................................... 60
5.3.4 Subcathment Properties......................................................................... 60
5.2.5 Junction Properties ................................................................................ 60
5.2.6 Conduit Properties................................................................................. 61
5.2.7 External Flows....................................................................................... 61
5.2.8 Infiltration.............................................................................................. 62
5.2.9 Flow Routing......................................................................................... 62
5.3 DESIGN OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS .......................... 62
5.3.1 Option # 1- PartiallyCombine System .................................................. 63
5.3.2 Option # 2- Separate Storm Sewer System ........................................... 66
5.3.3 Option # 3- Storm Sewer System with Park Storage ............................ 68
5.3.4 Option # 4- Storm Sewer with Park & Lawn Storage........................... 72
5.4 DEVALUATION OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ............ 76
5.4.1 Flooding ................................................................................................ 76
5.4.2 Length-Weighted Diameter................................................................... 77
5.4.3 Cost of the System................................................................................. 77
5.4.4 Social and Technical Aspect ................................................................. 78
CHAPTER 6.......................................................................................... 81-82
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 81
REFERENCES...................................................................................... 83-84
ANNEXURES...................................................................................... 85-216
A- Rainfall Analyses................................................................................................... 85
B- Design and Analysis of Partially Combined System ........................................ 105
C- Design and Analysis of Separate System .......................................................... 127
D- Design and Analysis of Storm Sewer System with Park Storage ................... 149
E- Design and Analysis of Storm Sewer System with Park & Lawn Storage..... 174
F- Estimation of Quantities and Costing of the System........................................ 206
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Typical Green-Roof Details 10

Figure 2.2 Typical Rain Barrel 11
Figure 2.3 Underground Cistern for Landscape Irrigation 11
Figure 2.4 Typical Bioretention Facility 12
Figure 2.5 Cross Section of a Dry Well 13
Figure 2.6 Examples of Modular Porous Pavers 14
Figure 2.7 Typical Modular Porous Paver System Applications 15
Figure 2.8 Plan and Profile of a Vegetated Swale 16
Figure 2.9 Vegetated Swale with Infiltration Trench 17
Figure 2.10 Grassed Swale 17
Figure 2.11 Infiltration Trench 18
Figure 2.12 Typical Layout of an Infiltration Basin 19
Figure 2.13 Typical Plan and Profile of a Wet Pond 20
Figure 2.14 Typical Plan and Profile of a Dry Extended Detention Basin 21
Figure 2.15 Velocities for estimating travel time for shallow concentrated flow 27
Figure 3.1 Master Plan of the Lahore 34
Figure 3.2 Master Plan of the Mohlanwal Housing Scheme 35
Figure 3.3 Water Table Contours above MSL for Lahore in 1987 38
Figure 3.4 Water Table Contours above MSL for Lahore in 2000 39
Figure 4.1 Gumbel Rainfall Frequency Analysis 47
Figure 4.2 Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves for Lahore 55
Figure 4.3 Design Rainfall Distribution Curve for Lahore 56
Figure 4.4 Storm Events Distribution in Lahore (1996-2006) 58
Figure 4.5 Knee of the Curve for Lahore (1996 to 2006) 59
Figure 5.1 Layout of Partially Combined System 65
Figure 5.2 Layout of Separate Storm Sewer System 68
Figure 5.3 Layout of Storm Sewer System with Park Storage 70
Figure 5.4 Layout of Storm Sewer System with Park & Lawn Storage 74
Figure A.1 Relationship b/w 3-hrs and 15-min Rainfall 89
Figure A.5 Frequency Relationship Graph for 15-min Duration 97
Figure A.9 Frequency Relationship Graph for 3-hrs Duration 98
Figure A.14 IDF curves with Regression Equations 101
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Classification of BMPs and their Definition 05
Table 2.2 Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Overland Flow 26
Table 2.3 Runoff Coefficients for Rational Formula 28
Table 2.4 Runoff Curve Number for Urban Areas 30
Table 2.5 SWMM-RUNOFF and EXTRAN Blocks Analytic Methods 32
Table 3.1 Progressive Installation of WASA Tubewells and Pumpage 36
Table 3.2 Average Ground Water Decline in Lahore (1977 to 2000) 37
Table 3.3 Mean Monthly Precipitation for Lahore 40
Table 3.4 LDA Guidelines for Open Areas in Residential Units 41
Table 3.5 LDA Land-Use Distribution for New Schemes 42
Table 3.6 LCCHSL Guidelines for Open Areas in Residential Units 42
Table 3.7 Land use Distribution in Mohlanwal Housing Scheme 43
Table 3.8 Breakup of Residential Units in Mohlanwal Housing Scheme 43
Table 4.1 Gumbel’s Rainfall Frequency Analysis 45
Table 4.2 Summary of Gumbel Frequency Analysis 46
Table 4.3 Maximum 3-Hours Rainfall Data 48
Table 4.4 Autographic Rainfall Record in inches 50
Table 4.5 Relationship between 3 Hrs and Shorter Duration Rainfall 52
Table 4.6 Rainfall Based upon Frequency Relationship Graphs 53
Table 4.7 Comparison of the 24-Hrs Available Rainfall with Gumbel Analysis 54
Table 4.8 6-Hours Rainfall Pattern for different frequencies 57
Table 4.9 Distribution of Rainfall Events in Lahore 57
Table 4.10 Incremental Design Criteria Vs Storm Captured for Lahore 58
Table 5.1 Summary of Node Flooding for Option # 1 66
Table 5.2 Summary of Cross-sections of Links for Option # 1 66
Table 5.9 Comparison of Stormwater Allowance for Different Frequencies 77
Table 5.10 Summary of Network Sizing for different Options 79
Table 5.11 Summary of the Cost Comparison for different Options 80
Reduced Mean (Yn) and Reduced Standard Deviation (Sn) in Gumbel’s
Table A.1 87
Extreme Value Distribution
Table A.2 Data Used for Correlations b/w 3-Hrs and Shorter Duration Rainfall 88
Table A.3 Filled Up Short Duration Rainfall Data 91
Table A.4 Frequency Analyses of Combined Rainfall Data 92
Table A.5 Design Short Duration Rainfall Depth (inches) 100
Table A.6 Design Short Duration Rainfall Intensity (inches/Hour) 100
Table A.7 Rainfall Intensities for shorter duration 102
Table A.8 24-Hrs Rainfall Distribution 104
Table A.9 3-Hrs Rainfall Distribution 105
viii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
BMPs Best Management Practices

SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage System
LID Low Impact Development
IDF Intensity Duration Frequency
WASA Water and Sanitation Authority
PBO Pilot Balloon Observatory
PMD Pakistan Meteorological Department
LDA Lahore Development Authority
LCCHSL Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Lahore.
NESPAK National Engineering Services Pakistan
SCS Soil Conservation Service
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
It has become evident that more frequent and widespread stormwater flooding has been
occurring not only in Lahore but also all over the Pakistan during recent past. As a
consequence of this many controlling authorities (such as WASA) have been forced into a
mode of crisis.
The main source behind such increased and frequent flooding is urbanization. Increased
hard surfaces, such as rooftops, driveways, walkways, roads, and parking areas are the
main features of modern urbanization which causes frequent and higher peak of
stormwater flow. Basic theme of the conventional drainage systems is to remove water
from one area as quickly as possible. However, this results in increased flooding, lesser
groundwater recharging, more erosion and greater loads of pollution at the outfall.
The unplanned development pattern in Lahore results in the severe flooding occurring in
different areas of city which generally have the highest growth densities and maximum
land cost (1). Due of limited space and funds, the capacities of the existing drainage
system (e.g. storm sewers, culverts and drain) can not be readily increased. On the other
hand, no proper effort has been made to assess the impacts of new developments on the
existing drainage network and hence it complicates the planning and approval of
stormwater guidelines for new developments.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study are:
1) Identification of various stormwater control techniques for local conditions.
2) Evaluation of social, technical and economical feasibility of alternative stormwater

controls measures.
3) Development of guidelines for the design of stormwater drainage systems under

local conditions.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
The study was conducted on the Mohlanwal Society situated at Canal Road under local
conditions of Lahore. To achieve the above objectives, the scopes of study were as
follow:
1) Field data were collected about topography, climatic conditions, Socio-economic

features, Land use & development, water supply, sewerage and drainage systems
to assess the existing scenarios.
2) Different stormwater techniques (Vegetated Swales, Depressed Lawn and dry

Ponds) were analyzed for 2, 5 and 10 years frequency. Each alternative’s
feasibilities in terms of technicality, economics and social acceptance were
determined.
3) Evaluation of different techniques was made keeping in view the local conditions.
2
Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Stormwater drainage system can be defined as: functions related with the planning,
design, construction, maintenance and financing of both natural and man made facilities
which collect, control and convey stormwater(2). The objectives of stormwater
management are to prevent loss of life, reduce hazards to human health and well being,
and minimize damage both to property and to the environment.
Conventional stormwater management is basically reactive in nature (i.e. action is taken

when the flooding problems have manifest themselves.) It is clear that this reactive
approach has caused more frequent and severe flooding of streets and properties,
especially in downstream areas (2).
2.2 CONVENTIONAL STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
There are three approaches for the design of conventional system.

a) Combined System
b) Separate System
c) Partially Combined System
In combined system one single set of sewers is laid for carrying both stormwater and
sanitary sewage from a community. In separate system separate sewers are laid for
sanitary sewage and stormwater. Unlike sanitary sewage, stormwater is not foul in nature
and normally disposed off to natural water courses without any treatment (3). In partially
separate system, the sewers are designed as sanitary sewers but sufficient excess
capacities are provided to carry a part of stormwater discharge also. In this type, the initial
washings from drainage area i.e. a part of the stormwater are included in the sewers.
Basic theme of the conventional drainage systems is the rapid removal of stormwater
from one place to another place. However, this rapid removal causes the downstream
3
flooding, erosion of the soil channels and more pollutant load at the outfall. Because of its
varying quantity and quality, treatment of stormwater runoff is very difficult. Another major
drawback of this approach is that the recharging of groundwater is very low which disturb
the natural flow regime in the area. Normally the conventional systems comprise of pipes
or channels, which have to be kept clear of blockages otherwise flooding will occur in the
system. Pipe network is expensive to construct and maintain and it required skilled
professional to design the pipe network to achieve the design objective. Further more the
capacity of the pipe network cannot be readily increased. In the conventional “partially
combined sewerage system”, surface water is sometimes mixed with sewage which
makes it more difficult to treat (4). Hence one can conclude that conventional drainage
system is focused to the removal of runoff and pollution, downstream flooding and wider
environmental impacts are not dealt in it.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
In view of the problems associated with conventional drainage systems, alternative

techniques have been developed to reduce the effect of stormwater runoff on the
receiving drainage network. Instead of increasing the capacity of existing system or
rehabilitating, these techniques often use some other phenomenon to achieve the
sustainable drainage. These techniques are known as Best Management Practice (BMP)
in the U.S, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in the UK and Urban
Stormwater Management (USM) in Australia. In view of the urban drainage these
techniques are used for the specific catchment’s conditions, such as: use of land,
groundwater table, soil strata, terrain and land cost, in order to achieve acceptable runoff
quantity and quality at a minimum cost (5).
Although conventional drainage system remove potential threat from one area to the
other but generally this system passes the large quantities of stormwater runoff to the
downtown and then it becomes someone else problem. Therefore the main challenge to
the drainage engineer is to achieve the flood protection demanded by the certain society
in such a way that no damage occur to the flow regime and environment of the
downstream areas (6).
Catchments wide approach is recommended for controlling the discharge of stormwater

runoff in alternative techniques. To accomplish this objective, ample storage is needed in
the developments in the higher reaches of a catchment to attenuate peak storm flows.
Furthermore, to lessen the volume and peak of the stormwater runoff, the use of source
control is encouraged. As the amount of impermeable surface increases with the increase
in development, hence the use of soakaways, swales, infiltration galleries and porous
pavements have an important role to play in allowing stormwater to enter the ground
directly.(7)
2.4 DEFINATION OF BMPs CATEGORIES AND TYPES
Different available BMPs are categorize on the basis of some dominating aspect e.g.
infiltration, detention, retention or attenuation etc. Each category has different type of
BMP techniques with a little modification or alteration. Some commonly available BMPs
are summarized in the table 2.1 (8).
4
Table 2.1: Classification of BMPs and their Definition
BMP Definition
Category A: This category contains those BMPs which have a permanent

pool extended detention or shallow wetland. These include
Wet Ponds and significant shallow wetland areas but often may also
Wetlands incorporate small permanent pools and/or extended detention
storage.
Wet pond The pond which have a permanent pool of water.
Wet extended It contains permanent pool of water with the flow reduction
detention pond capabilities of an extended storage volume.
"Pocket" pond A wetland which has very small contributing drainage area
and which has no very little base flow during dry periods.
Shallow wetland A wetland that has a wet shallow marsh.
Extended detention A wetland system that provides some storage by detaining

wetland stormwater above the mash surface.
Wetland system A wetland system that provides storage in the permanent pool
of a wet pond that precedes the marsh for a specified
minimum detention time.
"Pocket" wetland A wetland which has a contributing drainage area less than
that of 5 acres. Normally it has very little or no base flow
available to maintain water elevations.
Constructed wetland The systems that perform a series of pollutant removal

mechanisms including sedimentation, filtration, absorption,
microbial decomposition and vegetative uptake to remove
sediment, nutrients, oil and grease, bacteria and metals.
Retention pond (wet) Surface pond with a permanent pool of water.
Retention Basin Capture a volume and retain that volume until it is displaced in
part or in total by the next runoff event. Maintains a significant
permanent pool volume of water between runoff events.
Category B This category comprises of those practices which are used to

restrained stormwater flows and remain dry between storm
Dry Detention events.
5
Dry pond A pond which lessen peak flows and drains completely
between storm events.
Underground dry Practices which contain the sub-surface storage e.g. tanks
detention facility and vaults etc.
Category C A practice that provides storage along with gradual release of

stormwater in order to minimize the pollutant load and to
Dry Extended reduce the peaks of storm flows.
Detention
Extended detention A basin that temporarily stores runoff for a certain time period
basin and discharges it through an outlet to downstream drainage
network. Usually it remains dry during non-rainfall periods.
Enhanced extended This basin has a higher efficiency than an extended detention
detention basin basin because it incorporates a shallow marsh in the bottom
which provides additional pollutant removal.
Group D This category consists of those practices that capture and

temporarily store the runoff before allowing it to infiltrate into
Infiltration Practices the soil.
Infiltration Trench An excavated trench that has been back filled with stone to
form a subsurface basin. Storm water runoff is diverted into a
trench and stored until it can be infiltrated into the soil.
Infiltration Basin It is relatively large, open depressions produced by either

natural site topography or excavation.
Porous Pavement Pervious pavement consists of a permeable surface course

underlain by a uniformly-graded stone bed which provides
storage and promotes infiltration. The surface course may
consist of porous asphalt, porous concrete, or various porous
structural pavers laid on uncompacted soil.
Category E This category consists of those practices which capture and

temporarily store the runoff and then pass it through a filter
Filtering Practices bed.
Surface sand filter This technique is particularly used for the treatment of runoff.
As filter bed and the sediment chamber, both are above
ground hence these are called as surface sand filters.
Underground sand filter All the filter components are underground and these are
designed for lesser volume to treat.
6
Bioretention areas These are planted areas in shallow depths in which the runoff
(a.k.a. Rain Gardens) is stored and then gradually treated by the underlying soil
strata.
Swale Generally a swale refers to vegetated open channel

management practices which are designed to attenuate and
treat runoff.
Dry Swale An open drainage channel designed to detain and promote

the filtration of storm water runoff through an underlying
fabricated soil media.
Wet Swale Basically designed for runoff treatment. It consists of an open

drainage channel or depression which is designed to retain
water for treatment.
Infiltration Swale Planted areas designed specifically to accept runoff from

impervious areas (i.e. parking lots) providing temporary
storage and onsite infiltration.
Dry Wells A small excavated pit which is backfilled with gravel or stone
aggregate and is used to control runoff from building rooftops.
Category F Using a BMP to reduce the total area impervious area and
therefore encouraging stormwater infiltration.
Impervious Surface
Reduction
Rain Barrels These are the large container that collect runoff from roof
leaders and store water until needed for other purposes such
as irrigation, car washing etc.
Green Roofs It consisting of a vegetative layer that effectively reduces

storm water runoff by reducing the percentage of impervious
area.
2.5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF BMPs
All the BMPs identified in table 2.1 may not be applicable under local conditions. In this
section only those BMPs are being discussed in detail which has a practical viability in
our local scenarios.
7
2.5.1 Green Roofs

Green roofs basically those measures which reduce the rate & volume of
stormwater runoff. It is a technique in which a multi-layer construction material
consisting of a vegetative layer that effectively reduces urban storm water runoff by
reducing the percentage of impervious surfaces in urban areas (figure 2.1).
According to different studies, 30 to 100% of annual rainfall can be stored, thus
relieving storm drains (9). The water retention and detention capacities of such roof
covers can be increased through proper selection of the engineered media and
plants.
Figure 2.1: Typical Green-Roof Details

(Source: Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual)
Green roofs have a large influence on stormwater peak rates derived from roofs.
Generally the rate of runoff from the green roofs will be less than or equal to that of
open space (i.e., NRCS curve number of 65) for storm events with total rainfall
volumes equal to 3 times the maximum media water retention of the assembly. For
example, a representative vegetated roof cover with maximum moisture retention of
1 inch will react like open space for storms up to and including the 3-inch magnitude
storm (10).
2.5.2 Roof Top Runoff Controls
Cisterns, Rain Barrels, Vertical Storage, and similar devices can also be use as ‘on-
source’ technique to capture storm water from the roofs of buildings. The reuse of
stormwater for potable needs is not advised without water treatment. These
practices can reduce water demands for uses such as irrigation and fire protection
while also reducing stormwater discharges. Storage/reuse techniques range from
small, residential systems such as Rain Barrels that are maintained by the
homeowner to supplement garden needs, to large, “vertical storage” units that can
8
provide firefighting needs. Storage/reuse techniques are useful in urban areas

where there is little physical space to manage storm water (10).
Figure 2.2: Typical Rain Barrel

(Source: LID Manual of Prince George’s County, Maryland)
Cisterns are large, underground or surface containers designed to hold large

volumes of water (500 gallons or more). Cisterns may be comprised of fiberglass,
concrete, plastic, brick or other materials. The stored water can be used for different
purposes like car washing, landscape irrigation etc (fig 2.3).
Figure 2.3: Underground Cistern for Landscape Irrigation

(Source: M/S Cahill Associates)
9
2.5.3 Recharge Garden / Bioretention

It is a practice to handle and treat stormwater runoff by using a conditioned planting
soil bed and planting materials to filter runoff stored within a shallow depression.
Physical filtering and adsorption is combined with biological processes in this
method. Normally the Bioretention includes a pretreatment filter strip, a shallow
water ponding area, a planting area, a soil zone, an under-drain system, and an
overflow outlet structure. Pretreatment, such as grass buffer strip or vegetated
swales, is required only where a significant volume of debris or suspended material
is anticipated such as parking lots and commercial areas. The maximum depth of
ponding area is 6” while the depth of planting soil is about 4 feet (11).
Figure 2.4: Typical Bioretention Facility

(Source: Claytor and Schueler, 1996)
10
2.5.4 Dry Well / Seepage Pit

A Dry Well, sometimes called a Seepage Pit, is a subsurface storage facility that
temporarily stores and infiltrates stormwater runoff from the roofs of structures. Roof
leaders connect directly into the Dry Well, which may be either an excavated pit
filled with uniformly graded aggregate wrapped in geotextile or a prefabricated
storage chamber or pipe segment. Dry Wells discharge the stored runoff via
infiltration into the surrounding soils. In the event that the Dry Well is overwhelmed
in an intense storm event, an overflow mechanism (surcharge pipe, connection to
larger infiltration area, etc.) will ensure that additional runoff is safely conveyed
downstream.
By capturing runoff at the source, Dry Wells can dramatically reduce the increased
volume of stormwater generated by the roofs of structures. Though roofs are
generally not a significant source of runoff pollution, they are still one of the most
important sources of new or increased runoff volume from developed areas (10). By
decreasing the volume of stormwater runoff, Dry Wells can also reduce runoff rate
and improve water quality. As with other infiltration practices, Dry Wells may not be
appropriate for “hot spots” or other areas where high pollutant or sediment loading is
expected without additional design considerations. Dry Wells are not recommended
within a specified distance to structures or subsurface sewage disposal systems.
Figure 2.5: Cross Section of a Dry Well.

11
2.5.5 Modular Porous Paver System

This system consists of structural units, such as concrete blocks, bricks, or
reinforced plastic mats; with regularly void areas used to create a load-bearing
pavement surface. To allow the infiltration of stormwater runoff, the void areas are
filled with gravel, sand, or grass turf. As the use of porous paver systems reduce the
effective impervious area on a site, hence it results in groundwater recharge and a
reduction in stormwater peak & volume (12).
There are many different types of modular porous pavers available including pre-
cast and mold in-place concrete blocks, concrete grids, interlocking bricks, and
plastic mats with hollow rings or hexagonal cells (see Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6: Examples of Modular Porous Pavers

(Source: Georgia Stormwater Management Manual)
The well suited places for the application of pervious pavements are parking areas,
walking paths, sidewalks, playgrounds, commercial plazas, tennis courts, and other
similar uses. If homeowner is aware of the function of pervious pavements then it
can be used in driveways of a house (10).
12
Figure 2.7: Typical Modular Porous Paver System Applications

(Source: UDFCD, 1999)
2.5.6 Vegetated Swale

These are broad, shallow, earthen channels. Basically it is designed to hinder the
runoff velocity which not only promote infiltration but also filter pollutants and
sediments. Vegetated Swales are an environmentally superior alternative to
conventional curb and gutter conveyance systems (10).
Typically a vegetated swale consists of dense vegetation, underlain by permeable

soil (about 24 inches). Swales constructed with an underlying 12 to 24 inch
aggregate layer significantly reduce the volume and peak of stormwater runoff. The
minimum infiltration rate of permeable soil should be 0.5 inches per hour. Similarly
the soil media should contain a high level of organic material to enhance pollutant
removal. A nonwoven geotextile should completely wrap the aggregate trench.
13
Swales cost less to construct than curbs, gutters, and underground pipes; however,
swales take up more land area. The cost of maintaining swales are usually minimal.
Figure 2.8: Plan and Profile of a vegetated Swale

Longitudinal slope should be in range of 2 to 4%. If slope along with flow path
exceed 4 %, then check dams must be installed to reduce the effective slope to
below 4%. Side slopes should be no greater than 3:1 Hz to Vt. Check-dams shall be
constructed to a height of 6 to 12 in and be regularly spaced (13). Although swales
can used for an area of 5 to 10 acres but these are most effective when used for an
area of 1 to 2 acre. To make sure the filtration capacity and appropriate
performance of swales, the bottom widths is generally 2 to 8 feet. The maximum
bottom width to depth ratio for a trapezoidal swale should be 12:1 (10).
14
Variations
Vegetated Swale with Infiltration Trench
In this variation, a trench or aggregate bed (12 to 24 inch) is provide with convention
swale which significantly increases volume control and water quality performance.
The cost is higher than that of simple swale. This type of variation is best suited for
milder sloped swales where the addition of the aggregate bed system is
recommended to ensure that the maximum allowable ponding time (72 hours) is not
exceeded (10).
Figure 2.9: Vegetated Swale with Infiltration Trench

Grass Swale
Conventional stormwater drainage
ditches are the best example of a
grass swale. The side and
longitudinal slopes of grassed
swales are milder than vegetated
swales. Although grass swales are
usually less expensive than swales
with longer and denser vegetation
but they provide far less infiltration
and pollutant removal opportunities.
Grass swales is normally used as
pretreatment for other BMPs.
Grassed swales, are preferred over
catch basins and pipes because of
Figure 2.10: Grassed Swale
their ability to reduce the rate of flow
(10) (Source: Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual)
across a site .
The primary advantages of grassed swales include relatively low construction cost
and maintenance costs, increased infiltration, additional wildlife habitat in some
cases, elimination of curbs and gutters which collect and deliver pollutants to
receiving waters, and a pleasing appearance. In areas with low amount of
impervious surface, such a single-family residential areas, curbs and gutters can be
replaced by swales, resulting in increased stormwater removal and improved
aesthetics (13).
15
2.5.7 Infiltration Trench

Infiltration trenches are the underground storage for stormwater runoff which is
constructed by excavating a trench and then backfill it with stone (Figure 2.11). The
composition of backfilled material is selected in such a way that the runoff gradually
exfiltrates through the bottom and sides of the trench into the subsoil over a
specified period of time (typically 2-days). Care should be taken in higher water
table location because infiltration trenches have high potential of ground water
contamination. Infiltration trenches are not designed to capture the sediment and
hence a sediment Forebay, grass channel or filter strip, or other appropriate
pretreatment measures should be provided to prevent clogging and failure. As the
failure rate is very high for infiltration trenches, therefore, these facilities must only
be considered for sites where upstream sediment control can be implemented.
Figure 2.11: Infiltration Trench

(Source: Georgia Stormwater Management Manual)
Although the width and depth can vary, it is recommended that Infiltration Trenches
be limited in depth to not more than six (6) feet of stone. This is due to both
construction issues and Loading Rate issues (10).
Infiltration trench is generally feasible for residential as well as high density / ultra
urban areas. Following are the some main physical constraints at project site for an
infiltration trench (12).
The drainage area should not exceed 5 acres.
Surface space requirements depend upon the depth available in the terrain.
Site slope should not be more than 6%.
Minimum one (1) ft head is needed at a site from the inflow to the outflow.
Minimum 4 feet cover is required between the bottom of the infiltration trench
and the elevation of the seasonally high water table.
Only applicable for soils that have an infiltration rate greater than 0.5 inches per
hour. (typically hydrologic group “A”, some group “B” soils)
16
2.5.8 Infiltration Basin

The shallow, impounded area which is designed to temporarily store and infiltrate
stormwater runoff is called as infiltration basin. The surface area requirements
depend upon the catchment are and depth of basin. It can be a one large basin or
multiple, smaller basins throughout a site depending upon the stormwater runoff.
Infiltration and evaporation are two distinct features of the infiltration basins to
lessen the volume and peak of stormwater runoff. Surface area is selected in such a
way that capture runoff can be infiltrate within a given time (72 hours or less) into
the soil. A proper overflow structure is needed for the storm of larger frequency (10).
The most important advantage of infiltration basins is the approximation of pre-

development hydrology during which a significant portion of the average annual
rainfall runoff is infiltrated and evaporated rather than flushed directly to drainage
network (14).
Figure 2.12: Typical Layout of an Infiltration Basin

Vegetation is added for existing unvegetated areas or for infiltration basins that
require excavation. The use of turf grass is discouraged due to soil compaction from
the required frequent mowing and maintenance requirements. An Infiltration Basin
17
can be used for recreation (e.g. parks etc) in dry periods. A layer of sand or gravel
(usually 6”) is placed on the bottom of infiltration basin if the soil has very poor
infiltration rate (10).
2.5.9 Wet Pond / Retention Basin
Wet ponds (WPs) or retention basin are constructed basins which have a
permanent pool of water throughout the year. If properly designed, constructed and
maintained, wet basins can provide substantial aesthetic/recreational value. Ponds
are often viewed as a public amenity when integrated into a park setting. Mosquito
breeding and public safety is the major limitations of wet ponds (15).
The pond perimeter is generally covered by dense vegetation. While they do not
achieve significant groundwater recharge or volume reduction, they can be effective
for pollutant removal and peak rate mitigation. WPs require an adequate source of
inflow to maintain the permanent water surface (16).
Figure 2.13: Typical Plan and Profile of Wet Pond.

(Source: Pennsylvania BMP Manual)
18
Although not typically considered a volume-reducing BMP, Wet Ponds can achieve
some volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration, especially during
small storms. According to the International Stormwater BMP Database, wet ponds
have an average annual volume reduction of 7 % (17).
2.5.10 Dry Extended Detention Basin
A dry extended detention basin is an earthen structure constructed either by
impoundment of a natural depression or excavation of existing soil, that provides
temporary storage of runoff and functions hydraulically to attenuate stormwater
runoff peaks. This is the used where soils are very poor in infiltration. The basin
outlet structure is designed to detain runoff from the design storm for extended
periods. Some volume reduction is also achieved in a dry basin through initial
saturation of the soil mantle (even when compacted) and some evaporation takes
place during detention. The net volume reduction for design storms is minimal,
especially if the precedent soil moisture is assumed as in other volume reduction
BMPs (10). Figure 2.14 shows the typical placement of various components of a dry
extended detention Practice.
Figure 2.14: Typical Dry Extended Detention Basin Layout

(Source: Pennsylvania BMP Manual)
19
In order to provide sufficient pond volume for detention, relatively large area is
required. Normally it varies from 1 to 3% of the drainage area (18). Areas having flat
topography are not feasible for these ponds because of differential elevation
between inlets and outlets requirements.
Dry detention basins can also be used for recreational activities during dry periods
(recreational trails, ball fields, picnicking). Portions of a dry detention basin that are
not wetted frequently can be attractively landscaped or used for other purposes.
2.6 BMPs SELECTION PARAMETERS
and environmental factors (19).
There are a number of factors and considerations that can help to identify the appropriate
BMP or combination of BMPs to address the design objectives for a given site or
watershed. Some general guidance for some selection parameters is provided in
following section.
2.6.1 Impact Area and Design Objectives

The major areas of impact included (20):
• Physical impact areas
Flooding
Channel erosion
Ground water recharge and base flow maintenance
Thermal (increase in stream temperatures)
• Chemical impact area
• Habitat and biological impact areas.
Every community has different needs and issues that lead them to adopt stormwater
management goals and objectives that are appropriate for their specific needs.
Different levels of stormwater management performance goals and objectives exist
and tries to provide guidance on how to address and select the BMPs that are
appropriate for a given design objective.
2.6.2 Onsite versus Regional Controls
The decision of whether to use an on-site or a regional approach can have a strong
influence on the selection of the BMP type. Some treatment BMPs, such as ponds
and wetlands, can be used either as stand-alone on-site treatment controls or as
part of regional controls for stormwater management. Others, including swales,
filters strips, infiltration, media filters, oil and water separators, are designed only for
on-site use. Within the on-site use group, there is a new subset of emerging
practices referred to as micro-scale multi-functional management practices that are
intended to be integrated into a site’s landscape. Many of the onsite practices such
as the swale filter strips and bioretention cells fall in this group (21).
20
2.6.3 Watershed Factors

The design of BMPs is influenced by the nature of the water body that will receive
the stormwater discharge. As a result, prior to the design, designers should
determine the different usages of the watershed in which their project is located. In
particular cases, higher pollutant removal may be required to fully protect aquatic
life and/or human health and safety within a particular watershed or receiving water.
These factors sometimes results in a shorter list of BMPs that can be considered for
the selection within that watersheds or zones.
The areas of concern include (22):
• Coldwater streams
• Sensitive streams
• Wellhead protection
• Shellfish / Beach
2.6.4 Terrain Factors
The type of structure used can be affected by terrain factors. For example, in very
flat areas, it is difficult to construct a basin with a dam as would be possible in a
steeper watershed. In the case of the flatter areas, it may be necessary to construct
the basin by excavation. Also, the type of outlet can be controlled by the terrain with
drop inlets being useful in steeper slopes, but with weir and open channel outlets
favored for flat terrain (22).
2.6.5 Stormwater Treatment Suitability
As different types of BMPs offer different level of treatment hence stormwater
treatment suitability of each BMP should be analyzed based upon the local
parameters.
2.6.6 Physical Suitability Factors
The watershed and terrain factors should enable the BMP designer to reduce the
BMP list to a manageable length and precede to consideration of the physical
suitability factors that characterize the physical conditions at a site. The six primary
physical suitability factors include (21):
• Soils
• Water table
• Drainage area
• Slope
• Head
• Urban Sites
2.6.7 Community and Environmental factors
Another group of factors that should be considered by the BMP designer includes
the community and environmental factors. This group of factors includes the
following four factors (21):
• Ease of Maintenance
• Community Acceptance
• Construction Costs
• Habitat Quality
21
2.7 RAINFALL ANALYSIS
The relation between the rate at which rain falls, the time it continues to fall at a given
average rate and the frequency with which these combinations of rate and duration
repeat themselves are the particular interest to the design engineer.
2.7.1 Frequency or Recurrence Interval

By recurrence interval of a given storm is meant the time interval during which the
given storm is likely to be equalled or exceeded (23). If N is total no of years of
record, and m is number of times the given rain is equalled or exceeded, then
recurrence interval T can be calculated using following equations.
a) California (1923) T= N
m
T = 2N
b) Hazen’s Method (1930)
(2m − 1)
c) Weibull (1939) T = (N + 1)
m
Frequency F (expressed as percentage of time) of that storm magnitude having
recurrence interval T is given by,
1
F= × 100
T
2.7.2 Regression Analysis
The relation between rainfall depth “y” and corresponding frequency “F” can be
expressed by regression equation
y = a1+b1F
Where a1 and b1 are sample estimators of a & b respectively. By using the method
of regression analysis, the value of a & b can be obtained from the sample (ki, yi).
2.7.3 Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves
The total storm rainfall depth at a point, for a given rainfall duration and recurrence
interval, is a function of the local climate. The measured rainfall depths are further
processed and converted into rainfall intensities. These intestines are generally
presented in curves called as IDF curves. These are very useful curves because
most of the stormwater drainage design methodologies require rainfall input in the
form of average rainfall intensity. The data are normally presented as curves
displaying two of the variables, such as intensity and duration, for a range of
frequencies.
If there are storms of different intensity and duration, then a relation may be
obtained by plotting the intensities against duration of the respective storms. These
intensity duration curves for a particular frequency can be expressed by the
following relations:
i= k n
t
i = kt x
22
Where t is the duration of rainfall or its part and k, n and x are constants for a given
region (24).
2.7.4 Computation of IDF curves from long Duration storm
When several isolated storms of different short durations are not available on
record, an IDF curve can be plotted with the data of a single long duration storm.
This can be done if the mass rainfall curve of a single storm of long duration is
known. In such a case, the entire duration shall be divided into several intervals of
shorter durations (say of 5 min each) and the rainfall depths falling in each
successive interval of short duration shall be computed. The maximum rainfall depth
falling in any of these intervals shall be chosen as the requisite depth of rainfall for
that particular short duration. When this maximum depth is divided by the above
duration, the maximum average intensity corresponding to that depth shall be
obtained. This procedure shall then be used to compute maximum depth of rainfall
that can fall in shorter duration which is higher than that of previously calculated.
However, the frequency of this curve cannot be marked as the frequency of this
storm is not known (23).
2.8 STORMWATER CALCULATIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
There have been many methodologies developed to estimate the total runoff volume, the
peak rate of runoff, and the runoff hydrograph from land surfaces under a variety of
conditions. There is also a wide variety of computer models available for this purpose.
The methods most commonly used in stormwater computations are discussed below.
2.8.1 Time of concentration (Tc)
The time of concentration (Tc) is used to develop runoff hydrographs or determine
peak discharges. The peak rate of runoff is very much dependent on Tc, particularly
for small watersheds. The determination of Tc depends upon number of factors such
as watershed characteristics (especially drainage area), climatic conditions,
required accuracy, available data, and available time (25).
There are different parts of a flow path and to accurately determine the Tc for a
watershed, the hydraulics of each part must be considered separately. This can be
done by dividing the flow path into overland, shallow concentrated, channel, and
pipe flow segments. The travel time (Tt) can then be computed for each segment
and totaled to obtain the Tc. Each of these will be discussed separately.
2.8.1.1 Overland Flow
This includes thin sheet flow over plane surfaces and non-converging flows
over rilled and irregular surfaces. Manning-kinematic equation is used to
compute Tt for the overland flow segment. The maximum flow length of 300'
with a most likely length of 100' should be used in overland flow
computations for unpaved areas.
This method uses Manning's equation so that the Manning-kinematic
solution becomes (26):
0.007 × (nL )
0. 8
Tt =
× S 0.4
0.5
P24
23
Where Tt = Total travel time in hours

n = Manning’s roughness coefficient (see table 2.4)
L = Length of flow in ft
P24 = 24-hr precipitation in inch
S = Slope of the flow path
Table 2.2: Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Overland Flow (27)
Cover or Value
Range
Treatment recommended
Concrete or asphalt 0.011 0.01 – 0.013

Bare sand 0.01 0.010 – 0.016
Graveled surface 0.02 0.012 – 0.03
Bare clay-loam (eroded) 0.02 0.012 – 0.033
Short grass 0.15 0.10 – 0.20
Dense grass 0.24 0.17 – 0.30
2.8.1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow

After a maximum of 300 feet, sheet flow usually becomes shallow
concentrated flow (28). The average velocity for this flow can be determined
using Manning's equation and then the travel time is calculated with the
following equation:
L
Tt =
3600 × V
Where Tt = Total travel time in hours
L = Length of flow in ft
V = Velocity of flow in fps
The average velocity for this flow can be determined from Figure 2.15, in
which average velocity is a function of watercourse slope and type of
channel. For slopes less than 0.005 ft/ft, the average velocity can be
calculated from the following equations (29):
= 20.3282(S )
0.5
VPaved
VUnpaved = 16.1345(S )
0.5
2.8.1.3 Channel Flow

This includes channelized flow where surveyed cross sections are available.
Manning’s equation is used to calculate the velocity. Travel time is
calculated by the above equation.
24
2.8.1.4 Pipe Flow

This includes storm drain flow. By using average conduit sizes and an
average slope (excluding any vertical drops in the system), the average
velocity can be estimated using Manning’s equation.
Figure 2.15: Velocities for estimating travel time for shallow concentrated flow
(Source: Florida Development Manual)
The time of concentration (Tc) is the sum of the individual Tt for the various
consecutive flow segments:
Tc = Tt1 + Tt2 + Tt3 + … Ttm
2.8.2 Rational Method

The Rational Formula is the most widely used method and it is an important method
for determining only the peak runoff rate for a specified storm return period. It is
used to design conveyance facilities including street gutters, drainage inlets, storm
sewer pipes, culverts and small roadside ditches. It is most applicable to small,
25
impervious, developed areas. Its use is limited to drainage areas of 50 acres or less
and for which the Tc does not exceed 30 minutes (30).
Since this method relies on a composite C value and a single Tc, therefore
distribution and grouping of different land uses affect the results of hydrologic
analyses. Drainage area is divided into homogeneous sub-drainage areas. Tc is
required for each location within a drainage basin. The duration of rainfall is set
equal to each area’s Tc to estimate the design average rainfall intensity, I, using the
appropriate IDF curve. The peak runoff rate from a given drainage area is given by:
Q =CxIx A
Where: Q = Peak Runoff Rate (cubic feet per second)

C = Runoff Coefficient of the Area (assumed to be dimensionless)
I = Average Rainfall Intensity (in./hr)
A = the size of the drainage area (acres)
A Rational Method runoff coefficient represents the ratio of the average rainfall
intensity to the maximum runoff rate. The actual percentage of rainfall to runoff
varies greatly depending upon many factors including: preceding rainfall, storm
return period, soil, slope, vegetation, etc. Table 2.3 presents runoff coefficients for
developed areas.
Table 2.3: Runoff Coefficients for Rational Formula (31)
Type of Drainage Area Runoff Coefficient (C)

Business Downtown 0.70 – 0.95
Neighborhood 0.50 – 0.70
Residential Single-family 0.30 – 0.50
Multi-units, detached 0.40 – 0.60
Multi-units, attached 0.60 – 0.75
Sub-urban 0.25 – 0.40
Apartment 0.50 – 0.70
Industrial Light 0.50 – 0.80
Heavy 0.60 – 0.90
Lawns (Sandy Soil) Flat, up to 2% grade 0.50 – 0.10
Average, 2 to 7% grade 0.10 – 0.15
Steep, over 7% grade 0.15 – 0.20
Lawns (Heavy Soil) Flat, up to 2% grade 0.13 – 0.17
Average, 2 to 7% grade 0.18 – 0.22
Steep, over 7% grade 0.25 – 0.35
Streets Asphalt 0.70 – 0.95
Concrete 0.80 – 0.95
Brick 0.70 – 0.85
Parks 0.10 – 0.25
Playgrounds 0.20 – 0.35
Drives and Walks 0.75 – 0.85
Roofs 0.75 – 0.95
26
2.8.3 Runoff Curve Number Method

The runoff curve number method, developed by Soil Conservation Service
(now Natural Resources Conservation Services) is the most commonly used
tool for estimating runoff volumes. In this method, runoff is calculated based
on four parameters i.e. precipitation, curve number, watershed storage, and
initial abstraction. According to Natural Resources Conservation Services
(NRCS), when rainfall is greater than the initial abstraction, runoff is given:
(P − Ia ) 2
Q=
(P − Ia) + S
Where: Q = runoff (in.)

P = rainfall (in.)
Ia = initial abstraction (in.)
S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in.)
Initial abstraction (Ia) includes the depression storage, interception,

evaporation and infiltration losses before the start of surface runoff. The
value of Ia is highly variable but NRCS has found that it can be empirically
approximated by:
Ia = 0.2S
Therefore, the runoff equation becomes:
Q = (P − o.2S )
2
(P + 0.8S )
Where S is a function of the watershed soil and cover conditions as

represented by the runoff curve number (CN):
1000
S= − 10
CN
Curve numbers have been tabulated by soil Conservation Service on the
basis of soil type and land use. Four soil groups are classified:
Group A: Deep Sand, deep loess, aggregated silts.
Group B: Shallow loess, sandy loam
Group C: Clay loams, shallow sandy loams, soil low in organic

content and soils usually high in clay.
Group D: Soils that swell significantly when wet, heavy plastic clay
and certain saline soils.
27
The value of CN for various land uses on these soil types are given in the
following Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Runoff Curve Number for Urban Areas
Hydrologic Soil
Land Use Description Group
A B C D
Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established)
Open spaces (lawns, parks, golf courses etc)
Poor condition (grass cover <50%) 68 79 86 89
Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 75%) 49 69 79 84
Good condition (grass cover >75%) 39 61 74 80
Impervious Areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways etc. (excluding ROW) 98 98 98 98
Streets and Road
Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding ROW) 98 98 98 98
Paved; open ditches (including ROW) 83 89 92 93
Gravel (including ROW) 76 85 89 91
Dirt (including ROW) 72 82 87 89
Urban districts
Commercial and Business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95
Industrial districts (72% impervious) 81 88 91 93
Western desert urban areas
Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) 63 77 85 88
Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier,
desert shrub with 1 to 2 inch sand or gravel mulch and 96 96 96 96
basin borders)
Residential Area
Average Lot Size Average % impervious
1/8 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92
¼ acre 38 61 75 83 87
1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86
½ acre 25 54 70 80 85
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84
2 acres 12 46 65 77 82
Developing urban areas
Newly graded areas (pervious areas only, no vegetation) 77 86 91 94
Source: National Engineering Handbook, NRCS
28
2.8.4 NRCS Unit Hydrograph Method

In combination with the curve number method for calculating runoff depth,
the National Resource Soil Conservation Service (NRCS) also developed a
system to estimate peak runoff rates and runoff hydrographs using a
dimensionless unit hydrograph derived from many natural unit hydrographs
from diverse watersheds.
Following equations are used to develop hydrograph for different points of a

drainage channel (25).
Q p = KAQ
Tp
T p = 1 D + 0.6Tc
2
Where Q p = Peak Discharge in cusecs

A = Drainage Area in square miles
K = Constant for particular watershed
(varies from 600 in steep terrain to 300 in flat areas)
Q = Incremental excess rainfall in inches
T p = Time to peak discharge in hours
Tc = Time of concentration in hours
D = Incremental excess rainfall period in hours
2.9 COMPUTER MODELS
2.9.1 Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)

SWMM is a dynamic model to simulate rainfall-runoff and water quality for a single
event or long term event in urban areas. It is used for the analyses of quantity and
quality problems associated with stormwater to design the urban drainage network.
Simulation can be performed for the prediction of flows, stages and pollutant
concentrations on catchments having different type of network i.e. storm sewers/
combined sewers or natural drainage (32).
The SWMM program consists of six blocks. Three blocks are used for most
drainage facility design. These blocks include: runoff, extended transport and
executive. The Runoff Block generates stormwater runoff hydrographs from
various tributary drainage areas. This information can be input to subsequent model
blocks. Runoff calculations are based on sheet flow kinematics wave principle for
any excess runoff. The Extran Block simulates the hydraulic response of a major
drainage system. This block can also simulate storage facilities at any point in the
system, and can account for backwater effects although sewer surcharging can
underestimate needed storage volumes (30). Table 2.4 describes SWMM parameters
commonly used for City facilities.
29
Table 2.4: SWMM-RUNOFF and EXTRAN Blocks Analytic Methods (30)
Hydrologic Process Analytic Method

Type 1A SCS storm distribution or user
Precipitation
defined synthetic hyetograph
Explicit estimate of infiltration and surface
Losses
retention factors
Transforming Rainfall Excess to Kinematics wave across multiple planes
Runoff with intercepting channels
Input from Runoff Block or hydrographs
Flow
generated in another model
Provide geometry, roughness, and invert
Routing through Stream
elevation of each facility including ground
Channels
elevation at each node. Model calculates
explicit solution to St. Venant equations
User defined storage versus volume
Reservoir Routing
relationship at point of interest
2.9.2 NRCS Model- winTR-55
Technical Release 55 (TR-55) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds was first
issued in January 1975 as a simplified procedure to calculate the storm runoff
volume, peak rate of discharge, hydrographs and storage volumes required for
storm water management structures (SCS, 1975). The first issue involved manual
methods and assumed the NRCS Type II rainfall distribution for all calculations. The
WinTR-55 generates hydrographs which are routed downstream through channels
and/or reservoirs. Multiple sub-areas can be modeled within the watershed. A
rainfall runoff analysis can be performed on up to ten subareas and up to ten
reaches. The total drainage area modeled can not exceed 25 square miles (32).
In 1998, Technical Release 55 and the computer software were revised to what is
now called WinTR-55. The changes in this revised version of TR-55 include:
Upgraded source code to Visual Basic

Changed philosophy of data input
Development of a Windows interface & Output post-processor
Enhanced hydrograph generation capability
Flood routing hydrographs through stream reaches and reservoirs
30
Chapter 3 Study Area
CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREA
3.1 GENERAL
Lahore the second largest city of Pakistan and a capital of the Punjab province is situated
in the north eastern part of the country. It slopes from 213 m (700 ft) above sea level in
the north east to 208 m (683 ft) in the south west. Gradients within the area range from
0.2 to 0.4 m per km (1 to 2 ft per mile). Lahore is a provincial metropolis and only urban
district of Punjab. It is also a second urban center of Pakistan. Lahore encompasses
range of commercial, social, cultural, industrial and educational activities. According to
census 1998 the population of City District, Lahore was 5.75 million which has now
become 7.0 million at an average annual growth rate of 3.39% (1).
3.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERSTICS
3.2.1 Location
Lahore district lies between 31° -15′ and 31°- 42′ North latitude, 74°- 01′ and 74°-
39′ East longitude. It is bounded on the north and west by Sheikhupura District, on
the east by India and on the south by Kasur District. The general altitude of the area
is about 208 to 213 meters above mean sea level. To analyze different BMPs, a
society (i.e. Mohlanwal) in Lahore is selected. The location plan and the master plan
of this society are given in figure 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. The details of Mohlanwal
society will be discussed in section 3.5.
3.2.2 Topography
Lahore is generally flat and slopes towards south and southwest at an average
gradient of 1:3000 (1). It may be divided into two parts, the low-lying area along the
river Ravi and the comparatively upland area in the east away from the Ravi. The
river water generally inundates the lowlands during monsoon floods. River Ravi
flows in the west of Lahore District forming the boundary with Sheikhupura District.
The original physiographic features like channels remnants; levees etc have been
destroyed or changed by the construction of urban infrastructure. Flood plains have
31
Figure 3.1: Master Plan of Lahore along with the Location of Mohlanwal Society
32
Figure 3.2: Master Plan of Lahore along with the Location of Mohlanwal Society
33
been confined by the construction of embankments (Bunds), spurs etc. Sewerage

drains have replaced meandering channels. Sub-recent flood plain is 4 to 8 meter
higher than the recent flood plain and can be identified at number of places i.e.
Shalimar Garden, Moghulpura and Multan Road.
3.2.3 Hydro-Geological Features

Lahore area is underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits of Quaternary age. The
alluvial sands constitute the aquifer material. The aquifer is composed of
unconsolidated alluvial complex formed by the contemporaneous filing of a
subsiding trough resulting in a huge sedimentary complex of more than 400 meters
thickness (1).
3.2.4 Ground Water Decline
Water supply of Lahore city has always been based on the abstraction of
groundwater. The number of wells and hence, the groundwater abstraction has
been increasing in accordance with the growth of population and socio-economic
uplift of the dwellers. Table 3.1 shows the ground water abstraction by WASA
Tubewells.
Table 3.1:- Progressive Installation of WASA Tubewells and Pumpage
No. of Installed Capacity Pumpage

Year
Tubewells (cusecs) (cumecs) (m3 x 106 ) / year
1960 82 123 3.48 15.91
1970 87 251 7.11 41.60
1980 142 457 12.94 231.95
1987 188 613 17.36 368.97

Source: WASA Lahore
A study on the ‘Groundwater Potential for Lahore Water Supply’ during 1973 was
carried out by LDA Lahore which indicated that water levels were showing a
continuous decline under Lahore city. Approximate area of extraction was reported
to be about 181 square kilometers with extraction rate of 2,200 m3/day per
sq.kiliometers. In order to estimate the total quantity of water extracted and the total
recharge, the authors carried out a detailed study of Gulberg Area. Total Pumpage
from Gulberg, within an area of 19.4 sq.kiliometers was reported to be 0.57 m3/sec
of which 17 percent was estimated to be the yield on account of water table
lowering of 0.6 meter per year (33).
A detailed study conducted by M/S NESPAK and Binnie and Partners in 1991
indicated the probability of an average ground water lowering of 28 m as a result of
ground water withdrawal rates postulated for the year 2010. Table 3.2 shows the
average ground water decline during the 23 years in different parts of the city.
34
Table 3.2:- Average Ground Water Decline in Lahore (1977 to 2000)
Water Level below NSL (ft) Average

Sr. Location of
Decline
No Observation Point Feet Year Feet Year Ft./Year
1 A Block Gulberg 40.75 1977 87.74 2000 2.04
2 Nawan Kot Police Station 30.83 1981 66.22 2000 1.86
3 Takkia Lehri Shah 33.75 1978 86.92 2000 2.41
4 Singh Pura 45.40 1981 86.59 2000 2.16
5 Ravi Park 21.02 1981 33.12 2000 0.63
6 Rehman Pura 58.71 1987 94.46 2000 2.75
7 Masti Gate 46.08 1987 85.11 2000 3.00
8 Masoom Gunj 26.57 1987 70.81 2000 3.40
9 Avari Hotel 70.68 1987 107.45 2000 2.83
10 Alfaisal Town Ghaziabad 47.98 1987 79.37 2000 2.41
11 Garden Town 52.48 1987 85.34 2000 2.52
12 Jia Musa 25.65 1987 37.72 2000 0.93
Mean average decline in ground water table comes to be 2.03 feet per year. Water
table contour maps of year 1987 and 2000 are exhibited in figure 2.1 and 2.2. In 1987
the lowest contour was 192 m (630 ft) above men sea level around Mozang area,
which has gone down to 183 m (600 ft) above mean sea level in 2000 around Regal
Crossing (1).
The above discussion regarding the declining water table clearly shows the need to
implement alternative techniques for stormwater management so that recharging can
be obtained at a higher rate than that of with conventional stormwater management
techniques. BMPs are also needed for the other recharging techniques (i.e. spreading
basin, ditches and injection wells etc) as it will prohibit rainwater contaminations to the
ground water.
35
Figure 3.3: Water Table Contours above MSL for Lahore in 1987
(Source: NESPAK, Integrated Master Plan of Lahore for 2021)
36
Figure 3.4: Water Table Contours above MSL for Lahore in 2000
(Source: NESPAK, Integrated Master Plan of Lahore for 2021)
37
3.2.5 Climate
Lahore experiences extremes of climate. The summer season starts in April and
continues till September. The hottest months are May, June and July. The mean
maximum and minimum temperature during these months vary between 40.4C and
27.4C. The winter season lasts from November to March. The coldest months are
December, January and February with minimum temperature reaching up to
freezing point. The mean maximum and minimum temperature during this period
are 22C and 5.9C (1).
Rainfall varies from year to year and also from month to month. Maximum rainfall
however, occurs in July and August when the monsoon depression travels
westward. Table 3.3 gives the average monthly precipitation based on 73 years
(1931-2006) meteorological data. Maximum rainfall is observed during the month of
July which records 32.1% of average annual rainfall and shares 22.1% of yearly
rainy days. The average rainfall in Lahore is about 629 mm with 34 rainy days (i.e.
9.3% of total days) in a year. The heaviest rainfall recorded during 24 hours over the
last 50 years was in September 1954 with 228mm. Recent heaviest downpour in 24
hours was recorded on 22nd August, 1996 with 189.7 mm followed by 185 mm on
the following day when most of the city areas were inundated with rain water (1).
Table 3.3:- Mean Monthly Precipitation for Lahore
Mean Monthly Max. Daily Mean

Sr.
Month Precipitation Precipitation No. Of Rainy
#
(mm) (mm) Days
1 January 25.7 55.2 2.0
2 February 25.9 83.0 2.6
3 March 31.4 95.0 3.0
4 April 16.9 67.1 1.9
5 May 16.0 70.4 1.8
6 June 43.6 76.0 2.4
7 July 166.1 207.6 7.5
8 August 150.1 211.1 6.9
9 September 69.9 78 3.2
10 October 12.1 117.4 0.9
11 November 4.8 56.3 0.5
12 December 11.0 29.7 1.2
Source: PBO, Lahore
38
3.3 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Physically, Lahore city is characterized by three concentric zones which represent the
generalized built-up form. The inner or concentric zone including the historic walled city is
a combination of residential, commercial and small scale industrial activities. Non-
residential uses like retail and wholesale commerce, cottage industry and warehousing
are intermingled with previously purely residential neighborhoods. The intermediate zone
is largely planned as a mixture of housing, related activities and services. The outer zone
presents typical urban sprawl characteristics comprising new housing schemes
sponsored by public as well as private sector.
Urban growth of Lahore has been following a combination of planned and unplanned
activity pattern. About half of the growth is in the form of planned housing schemes
coming up in the south and south-west which provide basic amenities and necessary
infrastructure. This planned growth is in a piecemeal fashion which requires consolidation
and infilling during the plan period for optimum utilization of available infrastructure. The
unplanned and unauthorized growth is spread in various parts of metropolis especially in
the northern, north-eastern, eastern and western peripheries.
3.4 BUILDING BYE-LAWS
Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing

Society Limited (LCCHSL) are two major authorities responsible to establish new
developments in Lahore. No provision is made in these bye-laws to meet the sustainable
drainage. Main emphasis of these bye-laws is on ventilation and sunlight criteria. Hence
the open spaces in houses are mainly for the purpose of ventilation and sunlight. All such
bye-laws are presented in the following paragraphs.
3.4.1 Lahore Development Authority (LDA) Bye-Laws
LDA bye-laws deal open spaces requirement at residential unit level as well as
whole society level. Though open spaces in a residential unit are not provided for
the stormwater drainage point of view but the area of open spaces in a residential
unit is calculated (as it is being used for BMPs analysis in this study) and shown in
the table 3.3.
Table 3.4:- LDA Guidelines for Open Areas in Residential Units
Area (Sft) Deduct

Net %age
Car Porch
Open of
Category Open &
Plot Area Open
Drive Way
Front Side Rear Total (Sft) Area
(Sft)
2-Kanals 9000 1500 1800 750 4050 600 3450 38.3
1-Kanal 4500 500 365 350 1215 300 915 20.3
10-Marlas 2250 350 235 245 830 300 530 23.6
5-Marlas 1125 125 0 125 250 0 250 22.2
39
As certain BMPs require large surface area such as infiltration basin, ponds and
wetlands etc, therefore such BMPs can be implemented on a society level only.
Open space such as parks and play grounds can be used as BMPs. LDA bye-laws
provide planning standards for societies in which different land uses are mentioned
in term of %age of the total society area. These standards are presented in table
3.5.
Table 3.5:- LDA Land-Use Distribution for New Schemes
Sr. # Land Use Area Requirement
1 Open Spaces / Parks Not less than 7% of Total Scheme Area
2 Graveyard Not less than 2% of Total Scheme Area
3 Commercial Area Not more than 5% of Total Scheme Area
4 Public Buildings 2 to 10 %
5 Minimum Road Width 30 Feet
6 Maximum Size of Plot 9000 Sft (2-Kanals)
3.4.2 Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited (LCCHSL)

Bye-Laws
Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited (LCCHSL) a.k.a Defence

Housing Authority Lahore, has established the construction bye-laws regarding
open spaces in different type of residential units. The summary of these open space
are presented in the table 3.6.
Table 3.6:- LCCHSL Guidelines for Open Areas in Residential Units
Area (Sft) Deduct

Net %age
Car Porch
Open of
Category Open &
Area Open
Plot Drive Way
(sft) Area
Front Side Rear Total (sft)
2-Kanals 9000 1500 910 600 3010 500 2510 27.9
1-Kanal 4500 750 700 250 1700 400 1300 28.9
10-Marlas 2240 350 490 175 1015 300 715 31.9
40
3.5 MOHLANWAL HOUSING SOCIETY
The society is located at the intersection of Defence Road and Lahore Branch Canal. As
the society is planned as per the LDA bye-laws hence it is selected fore the analyses of
different BMPs. Different land uses and breakup for residential units is shown in table 3.7
and 3.8 respectively.
Table 3.7:- Land use Distribution in Mohlanwal Housing Scheme
Sr. Area %age of

Land Use
# (Kanals) Total Area
1 Residential 566.65 45.63

2 Commercial 48.80 03.90
3 Public Building 81.80 06.55
4 Parks/ Open Spaces 121.35 09.50
5 Roads / Streets 408.86 32.75
6 Graveyard 19.90 01.60
7 Filth Depot 00.80 00.67
Total 1248.16 100.00
Table 3.8:- Breakup of Residential Units in Mohlanwal Housing Scheme
Sr. No. of Area

Plot Size
# Units (Kanals)
1 1-Kanal 107 115.70

2 10-Marlas 305 171.00
3 7-Marlas 334 125.08
4 5-Marlas 598 154.87
Total 1344 566.65
41
Chapter 4 Rainfall Analysis
CHAPTER 4
RAINFALL ANALYSIS
4.1 GENERAL
Rainfall data are useful for the design of a drainage system. It is frequently convenient to
reduce rainfall data to more useable forms. Two reductions of rainfall data useful for the
design of drainage network are presented.
The first consist of a long record of annual maximum daily rainfall associated with specific
return periods so that a frequency analysis can be done using a suitable approach. The
second is a record of rainfall intensity during the course of the storm. In order to develop
the accurate plot of Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves for the urban areas, each
rainfall storm needs to be recorded on a very small interval. This interval can be as low as
15minutes. Hence a recording rain gauge (i.e. autographic recorders) is required for this
information.
4.2 COLLECTION OF RAINFALL DATA
There are two meteorological stations in Lahore; one is located at the airport and the
other located on jail Road, known as Pilot Balloon Observatory (PBO).Daily rainfall data
in different format are obtained from the PBO station. Mott MacDonald International
Limited analyzed the rainfall data for Lahore between the years 1940 and 1990 (34).
Records of maximum daily rainfall were obtained for the all remaining years (i.e. 1991 to
2005) and three hours distribution of the same day storm is also noted. Assuming that the
same storm produced the maximum rainfall for shorter durations (i.e. 3, 6, 9 and 12
hours), the 3-hourly records were noted.
42
4.3 ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY RAINFALL
General Extreme Value (GEV) distributions are commonly used to relate high daily
rainfalls to their probability of occurrence. There are three types of GEV distributions (35):
1) Gumbel’s Extreme Value Distribution
2) Log-Pearson Type III distribution
3) Log Normal Distribution
Gumbel’s extreme value distribution is one of the most widely used probability-distribution
in which he proposed the value of the Variate X with a recurrence interval T as
Xt = x + K σn-1 (4.1)
Where
x = Mean and
σn-1 = Standard Deviation of the Sample.
∑ (X − X )
2
= (4.2)
N −1
K = Frequency Factor which is expressed as

(Y − Yn )
= T (4.3)
Sn
Where:
YT = Reduced Variate, a function of T and given by
⎡ ⎛ T ⎞⎤
YT = − ⎢ln . ln⎜ ⎟⎥ (4.4)
⎣ ⎝ T − 1 ⎠⎦
Yn = Reduced Mean
S n = Reduced Standard Deviation
Both Yn and S n are function of sample size N and are given in the Table A.1
(Annexure A)
Following procedure is adopted to calculate the maximum probable rainfall for different
frequencies.
1) Rainfall data were Assembled and the sample size was noted as N.
2) Mean ( x ) and Standard Deviation (σn-1) of the given sample is calculated.
3) Using Table A.1 (Annexure A) Yn and S n appropriate to the given N were
determined.
4) Frequency Factor (K) is calculated using equation 4.3.
5) Reduced Variate ( YT ) for a given T was calculated using equation 4.4.
6) Xt is determined using equation 4.1.
Since the value of the Variate for a given return period, Xt determined by Gumbel’s
method can have error due to limited sample data used; an estimate of the confidence
limits of the estimate is done using the following relation
X1/2 = Xt ± f(c) Se (4.5)
43
where:
f(c) = function of confidence probability c determined by using the following table
c in per cent 50 68 80 90 95 99
f(c) 0.674 1.00 1.282 1.645 1.96 2.58
⎛σ ⎞
Se = probable error = b⎜⎜ n -1 ⎟⎟ (4.6)
⎝ Ν⎠
Where:
b = 1 + 1.3K + 1.1K 2
K = frequency factor
σn-1 = standard deviation of the sample
N = sample size
The results of all these calculations are shown in table 4.1 & 4.2 and figure 4.1.
Table 4.1: Gumbel Frequency Analysis
No. of Years (N) = 50

Mean ( x ) = 3.7 Std. Deviation (σn-1) = 2.0
GUMBEL
RAINFALL DESENDING
YEAR RANK
(in) ORDER Year Variate
T YT
1953 5.35 8.98 1 51.0 3.9
1954 8.98 8.31 2 25.5 3.2
1955 4.55 8.09 3 17.0 2.8
1956 3.18 8.07 4 12.8 2.5
1957 3.67 7.87 5 10.2 2.3
1958 8.07 7.47 6 8.5 2.1
1959 4.93 5.95 7 7.3 1.9
1960 1.75 5.39 8 6.4 1.8
1961 2.17 5.35 9 5.7 1.6
1962 3.45 4.94 10 5.1 1.5
1963 2.59 4.93 11 4.6 1.4
1964 7.87 4.86 12 4.3 1.3
1965 1.72 4.62 13 3.9 1.2
1966 1.94 4.55 14 3.6 1.1
1967 2.02 4.33 15 3.4 1.1
1968 2.87 3.74 16 3.2 1.0
1969 4.86 3.69 17 3.0 0.9
1970 1.98 3.67 18 2.8 0.8
1974 1.65 3.47 19 2.7 0.8
1975 2.74 3.45 20 2.6 0.7
1976 8.31 3.43 21 2.4 0.6
1977 3.38 3.38 22 2.3 0.6
44
1978 3.74 3.31 23 2.2 0.5

1979 2.22 3.27 24 2.1 0.5
1980 8.09 3.18 25 2.0 0.4
1981 4.94 3.03 26 2.0 0.3
1982 2.66 3.02 27 1.9 0.3
1983 3.69 2.98 28 1.8 0.2
1984 2.39 2.87 29 1.8 0.2
1985 4.62 2.74 30 1.7 0.1
1986 2.57 2.74 31 1.6 0.1
1987 2.33 2.66 32 1.6 0.0
1988 3.03 2.59 33 1.5 0.0
1989 1.51 2.57 34 1.5 -0.1
1990 3.27 2.39 35 1.5 -0.1
1991 2.98 2.33 36 1.4 -0.2
1992 2.74 2.32 37 1.4 -0.3
1993 2.17 2.28 38 1.3 -0.3
1994 1.94 2.22 39 1.3 -0.4
1995 3.02 2.17 40 1.3 -0.4
1996 7.47 2.17 41 1.2 -0.5
1997 5.95 2.02 42 1.2 -0.6
1998 2.32 1.98 43 1.2 -0.6
1999 3.47 1.94 44 1.2 -0.7
2000 4.33 1.94 45 1.1 -0.8
2001 3.43 1.75 46 1.1 -0.8
2002 1.16 1.72 47 1.1 -0.9
2003 3.31 1.65 48 1.1 -1.0
2004 2.28 1.51 49 1.0 -1.2
2005 5.39 1.16 50 1.0 -1.4
Table 4.2:- Summary of Gumbel Frequency Analysis
Return Reduce Std. Reduce Freq. Cal. 95% Confidence Limits

Period Variate Dev. Variate Fact. Val.
T Yn Sn Yt K Xt f(c) Se Upper Lower
2 0.5485 1.1607 0.37 -0.16 3.39 1.96 0.26 3.89 2.89
5 0.5485 1.1607 1.50 0.82 5.33 1.96 0.47 6.26 4.41
10 0.5485 1.1607 2.25 1.47 6.62 1.96 0.65 7.89 5.35
25 0.5485 1.1607 3.20 2.28 8.24 1.96 0.88 9.96 6.53
50 0.5485 1.1607 3.90 2.89 9.45 1.96 1.05 11.51 7.39
100 0.5485 1.1607 4.60 3.49 10.65 1.96 1.22 13.05 8.25
200 0.5485 1.1607 5.30 4.09 11.84 1.96 1.40 14.58 9.10
1000 0.5485 1.1607 6.91 5.48 14.60 1.96 1.81 18.14 11.07
45
Re turn Pe riod ( T Yr) 2 5 10 25 100 200 1000

16
OBSERV ED DA TA GUMBEL RETURN PERIOD
14
12
10
Rainfall (Inches)
0
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Re duce d Variate (Yt)
Figure 4.1:- GUM BEL Rainfall Frequency Analysis
46
4.4 Preparation of Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves
As the autographic records for all storms are not available for Lahore, hence to develop
the Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves a methodology is adopted which is
described as follow:
4.4.1 Determination of Short Duration Data
Three hourly records are available and are presented in table 4.3 and shorter
intervals (i.e. 15 minutes) derived from the autographic recorder are shown in table
4.4. As it is clear from the Table 4.4 that there are certain missing years and among
these missing data are the four highest daily records prior to 1980. It is quite likely
that the very high daily maxima included intense rainfall and it is possible that the
recorders were unable to cope with such intense rainfall, resulting in the missing
records for these years.
The potential high intensities which would have been recorded at that time are
therefore not available for the distribution. The removal of these high intensities
would result in an underestimation of return period maxima. It is therefore necessary
to infill the missing data which will be derived after correlating 3-Hrs rainfall to
shorter duration (i.e. 15 minutes interval) from the available data. Development of
such correlations is discussed in detail in next section.
Table 4.3:- Maximum 3-Hours Rainfall Data
Year 3 Hrs 6 Hrs 9 Hrs 12 Hrs 24 Hrs

1953 5.23 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35
1954 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.06 8.98
1955 2.70 3.40 4.54 4.56 4.55
1956 2.58 2.60 2.60 3.16 3.18
1957 1.42 1.82 2.36 2.96 3.67
1958 4.18 4.38 4.38 6.15 8.07
1959 4.17 4.25 4.38 4.41 4.93
1960 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
1961 1.70 1.70 2.08 2.16 2.17
1962 3.02 3.23 3.24 3.46 3.45
1963 1.14 1.15 1.40 1.40 2.59
1964 2.78 2.99 3.95 4.51 7.87
1965 1.55 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72
1966 0.57 1.05 1.22 1.52 1.94
1967 1.11 1.11 1.89 1.93 2.02
1968 2.82 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.87
1969 4.60 4.64 4.86 4.86 4.86
1970 1.42 1.73 1.73 1.93 1.98
47
1974 1.42 1.47 1.65 1.65 1.65

1975 1.66 2.00 2.74 2.74 2.74
1976 5.82 6.72 7.28 7.61 8.31
1977 2.37 2.74 2.96 3.10 3.38
1978 3.34 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74
1979 1.50 1.91 2.22 2.22 2.22
1980 2.91 4.69 6.54 8.07 8.09
1981 2.80 4.41 4.94 4.94 4.94
1982 1.52 1.87 1.87 2.30 2.66
1983 3.33 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.69
1984 1.58 1.58 1.64 1.70 2.39
1985 1.43 2.98 2.98 2.98 4.62
1986 1.50 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.57
1987 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33
1988 1.39 2.19 2.19 2.22 3.03
1989 0.93 1.23 1.51 1.51 1.51
1990 2.42 2.59 2.59 2.59 3.27
1991 2.09 2.41 2.61 2.73 2.98
1992 1.92 2.22 2.40 2.51 2.74
1993 1.52 1.75 1.90 1.99 2.17
1994 1.36 1.57 1.70 1.78 1.94
1995 2.12 2.45 2.65 2.77 3.02
1996 3.27 4.61 5.79 6.91 7.47
1997 1.69 2.51 3.28 4.02 5.95
1998 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32
1999 3.2 3.44 3.47 3.47 3.47
2000 2.17 3.31 4.09 4.33 4.33
2001 2.95 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43
2002 1.09 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
2003 1.74 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31
2004 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28
2005 5.08 5.39 5.39 5.39 5.39
48
Table 4.4:- Autographic Rainfall Record in inches
Time (minutes)
Year 15 - 30 - 90 - 105 -
0 - 15 45 - 60 60 - 75 75 - 90
30 45 105 120
1940 0.40 0.76 0.89 - - - - -
1941 - - - - - - - -
1942 0.16 0.14 0.34 0.32 0.08 0.26 0.03 0.07
1943 - - - - - - - -
1944 - - - - - - - -
1945 - - - - - - - -
1946 - - - - - - - -
1947 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.23 - - -
1948 - - - - - - - -
1949 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.01 -
1950 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08
1951 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.34 0.20
1952 0.24 0.34 0.27 0.05 - - - -
1953 - - - - - - - -
1954 - - - - - - - -
1955 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.40 0.08 0.10
1956 0.37 0.42 0.37 0.26 0.16 0.36 0.28 -
1957 0.29 0.08 - - 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.01
1958 - - - - - - - -
1959 0.38 - 1.11 0.74 0.25 0.11 - -
1960 0.16 0.18 0.40 0.50 0.12 0.10 - -
1961 0.29 0.52 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.02 - -
1962 - - - - - - - -
1963 - - - - - - - -
1964 - - - - - - - -
1965 0.47 0.03 - - - 0.14 0.17 0.06
1966 0.26 0.15 0.02 - - - 0.05 -
1967 - - - - - - - -
1968 - - - - - - - -
1969 0.29 0.05 0.30 0.32 0.04 0.03 0.04
1970 0.25 0.30 0.22 0.09 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.16
1971 0.32 0.39 0.24 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.01
49
1972 0.28 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.24 0.07 0.01 0.30

1973 0.31 0.92 0.60 0.28 0.40 0.10 0.08 0.06
1974 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.01 -
1975 1.25 0.38 - - - - - -
1976 - - - - - - - -
1977 - - - - - - - -
1978 1.30 1.30 0.28 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
1979 - - - - - - - -
1980 0.31 0.79 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.16
1981 0.28 0.22 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.43 0.51
1982 0.28 0.59 0.39 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02
1983 0.75 0.79 0.39 0.51 0.39 0.08 0.04 0.08
1984 0.30 0.37 - - - - 0.39 0.35
1985 0.31 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.04 0.12
1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 0.39 0.31 0.16 0.16 - - - -
4.4.2 Correlations between 3-Hrs and Shorter Duration Rainfall
The best way to carry out this is to relate the maximum 15, 30, 60 and 120 minutes
rainfalls to the 3-hours maximum rainfall, which has fewer missing years. Table 4.4
shows the data accumulated into highest 15, 30, 60, 120 minutes periods. Also
shown is the maximum 3-hours period taken from the PBO station records. There
are 25 instances where there is data available for both the autographic and 3-hourly
records. However, where the autographic data are inconsistent with the 3-hourly
data, the records have not been used. The total number of years used in
relationship is therefore reduced to 20 years. These compatible records have been
shown in Annexure A, table A.2.
To develop the relationship between 3-Hrs and shorter duration rainfall, the data of
Table A.2 were plotted and shown in the figures A-1 to A-4 (Annexure A). As it is
clear from the figures that data is very much scattered hence to have a most reliable
relationship, different trendlines were drawn on the basis of different available
functions in MS Excel (i.e. Linear, Polynomial, Logarithmic, Exponential and Power
etc). R-squared (R2) value for each function is determined which is an indicator from
0 to 1 and reveals how closely the estimated values from the trendline correspond
to the actual data. A trendline is most reliable when its R-squared value is at or near
1. Therefore trendline with a value closer to 1 and at the same time valid for the 3-
Hrs rainfall values larger than that of which these graphs have been drawn, is
selected for the development of the relationship. The summary of these
relationships is shown in the Table 4.5.
50
Table 4.5:- Relationship between 3 Hrs and Shorter Duration Rainfall.
Duration R2
Relationship
(min) Value
15 0.2755 (3-Hr) – 0.0151 0.54
30 0.5495 (3-Hr) – 0.1503 0.57
60 0.7520 (3-Hr) – 0.2166 0.68
120 0.8958 (3-Hr) – 0.1824 0.80
It is clear from the R2 values that larger durations have better correlation than the 15
and 30 minutes duration. On the basis of these correlations, data of shorter duration
for missing years are calculated and is shown in the Table A.3 (annexure A). After
this combined data (i.e. available and filled-up) for different time interval are
rearranged in descending order of their magnitude (of maximum depth). When
arranged like this, recurrence interval T (also known as return period) is calculated
using the Weibull (1939) formula.
T=
(N + 1) (4.7)
m
where
N = Total number of Years
m = Rank of any particular storm when arranged in descending order.
On the basis of equation 4.7, return periods for different duration rainfall are
calculated and presented in the Table A.4.i to A.4.v (annexure A). Based upon
these results, frequency relationship graphs have been developed using MS-Excel
and shown in figures A-5 to A-13 (annexure A). Best fit trendlines were selected on
the basis of R-squared (R2) Values. The summary of these relations with calculated
values of certain return period is shown in the Table 4.6.
51
Table 4.6:- Rainfall Based upon Frequency Relationship Graphs
Time Equation Frequency Rainfall

(Tr) ( R2 Value) (yrs) (in)
2 0.543
0.4445 Ln (Tr) + 0.2345 5 0.950
15
10 1.258
Minutes
(0.9833) 25 1.665
50 1.973
2 0.959
0.8833 Ln (Tr) + 0.3468 5 1.768
30
10 2.381
Minutes
(0.9809) 25 3.190
50 3.802
2 1.320
1.1874 Ln (Tr) + 0.4968 5 2.408
60
10 3.231
Minutes
(0.9803) 25 4.319
50 5.142
2 1.640
1.4074 Ln (Tr) + 0.6642 5 2.929
120
10 3.905
Minutes
(0.9811) 25 5.194
50 6.170
2 2.052
1.5756 Ln (Tr) + 0.9603 5 3.496
3
10 4.588
Hours
(0.9794) 25 6.032
50 7.124
2 2.443
1.6444 Ln (Tr) + 1.3032 5 3.950
6
10 5.090
Hours
(0.9864) 25 6.596
50 7.736
2 2.668
1.7694 Ln(Tr) + 1.4417 5 4.289
9
10 5.516
Hours
(0.9947) 25 7.137
50 8.364
2 2.812
1.8706 Ln(Tr) + 1.5267 5 4.592
12
10 5.939
Hours
(0.9845) 25 7.719
50 9.065
2 3.109
2.2019 Ln(Tr) + 1.5824 5 5.126
24
10 6.652
Hours
(0.9678) 25 8.670
50 10.196
52
The accuracy of this adopted approach can be assessed by the comparison of 24-
Hrs available rainfall values for different return period with results obtained from
Gumbel analysis. Table 4.7 shows that the 24-hrs rainfall values derived using the
above method varies from -5.9% to +7.9%.
Table 4.7:- Comparison of the 24-Hrs Available Rainfall with Gumbel Analysis
Return Period Gumbel Analysis IDF curves % Variation
2-Year 3.39 3.19 -5.9

5-Year 5.33 5.13 -3.7
10-Year 6.62 6.65 +0.4
25-Year 8.24 8.67 +5.2
50-Year 9.45 10.20 +7.9
4.4.3 Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF)Curves
If there are storms of different intensity and duration, then a relation may be
obtained by plotting the intensities against duration of the respective storms. These
intensity duration curves for a particular frequency can be expressed by the
following relations:
i= k n (4.8)
t
i = kt x (4.9)
Where t is the duration of rainfall or its part and k, n and x are constants for a given
region. Rainfall intensities were calculated on the basis of rainfall depths (as shown
in Table 4.6) and are plotted against the respective rainfall duration for a particular
return period (figure A-14 of annexure A). The regression constants (i.e. k and x)
were calculated for best fit line. Figure A-14 also shows the R-squared value.
Rainfall intensities for different durations are calculated using equation 4.9. As the
time of concentration in case of urban development may be as short as 5 minutes,
hence the rainfall intensities for 5-minutes interval were calculated for different
return period and are presented in Table A.7 (annexure A). The graphical
representation of these IDF curves is shown in the figure 4.2.
53
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00 2 Years
4.50 5 Years
4.00
10 Years
3.50
3.00 25 Years
2.50
50 Years
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360
Time (Minutes)
Figure 4.2:- Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves for Lahore.
54
4.5 Rainfall Distribution Curve
To develop the rainfall distribution curve for Lahore, data of daily maximum rainfall from
1953 to 2005 were used. As the rainfall depths are measured after every three (3) hours,
hence the maximum daily rainfalls of a year with the 3-hours interval readings were used
to correlate the 24 hours rainfall with shorter durations. Table A.8 (annexure A) shows the
percentage distribution of 24 hours rainfall in 3-hours intervals. This table shows that 70%
of total maximum daily rainfall occurs in first 3 hours of the storm. Therefore 3-hours
rainfall was further analyzed to develop the relation, in term of percentage, between 3
hours and shorter duration (i.e. 0.25, 0.5, 1 hours etc. Calculation of percentages for this
case has been shown in table A.9 (annexure A). The resulting distribution curve for
Lahore is shown in the figure 4.3.
0.9
0.8
Fraction of 24-Hrs Rainfall
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Hrs)
Figure 4.3: Design Rainfall Distribution Curve for Lahore.
Rainfall distribution over a certain period is required for estimating the resulted
hydrograph. Software like winTR-55 uses 24-hours distribution while SWMM uses any
user-defined period. As it is clear from the above figure that 80% rainfall occurs within
6-hours hence it is decided that 6hours storm will be used for analysis in SWMM
software. The 6-Hours rainfall pattern for different design frequencies is shown the
table 4.8.
55
Table 4.8:- 6-Hours Rainfall Pattern for different frequencies
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs 25-Yrs 50-Yrs
Time Rainfall Time Rainfall Time Rainfall Time Rainfall Time Rainfall
(hr) (in) (hr) (in) (hr) (in) (hr) (in) (hr) (in)
1 1.18 1 2.07 1 2.75 1 3.64 1 4.32
2 0.40 2 0.65 2 0.83 2 1.07 2 1.26
3 0.30 3 0.47 3 0.60 3 0.77 3 0.90
4 0.24 4 0.38 4 0.48 4 0.62 4 0.72
5 0.21 5 0.33 5 0.41 5 0.53 5 0.62
6 0.19 6 0.29 6 0.37 6 0.47 6 0.54
4.6 Determination of “Knee of the Curve”.
An important consideration when developing, reviewing, or complying with requirements

for the sizing of BMPs for stormwater management is that BMPs are most efficient and
economical when they target small, frequent storm events that over time produce more
total runoff than the larger, infrequent storms targeted for design of flood control facilities.
The reason for this can be seen by examining Table 4.9, which shows the distribution of
storm events at PBO Lahore where most storms produce less than 0.50 in. of total
rainfall.
Table 4.9:- Distribution of Rainfall Events in Lahore
Number of Rainfall Events

Year
0.01 to
0.51 to
1.01 to
1.51 to
2.01 to
3.01 to
4.01 to
5.01 to
6.01 to
7.01 to
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1996 65 10 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 8.00
2
1997 67 8 3 2 3 1 3 1 0 0
1998 75 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
1999 51 5 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
2000 55 6 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
2001 57 11 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
2002 51 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 59 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
2004 48 8 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
2005 76 10 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
2006 75 7 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0
Total 679 83 41 14 15 6 5 2 0 2
56
800
700
600
Number of Events
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 to 0.5
0.51 to 1.0
1.01 to 1.5
1.51 to 2.0
2.01 to 3.0
3.01 to 4.0
4.01 to 5.0
5.01 to 6.0
6.01 to 7.0
7.01 to 8.0
Rainfall Depth (in)
Figure 4.4: Storm Events Distribution in Lahore (1996 to 2006)
Figures 4.4 shows that as the storm sizes increase, the number of events decrease,
Therefore, when BMPs are designed for increasingly larger storms (e.g. storms up to 1 in.
versus storms of up to 0.5 in.), the BMP size and cost increase dramatically, while the
number of additional collected storm events are small (36). Table 4.10 shows that doubling
the design storm depth from 0.50 in. to 1.00 in. only increases the number of events
captured by 12.22 %.
Table 4.10:- Incremental Design Criteria Vs Storm Captured for Lahore
Number of Incremental Incremental

Storm Depth
Historical Events Increase in Increase in Storm
(in)
in Range Design Criteria Captured
0.00 to 0.50 679 --- ---
0.51 to 1.00 83 +100 12.22%
1.01 to 1.50 41 +200 18.26%
1.51 to 2.00 14 +300 20.32%
57
Due to economies of scale, doubling the capture requirements for a BMP are not likely to
double the cost of many BMPs, but the incremental cost per event will increase, making
increases beyond a certain point generally unattractive. Typically, design criteria for storm
water control BMPs are set to coincide with the “knee of the curve,” that is, the point of
inflection where the magnitude of the event increases more rapidly than number of events
captured (36). Figure 4.5 shows that the “knee of the curve” or point of diminishing returns
for Lahore is in the range of 0.6 to 1.00 in. of rainfall. In other words, targeting design
storms larger than this will produce gains at considerable incremental cost.
900
800
700
Commulative Number of Events
600
500
"Knee of the Curve"
400 is in this vicinity
300
200
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Storm Depth (in)
Figure 4.5: Knee of the Curve for Lahore (1996 to 2006).
58
Chapter 5 Design and Evaluation of Stormwater Drainage Systems
CHAPTER 5
DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF

STORMWATER SYSTEMS
5.1 GENERAL
The essential theoretical background such as type of BMPs, design criteria and various
rainfall analyses for Lahore were described in the previous chapters. The purpose of this
chapter is to describe, summarize, compare and evaluate the results obtained from
various options. Conclusions of the study and future recommendations have been
summarized in the next chapter.
5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
The detail description of each and every model is as follow:
5.2.1 Return Period

The selection of return period is dependent on various factors like available space
for the construction / remodeling of stormwater drainage network, the cost of
network, no of pumping station and average annual damages & disruption cost.
Hence three return periods (i.e. 2, 5, and 10-yrs) have been selected for the
analyses.
5.2.2 Design Rainfall
Available data were analyzed and following 6-hrs rainfall pattern were developed:
6-Hrs Rainfall Pattern (inch)

Frequency
1 2 3 4 5 6
2-Yrs 1.18 0.40 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.19
5-Yrs 2.07 0.65 0.47 0.38 0.33 0.29
10-Yrs 2.75 0.83 0.60 0.48 0.41 0.37
59
5.2.3 Analysis / Design Tool

Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is used for the analysis and design of
the stormwater drainage network. There are different elements in a drainage
network e.g. subcatchment, node, link, pond, rain gauge etc. The major parameters
used for the analysis are described in the following paragraphs.
5.2.4 Subcatchment Properties
Subcatchments are hydrologic units of land whose topography and drainage system
elements direct surface runoff to a single discharge point. The study area is divided
into an appropriate number of subcatchments, and for identifying the outlet point of
each subcatchment. The principal input parameters for a subcatchment are:
Parameter Description Typical Value
Name User-defined Subcatchment name S1, S2….. etc
Rain Gage Name of the rain gage associated with gage1, gage2
subcatchment etc
Outlet Name of the node or subcatchment which J1, J2, ….etc

receives the subcatchment’s runoff
Area Area of the subcatchment 2 to 10 acres
Width Characteristic width of the overland flow path 200 to 1000 ft

for sheet flow runoff. An initial estimate of the
characteristic width is given by the
subcatchment area divided by the average
maximum overland flow path
% Slope Average percent slope of the subcatchment 0.05
Curve Number
Infiltration Choices for modeling infiltration
method
5.2.5 Junction Properties

Junctions are drainage system nodes where links join together. Physically they can
represent the confluence of natural surface channels, manholes in a sewer system,
or pipe connection fittings. The principal input parameters for a junction are:
Name User-defined Junction name J1, J2….. etc
Invert Level Invert elevation of the Junction See analysis
Max. Depth Depth of junction ground surface to invert level See analysis
60
Inflow External flows are those flows which are not zero
originating from subcatchment runoff e.g.
sanitary sewage etc. it is considered only in the
model of separate drainage system.
Ponded Area occupied by ponded water atop the Zero (0)

Area junction after flooding occurs.
5.2.6 Conduit Properties

Conduits are pipes or channels that move water from one node to another in the
conveyance system. Their cross-sectional shapes can be selected from a variety of
standard open and closed geometries. The principal input parameters for conduits
are as follow:
Name User-defined Conduit name C1, C2….. etc
Inlet node Name of the node on inlet end of the conduit See analysis
Outlet node Name of the node on inlet end of the conduit See analysis
Shape Geometry of the conduit Circular /

Trapezoidal
Length Conduit Length See analysis
Inlet Offset Height of the conduit invert above the node See analysis
invert at the upstream end of the conduit
Outlet Height of the conduit invert above the node See analysis
Offset invert at the downstream end of the conduit
5.2.7 External Flows

In addition to inflows originating from subcatchment runoff, drainage system nodes
can receive three other types of external inflows:
Direct Inflows - These are user-defined time series of inflows added directly into a
node. They can be used to perform flow and water quality routing in the absence of
any runoff computations. No direct flow is taken as in this study sub-catchments are
defined thoroughly.
Dry Weather Inflows - These are continuous inflows that typically reflect the
contribution from sanitary sewage in sewer systems or base flows in pipes and
stream channels. Keeping in view the WASA criteria, dry weather inflow rate is
taken as 70gpcd for this study.
61
Commercial / Industrial Flow - As there is no significant commercial / industrial

activity in the Mohlanwal housing scheme, therefore no inflow is considered in this
regard.
5.2.8 Infiltration
Infiltration is the process of rainfall penetrating the ground surface into the
unsaturated soil zone of pervious subcatchments areas. SWMM offers three
choices for modeling infiltration:
i) Horton's Equation
ii) Green-Ampt Method
iii) Curve Number Method
Curve Number method is adopted from the NRCS (SCS). The total infiltration
capacity of a soil can be found from the soil's tabulated Curve Number. The input
parameters for this method are the curve number, the soil's hydraulic conductivity
(used to estimate a minimum separation time for distinct rain events), and a time it
takes a fully saturated soil to completely dry.
For the design and analysis of partially combined drainage system, following
infiltration allowance is used:
Sewer 9 to 24 inch size 5% of Average Sewage Flow

Sewer above 24 inch Size 10% of Average Sewage Flow
5.2.9 Flow Routing
Flow routing within a conduit link in SWMM is governed by the conservation of mass
and momentum equations for gradually varied, unsteady flow. Dynamic Wave
routing is used for the analyses in this study. It solves the complete one-dimensional
Saint Venant flow equations and therefore produces the most theoretically accurate
results. With this form of routing it is possible to represent pressurized flow when a
closed conduit becomes full, such that flows can exceed the full-flow Manning
equation value. Flooding occurs when the water depth at a node exceeds the
maximum available depth, and the excess flow is either lost from the system or can
pond atop the node and re-enter the drainage system.
5.3 DESIGN OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
As certain BMPs such as are vegetated roof, Roof Runoff Controls, dry wells etc require
an active public participation at house level. Being a new approach in our local scenario,
without active public participation, objectives of sustainable drainage system can not be
achieved. Hence only those techniques were considered for detailed design which offers
minimum individual participation.
As stated in previous chapters that alternative techniques are proactive in nature and the
new developments are planned in such a way that surface area required for proposed
BMPs (e.g. ponds, wetland, infiltration basin etc) is provided as needed to cater the
design storm and other land use requirements are revised accordingly which results in
increased land price. Keeping in view our local condition and high land prices, it is
decided that no additional area will be proposed for any BMP and the existing open
spaces will be utilized so that land price factor can be ignored at this stage.
62
Based upon the above discussion, four different models were analyzed using SWMM
software. Conventional partially combined system is analyzed so that the actual flooding
can be estimated for different design frequencies. All three other models are designed for
zero-flooding for every node. Separate drainage system is designed to know the exact
size required for different frequencies. Third model contains the swales and ponds (using
parks and play grounds) while in fourth model in addition to third model, every lawn of the
house is assumed 6” depressed that offer further attenuation and recharging.
Design storm frequency is depends upon many factors but the single most important
factor is the economical condition of the society. Being a developing country, all
techniques are analyzed for three frequencies, 2, 5 and 10 years return period.
The detail description of each and every model is as follow:
5.3.1 Option # 1- Partially Combined System

This is also known as partially separate system. The sewers / conduits are designed
as sanitary sewers / conduits but sufficient excess capacities are provided to carry a
part of stormwater discharge also. WASA’s design criteria are used to calculate the
peak sanitary flow and stormwater allowance for this model. Stormwater allowance
is taken as follows:
Stormwater Allowance = (Peak Sewage Flow + Infiltration+ Commercial Flow)
Diameters have calculated on the basis of WASA design criteria and model is
analyzed for 2, 5 and 10 years return periods. As frequency of the storm has no
effect on the calculated diameter as per WASA criteria hence the diameters of the
network remain the same for all three models and only the magnitude of flooding is
calculated for all these return periods. Figure 5.1 shows the general layout of the
system in Mohlanwal society. Complete description of all input / output data is
presented in Annexure B.
Table 5.1 shows the volume and duration of flooding on each node. As rain water
get mixed with the sewage flow in combined system hence flooding for such a large
duration (i.e. junction J1,J5 and J9 etc) can cause severe damage to the human life
and property as well. Table 5.2 shows the size of different links as calculated on the
basis of WASA criteria. Maximum diameter at the end of the network is 27 inch.
63
Figure 5.1: Layout of Partially Combined System
64
Table 5.1: Summary of Node Flooding
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs
Node Type Total Total Total Total Total Total

Flooding Minutes Flooding Minutes Flooding Minutes
(acre-in) Flooded (acre-in) Flooded (acre-in) Flooded
J1 Junction 15.59 364 34.98 384 48.57 393

J2 Junction 5.05 71 23.68 218 43.85 355
J3 Junction 0.01 0 0.01 0 2.81 48
J4 Junction 0 0 0.01 0 0.70 30
J5 Junction 8.79 372 15.31 393 20.36 402
J6 Junction 29.19 364 57.46 384 76.84 393
J7 Junction 5.04 121 18.61 354 31.39 363
J8 Junction 0.00 1 4.62 63 8.65 83
J9 Junction 10.09 374 18.29 399 25.46 412
J10 Junction 10.95 352 29.65 372 43.84 384
J11 Junction 21.67 362 51.63 380 75.32 387
J12 Junction 0 0 0 0 0.00 1
J13 Junction 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
J14 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 Outfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 5.2: Summary of Cross-sections of Links
Diameter Diameter
Link Type Link Type
(inch) (inch)
C1 Circular 9 C8 Circular 9
65
5.3.2 Option # 2- Separate Storm Sewer System

In this model separate system of sewers / conduits are proposed. The basic
objective for this model is to calculate the diameters for zero-ponding for different
frequencies. Although such system in not practically used in Lahore but to assess
the drawback of combined system one should know the actual size of links for
different rainfall frequencies. Figure 5.2 shows the general layout of the sewer
network for this model. Like the previous model no storage is provided and the
system is designed in such a way to avoid any flooding. Though rainwater has no
serious threat to public life as long as it is not mixed with sewage, but heavy
flooding can cause property damage in heavily built area.
The system is designed to cater all stormwater flow during any particular storm
frequency. The complete input output data for this model (i.e. catchments, Nodes
and Links, rain gages etc) are given in the annexure C.
The summary of the node flooding is presented in table 5.3. It is clear from the
result there is no considerable flooding on any node/ junction.
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs

J1 Junction 0.01 3 0.09 9 0 0

J2 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J3 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J4 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J5 Junction 0.05 5 0.56 12 0.01 2
J6 Junction 0 0 0.01 4 0 0
J7 Junction 0 0 0.02 0 0 0
J8 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J9 Junction 0.04 2 0.17 12 0.01 0
J10 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J11 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J12 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J13 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J14 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 Outfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
66
Figure 5.2: Layout of Separate Storm Sewer System
67
Table 5.4 shows the summary of the size of the links. It is clear that minimum
diameter of the network is 24, 30 and 36 inch for 2, 5 and 10 year return period
respectively. Similarly the maximum diameter at the outfall was 27 inch in previous
model while it goes up to 66 inch for 10 years return period.
Diameter (inch)
Link Shape
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs
C1 Circular 24 30 36
5.3.3 Option # 3- Storm Sewer System with Park Storage

Keeping in view the factors for the selection of BMPs, parks are selected as first
BMP for local conditions. As mentioned in chapter 3, minimum 7% of the society
area shall be used for parks. As an initial analysis in this regard, existing parks are
modeled as storage to assess the overall attenuation and reduction in stormwater
flow. The flow from each catchment (as shown in figure 5.3) will firstly be collected
in parks through Grassed swales along the road. This will not only increase the
time of concentration which results in reduced peak but at the same time it will
enhance the seepage of rainwater into ground as compared to paved drains or
constructed conduits.
The size of outlet pipe from park is selected in such a way that only a fraction of
peak flow will be passing in it and the remaining flow will be gradually stored in park.
At the same time, the outlet pipe is designed in such a way that all accumulated flow
in park can be discharge before the vector breeding. Normally 72-hours is the limit
for this.
68
Figure 5.3: Layout of Storm Sewer System with Park Storage
69
All parks in the society are used for this purpose and are marked as ST in the layout
plan (see figure 5.3). Depth of the assumed storage in parks is decided on the basis
of surface area of each park along with subcatchment characteristics. The storage
curves assigned to each park is given in the annexure D. The depth of parks
storage varies from 2 to 5 feet and hence it is practically feasible in flat terrain as of
Lahore. Complete input / output data for different element of this model (i.e.
catchments, nodes, links, storage, etc) are given in the annexure D. Summary of
nodal flooding and size of the links is presented in table 5.5 and 5.6 respectively.
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs

J1 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J2 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J3 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J4 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J5 Junction 0.04 11 0.2 15 0 0
J6 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J7 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J8 Junction 0.03 9 0 0 0 0
J9 Junction 0 0 0.01 0 0 0
J10 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J11 Junction 0 0 0.00 2 0 0
J12 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J13 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J14 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 Outfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST1 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST2 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST3 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST4 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST5 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST6 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST7 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST8 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST9 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
70
It is very clear from the table 5.6 that maximum size of the network (i.e. at outfall) is
much lesser than that of calculated in ‘separate storm sewer’ model. Maximum
diameter in this case is 36 inch while it was 66 inch for previous model. Therefore
park storage can have a very vital role in our urban area to reduce the size of
network.
Size / Diameter (inch)

Link Shape
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs
C1 Circular 9 15 18
C2 Circular 9 18 18
C3 Circular 9 15 18
C10 Circular 9 9 18
C15 Circular 9 9 12
C17 Trapezoidal 18 x 48 24 x 48 15
C18 Circular 9 9 9
C20 Circular 9 9 9
71
5.3.4 Option # 4- Storm Sewer System with Parks & Lawn Storage
An open area inside the residential unit varies from 22 to 38 % of the total plot area
as per LDA bye-laws and hence it has a potential storage. Therefore the previous
model was modified to cater the effect of these open spaces on the overall network.
Chapter 3 describes in detail the distribution of open areas in any society as per
LDA bye-laws.
Open spaces inside the residential unit can be utilized in many ways i.e. by making
lawn as a recharge garden, providing a dry pit or installing rain barrels. The basic
philosophy of all these BMPs is to store some of initial precipitation and then
discharging the remaining flow outside the house. The brief description of all these
BMPs can be seen in chapter 2. To utilize these open areas, lawns of the houses in
a particular sub-catchment were considered as storage unit. Hence the flow from
houses, firstly goes into lawn storage (marked as LS in the figure 5.4) and after
filling the 6” depth in that lawn storage (LS) the runoff goes into the park storage
and finally to the stormwater network as shown in the figure 5.4.
Runoff volume equivalent for Six (6) inch storage in a particular lawn can be
provided by depressing the house lawn 6” or by providing any one of the BMPs from
the rain barrel, dry pit or recharge garden etc. Because of the modeling limitation in
SWMM, lawn storage is connected with a fictitious link having the 6” depth and 50’
wide. The length of link is given only one ft so that simulation of this model can be
run in SWMM.
Complete input / output data for this model are given in the annexure E. Table 5.7
and table 5.8 shows the nodal flooding and size of the conduit respectively. It is
clear from the table 5.8 that outfall diameters are of lesser size than that of previous
model’s diameter.
72
Figure 5.4: Layout of Storm Sewer System with Park & Lawn Storage
73
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs

J1 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J2 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J3 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J4 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J5 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J6 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J7 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J8 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J9 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J10 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J11 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J12 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J13 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
J14 Junction 0 0 0 0 0 0
O1 Outfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST1 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST2 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST3 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST4 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST5 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST6 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST7 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST8 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST9 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS1 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS2 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS3 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS4 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS5 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS6 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS7 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS8 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS9 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS10 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS11 Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
74
Size / Diameter (inch)

Link Shape
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs
C1 Circular 6 12 15
C2 Circular 6 12 21
C3 Circular 6 12 15
C4 Circular 9 15 24
C7 Circular 9 18 18
C10 Circular 6 6 12
C11 Circular 6 6 12
C17 Trapezoidal 18 x 48 18 x 48 18 x 48
C18 Circular 6 9 9
C20 Circular 6 6 9
C24 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C25 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C26 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C27 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C28 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C29 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C30 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C31 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C32 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C33 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
C34 Rect-Open 6 X 600 6 X 600 6 X 600
75
5.4 EVALUATION OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
and environmental factors. In addition to being effective in terms of long term efficiency,
they also need to be cost-effective when compared with conventional drainage systems.
Thus design and construction, environmental/ecological impact, operation and
maintenance, health and safety, social/urban community as well as economic and legal
issues become prime potential sustainability criteria to facilitate comparisons and
accreditation of drainage options with regard to capital cost, resource use, acceptability,
performance etc. Given such dependences and variabilities, it is relevant to consider how
multi-criteria analysis can be utilized to assess the relative importance of the factors
which specifically influence the use of BMPs within surface drainage systems.
As mentioned earlier, only those BMPs were selected for detail design which require
minimum public participation hence it reduced the above-mentioned parameters for the
evaluation of certain BMP. Keeping in view the local conditions, following are the
parameters for which designed BMPs models were evaluated.
5.4.1 Flooding
As mentioned in previous chapter, all models except combined sewerage system
were designed for zero-flooding at each node. The sizes of combined sewerage
system are calculated on the basis of WASA criteria. There is a fix value of
stormwater allowance (i.e. 100% of peak domestic flow) in the WASA criteria. As
this percentage is very lesser than that of required even for a 2-yrs return period it
will cause the flooding throughout the system. This situation worsens if the storm
has a greater return period i.e. 5 or 10 years etc. Strictly speaking there should be
no flooding in combined sewerage system as rain water gets contaminated when
comes in contact with the sewage. Table 5.9 shows that stormwater allowance
varies with the return period as well as with the design velocity. WASA criteria
recommends a minimum 2fps velocity at flowing full condition but normally 3 fps
velocity is used to design the sewerage system in Lahore. Although a higher
velocity results in reduced size of the sewer but on the other hand it increases the
allowance of stormwater which should be taken for no-flooding conditions.
Table 5.9: Comparison of Stormwater Allowance for different Frequencies
%age Peak Domestic flow as Stormwater Allowance
Velocity Required as per SWMM Analysis

Provided as per
Return Period
WASA Criteria
fps 2-yrs 5-yrs 10-yrs
2 100 345 635 1000
2.5 100 460 825 1275
3 100 570 1005 1550
76
It is clear from above table that stormwater allowance should be increased up to

1550% for 10 year return period in Lahore. It will result in huge diameter of the
sewers which is also not practically feasible keeping in view the limited right of way
available in Lahore. Therefore it strongly recommends the use of BMPs in Lahore
for further developments so that public convenience can be achieved through a
sustainable approach.
5.4.2 Length-Weighted Diameter
Diameters of a stormwater network vary too much depending upon the areas to be
served. By the application of certain BMPs, attenuation of peak stormwater is
achieved which results in smaller diameter / sizes of the stormwater network. It is
clear from the tables 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8 that the sizes / diameters of the network can
be reduced sufficiently. Therefore BMPs offer a practical solution to such location
where right of way is too small to lay larger diameter pipes. Table 5.10 shows the
starting and ending diameters of each option.
As the lengths of certain diameter also vary hence to evaluate certain BMPs option
a “Length-Weighted” diameter is used. This is calculated using the following
equation.
D1L 1 + D 2L 2 + D 3L 3 + .................D nL n
Length-Weighted Diameter =
∑ Li
The results of different options’ length-weighted diameter are shown in the table
5.10. For 10-years return period, length-weighted diameter in “separate system” is
52 inch and in “Storm Sewer with Parks & Lawn Storage system” is 19 inch;
therefore a reduction up to 73% can be achieved by the application of storage in
parks and lawns.
5.4.3 Cost
BMPs offer a wide range of benefits i.e. ground water recharging, peak / flow
reduction, etc but the single most important parameter in case of our local condition
is the overall cost. Only those BMPs were selected for detail analysis which requires
minimum public participation. There is no significant operational and maintenance
cost of the designed BMPs in this study. Hence the initial cost is the only parameter
which is used to evaluate certain BMP. For the sake of simplicity only the cost of
laying of network is calculated and other cost such as cost of pumping and
treatment is not considered. Table 5.11 shows the cost of different components of
the network.
The cost of the first option remains the same for all frequencies of the storm as
there is no provision of return period in the WASA’s design criteria. Maximum cost is
of the “Separate System” because of very large diameters. The cost of option 3 and
4 is marginally low than that of “Separate System” option. For example the cost of
“Storm Sewer with Parks & Lawn Storage” and “Separate System” is 3.55 and
14.71million Rupees respectively which mean that a reduction of 76% can be
achieved by the application of parks and Lawn storage BMP.
77
5.4.4 Social and Technical Feasibility

Many local authorities and other stakeholders recognize the importance of public
involvement in planning, which should provide several practical advantages. First,
where the public are properly informed, opportunities for misconceptions should be
minimised, with the effect that unfounded negativity within communities should be
avoided. Second, where communities become involved in planning, this should
promote shared responsibility between the relevant authorities and the public.
Finally, by engaging with the planning process, members of the public can
demonstrate their contribution to society and can play an active role in decision-
making. Public awareness and participation is very important in planning when new
methods and techniques are to be implemented within urban areas. The amenity,
recreational value and aesthetics of new schemes seem to be of major importance
in determining public acceptability, while function, efficiency, and maintenance are
primarily important in areas facing flooding problems.
78
Chapter 5 Design and Evaluation of Stormwater Systems
Table 5.10: Summary of Network Sizing for different Options
Return Period
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs

Type of System
Length- Length- Length-
Starting Ending Starting Ending Starting Ending
Weighted Weighted Weighted
Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter
Diameter Diameter Diameter
(inch) (inch) (inch) (inch) (inch) (inch)
(inch) (inch) (inch)
Combine System 09 27 16 09 27 16 09 27 16
Separate System 24 42 34 30 54 45 36 66 52
Storm Sewer + Parks Storage 09 24 16 15 30 22 18 36 26
Storm Sewer + Parks Storage 06 12 09 12 21 16 15 24 19
79
Chapter 5 Design and Evaluation of Stormwater Systems
Table 5.11: Summary of the Cost Comparison for different Options
Frequency
2-Yrs 5-Yrs 10-Yrs
Storm Sewer +
Storm Sewer +
Storm Sewer +
Storm Sewer+
Storm Sewer+
Storm Sewer+
Parameter
Park Storage
Park Storage
Park Storage
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer
Park & Lawn
Park & Lawn
Park & Lawn

Combine
Combine
Combine
Storage
Storage
Storage
System
System
System
System
System
System
403,664
Excavation 206,124 306,251 126,065 96,942 206,124 184,375 137,151 206,124 471,565 192,633 151,400
Crush 19,944 46,534 16,889 9,661 19,944 73,524 24,728 17,441 19,944 93,206 28,271 21,771
Backfill 170,682 200,497 96,218 82,353 170,682 227,332 137,179 106,479 170,682 242,392 134,417 111,443
Total Cost
2.634 6.698 2.873 1.466 2.634 11.027 4.356 2.879 2.634 14.713 5.448 3.552
(Millions Rs.)
80
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1) The rainfall data from 1931 to 2005 is used for the development of rainfall
distribution curve and Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves for 2,5,10, 25
and 25 years return period because the stormwater drainage system can be
designed for higher return period by using certain Best Management Practices.
2) An important consideration when developing, reviewing, or complying with

requirements for the sizing of BMPs for stormwater management is that BMPs are
most efficient and economical when they target small, frequent storm events that
over time produce more total runoff than the larger, infrequent storms targeted for
design of flood control facilities. The limiting value of such storms can be obtained
from the “knee of the curve” for rainfall data. The “knee of curve” for Lahore
rainfall data is in the range of 0.60 to 1.00 inch of rainfall.
3) The value of “Storm water Allowance” taken as per WASA design criteria is taken
as 100% of peak domestic flow irrespective of the return period of the storm. The
results of the study on Mohlanwal society shows that the value of this factor is
345%, 635% and 1000% for 2, 5 and 10-yrs return period respectively.
4) This study shows that ample reduction in conduit size can be achieved by utilizing
BMPs. For example the ultimate diameter for separate sewer system are 42, 54
and 66 inch respectively for 2, 5 and 10 year return period while using only two
BMPs (i.e. Lawn Depression and Park Storage) the ultimate diameters are 12, 21
and 24 inch for 2,5 and 10 year return period respectively.
5) Common misconception of the designers about the additional land requirement for
any storage facility can be wrecked by the results of this study that even using the
current open space regulation of LDA, 89% of peak flow reduction can be
achieved through BMPs.
6) Mean average decline in ground water table of Lahore comes to be 2.03 ft/year.
Hence it clearly shows the need to implement the alternative storm water
techniques instead of conventional techniques so that ground water recharging
can be done using certain BMPs.
81
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The rainfall data is a basic requirement for the analysis purposes. Continuous
recording of rainfall is required to develop a shorter period interval for rain fall
intensity curves. Presently most of the data is in 3-hours interval form and only a
limited record of continuous recording rain-gages is available. It is strongly
recommended that meteorological department should make such arrangements
that rainfall can be recorded up to 5 minutes interval.
2) Main emphasis of the bye-laws in Lahore is on ventilation and sunlight criteria. No

provision is made in these bye-laws to meet the sustainable drainage. Hence it is
needed to develop such guidelines by which sustainable development can be
achieved. The LDA should encourage the vertical growth through its bye-laws so
that more and more space can be utilized for the BMPs.
3) Peak and quantity of the stormwater flow should be reduced by the application of
storage BMPs. Government agencies like WASA should prepare a master
drainage plan for all major drains (natural as well as man-made) and a specific
quantity and peak of flow should be allocated to each and every section of these
drains. A stormwater tax should be imposed if society discharges any additional
flow than that of allotted by the competent authority like WASA.
4) Most of the BMP techniques can only be implemented by the active public
participation hence educational and awareness campaigns should be set up for
local community groups. Electronic media can play an important role in this
regard.
5) More models should be set up with various return periods. Ground water
recharging and reduction in peak flow should be examined when modeling under
local conditions.
6) Further study of stormwater treatability using BMPs also recommended.
82
References
REFERENCES
SELECTED REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK), 2002, “Integrated Master
Plan of Lahore for 2021”.
2. Rodney Hopper and Hans Arisz. (2006) “ Vital Need for Municipal Stormwater
Management” , http://www.esemag.com
3. Chatterjee A.K. “ Water Supply, Waste Disposal and Environmental
Engineering”, 7th Ed., Khanna Publishers, Delhi, 2001
4. Water Engineering & Development Centre, “Sustainable urban drainage in low-
income countries - a scoping study”, DFID London, 2004.
5. Wanielista M.P., Yousef Y.A. (1987) "Best management practices overview". In:
Urban Runoff Quality - Impact and Quality Enhancement Technology
(B.Urbonas and L.A. Roesner, Eds), ASCE, New York.
6. Pratt, C.J. (1995) "A review of source control of urban stormwater runoff"
J.CIWEM, 10 (4), pp 132 - 139.
7. SEPA (1997) A guide to sustainable urban drainage Scottish Environment
Protection Agency ISBN 1-901322-01-7.
8. Chesapeake Bay Program’s Urban Storm Water Workgroup
9. “Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, An Integrated Design Approach”,

Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George’s County, Maryland,
1999.
10. Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Final Draft, 2006
11. Engineering Technologies Associates, Inc. (ETA). 1993 “Design Manual for Use
of Bioretention in Stormwater Management”.
12. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual, Vol. II, “Technical Handbook”, AMEC
Earth and Environmental Center for Watershed Protection, 2001
13. “Stormwater Best Management Practices”, N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural resources (NCDENR), 1999
14. “Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook” California Stormwater
Quality Association (CASQA), 2003.
15. “Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, New Development and
Redevelopment”, California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003.
16. O’Meara, G.F. “Mosquito Associated with Stormwater Detention/Retention
Areas.” University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
17. Strecker, E.W.; Quigley, M.M.; Urbonas, B.; and Jones, J. “Analyses of the
Expanded EPA/ASCE International BMP Database and Potential Implications
for BMP Design.” , 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah.
18. “Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual”, Stormwater Engineering
Division, City of Knoxville, Tennessee, 2006.
83
References
19. DM, JB Ellis and L Scholes, “Criteria Relevant to the Assessment of BMP
Performance”, Middlesex University, 2003.
20. Clar, M. and L. Coffman, 2001. “Low Impact Development Applications for Ultra
Urban Areas,” ASCE.
21. Michael L. Clar, Billy J. Barfield, Thomas P. O’Connor, Stormwater Best
Management Practice Design Guide”, USEPA, 2004.
22. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), 2000. “Maryland Stormwater
Design Manual”.
23. Khanna “Irrigation Engineering and Hydraulic Structures”.
24. Ishteqaq Ahmad, “Rainfall Analysis, IDF relationship for Islamabad”, IEER, UET
Lahore, 1990.
25. NRCS “National Engineering Handbook”, 1997.
26. SCS, Hydrology Technical note no. N14”, 1987.
27. Woolhiser, D. A.,” Simulation of unsteady Overland Flow”, Colorado State
University, 1975.
28. “Hydrologic Analysis and Design”, “Central Oregon Stormwater Manual.
29. “Estimating Stormwater Runoff”, Florida Erosion and Sediment Control
Inspector's Manual.
30. “Sewer and Drainage Facilities Design Manual”, Bureau of Environmental
Services (BES), City of Portland.
31. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “Design Manual for Storm
Drainage”, New York, 1960.
32. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Minnesota Stormwater Manual”, 2005.
33. NESPAK, “Groundwater Resources Evaluation & Study of Aquifer under
Lahore.”
34. Mott MacDonald International Limited, “Punjab Urban Development Project,
Lahore Urban Drainage”, 1991.
35. Subramanna. K, “Engineering Hydrology”,
36. California Stormwater Quality Association, “Stormwater Best Management
Practices Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment”, 2003.
RELATED WEB SITES

1. http://www.contech-cpi.com
2. http://www.epa.gov
3. http://www7.caret.cam.ac.uk
4. http://www.esemag.com
5. http://www.sepa.org.uk
6. http://www.sniffer.org.uk
7. http://www.mishigan.gov/deq
8. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment
9. http://www.pca.mn.us/publication/wq-strm8-14u.pdf
84
Annexure-A
Annexure A
RAINFALL ANALYSIS
85
Annexure-A
Table A.1:- Reduced Mean (Yn) and Reduced Standard Deviation (Sn) in Gumbel’s
Extreme Value Distribution.
N = Sample Size
Reduced Mean (Yn)
N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 0.4952 0.4996 0.5035 0.5070 0.5100 0.5128 0.5157 0.5181 0.5202 0.5220
20 0.5236 0.5252 0.5268 0.5283 0.5296 0.5309 0.5320 0.5332 0.5343 0.5353
30 0.5362 0.5371 0.5380 0.5388 0.5396 0.5402 0.5410 0.5418 0.5424 0.5430
40 0.5436 0.5442 0.5448 0.5453 0.5458 0.5463 0.5468 0.5473 0.5477 0.5481
50 0.5485 0.5489 0.5493 0.5497 0.5501 0.5504 0.5508 0.5511 0.5515 0.5518
60 0.5521 0.5524 0.5527 0.5530 0.5533 0.5535 0.5538 0.5540 0.5543 0.5545
70 0.5548 0.5550 0.5552 0.5555 0.5557 0.5559 0.5561 0.5563 0.5565 0.5567
80 0.5569 0.5570 0.5572 0.5574 0.5576 0.5578 0.5580 0.5581 0.5583 0.5585
90 0.5586 0.5587 0.5589 0.5591 0.5592 0.5593 0.5595 0.5596 0.5598 0.5599
100 0.5600
Reduced Standard Deviation (Sn)
10 0.9496 0.9676 0.9833 0.9971 1.0095 1.0206 1.0316 1.0411 1.0493 1.0565
20 1.0628 1.0696 1.0754 1.0811 1.0864 1.0915 1.0961 1.1004 1.1047 1.1086
30 1.1124 1.1159 1.1193 1.1226 1.1255 1.1285 1.1313 1.1339 1.1363 1.1388
40 1.1413 1.1436 1.1458 1.1480 1.1499 1.1519 1.1538 1.1557 1.1574 1.1590
50 1.1607 1.1623 1.1638 1.1658 1.1667 1.1681 1.1696 1.1708 1.1721 1.1734
60 1.1747 1.1759 1.1770 1.1782 1.1793 1.1803 1.1814 1.1824 1.1834 1.1844
70 1.1854 1.1863 1.1873 1.1881 1.1890 1.1898 1.1906 1.1915 1.1923 1.1930
80 1.1938 1.1945 1.1953 1.1959 1.1967 1.1973 1.1980 1.1987 1.1994 1.2001
90 1.2007 1.2013 1.2020 1.2026 1.2032 1.2038 1.2044 1.2049 1.2055 1.2060
100 1.2065
86
Annexure-A
Table A.2:- Data Used for Correlations b/w 3-Hrs and Short Duration Rainfall
0-15 0-30 0-60 0-120 3

Year
Min Min Min Min Hour
1940 0.89 1.65 2.05 2.05 2.20
1942 0.34 0.66 1.00 1.40 2.17
1949 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.41 0.52
1950 0.20 0.40 0.70 0.99 1.68
1956 0.42 0.79 1.42 2.22 2.58
1957 0.29 0.37 0.37 0.61 1.42
1959 1.11 1.85 2.23 2.59 2.70
1960 0.50 0.90 1.24 1.46 1.75
1965 0.47 0.50 0.50 0.87 1.55
1966 0.26 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.57
1970 0.30 0.55 0.86 1.28 1.42
1974 0.40 0.80 1.35 1.40 1.42
1978 1.30 2.60 2.99 3.15 3.34
1980 0.79 1.18 1.89 2.56 2.91
1981 0.51 0.94 1.15 1.80 2.80
1982 0.59 0.98 1.40 1.56 1.56
1983 0.79 1.54 2.44 3.03 3.33
1984 0.39 0.75 0.75 1.42 1.58
1985 0.39 0.79 1.18 1.34 1.56
1987 0.39 0.71 1.02 1.02 2.33
87
Annexure-A
Development of Relationship between shorter period and 3-Hrs Rainfall
Relating 3 hr to 15 Minutes Rainfall

1.40
1.20
15 min Rainfall (in)
y = 0.2755x - 0.0151
1.00
R2 = 0.5397
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
3 hr Rainfall (in)
Figure: A.1

3.00
2.50
y = 0.5495x - 0.1503
2.00
R2 = 0.5726
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
3 hr Rainfall (in)
Figure: A.2
88
Annexure-A

3.50
3.00
y = 0.752x - 0.2166

2.50 R2 = 0.6748
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
3 hr Rainfall (in)
Figure: A.3

3.50
3.00
2.50
y = 0.8958x - 0.1824
R2 = 0.8044
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
3 hr Rainfall (in)
Figure: A.4
89
Annexure-A
Table A.3:- Filled Up Short Duration Rainfall Data
15 min Rainfall 30 min Rainfall 60 min Rainfall 120 min Rainfall

(0.2755(3-HR)-0.0151) (0.5495(3-HR)- 0.1503) (0.752 (3-HR) - 0.2166) (0.8958(3-HR) - 0.1824)
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall

Year Year Year Year
(in) (in) (in) (in)
1953 1.43 1953 2.72 1953 3.72 1953 4.50
1954 2.20 1954 4.27 1954 5.84 1954 7.03
1955 0.73 1955 1.33 1955 1.81 1955 2.24
1958 1.14 1958 2.15 1958 2.93 1958 3.56
1961 0.45 1961 0.78 1961 1.06 1961 1.34
1962 0.82 1962 1.51 1962 2.05 1962 2.52
1963 0.30 1963 0.48 1963 0.64 1963 0.84
1964 0.75 1964 1.38 1964 1.87 1964 2.31
1967 0.29 1967 0.46 1967 0.62 1967 0.81
1968 0.76 1968 1.40 1968 1.90 1968 2.34
1969 1.25 1969 2.38 1969 3.24 1969 3.94
1975 0.44 1975 0.76 1975 1.03 1975 1.30
1976 1.59 1976 3.05 1976 4.16 1976 5.03
1977 0.64 1977 1.15 1977 1.56 1977 1.94
1979 0.40 1979 0.67 1979 0.91 1979 1.16
1986 0.40 1986 0.67 1986 0.91 1986 1.16
1988 0.37 1988 0.61 1988 0.83 1988 1.06
1989 0.24 1989 0.36 1989 0.48 1989 0.65
1990 0.65 1990 1.18 1990 1.60 1990 1.99
1991 0.56 1991 1.00 1991 1.35 1991 1.69
1992 0.51 1992 0.90 1992 1.23 1992 1.54
1993 0.40 1993 0.68 1993 0.92 1993 1.18
1994 0.36 1994 0.60 1994 0.81 1994 1.04
1995 0.57 1995 1.01 1995 1.37 1995 1.71
1996 0.89 1996 1.65 1996 2.24 1996 2.75
1997 0.45 1997 0.78 1997 1.05 1997 1.33
1998 0.62 1998 1.12 1998 1.53 1998 1.90
1999 0.87 1999 1.61 1999 2.19 1999 2.68
2000 0.58 2000 1.04 2000 1.42 2000 1.76
2001 0.80 2001 1.47 2001 2.00 2001 2.46
2002 0.29 2002 0.45 2002 0.60 2002 0.79
2003 0.46 2003 0.81 2003 1.09 2003 1.38
2004 0.61 2004 1.10 2004 1.50 2004 1.86
2005 1.38 2005 2.64 2005 3.60 2005 4.37
90
Annexure-A
Frequency Analyses of Combined (i.e. Available and Filled Up) Rainfall Data
Table A.4.i
(15 Minutes) (30 Minutes)

Rainfall Descending Rank Tr = Rainfall Descending Rank Tr =
Year Year
(in) order (m) (N+1)/m (in) order (m) (N+1)/m
1953 1.43 2.20 1 51.0 1953 2.72 4.27 1 51.0
1954 2.20 1.59 2 25.5 1954 4.27 3.05 2 25.5
1955 0.73 1.43 3 17.0 1955 1.33 2.72 3 17.0
1956 0.42 1.38 4 12.8 1956 0.79 2.64 4 12.8
1957 0.29 1.30 5 10.2 1957 0.37 2.60 5 10.2
1958 1.14 1.25 6 8.5 1958 2.15 2.38 6 8.5
1959 1.11 1.14 7 7.3 1959 1.85 2.15 7 7.3
1960 0.50 1.11 8 6.4 1960 0.90 1.85 8 6.4
1961 0.45 0.89 9 5.7 1961 0.78 1.65 9 5.7
1962 0.82 0.87 10 5.1 1962 1.51 1.61 10 5.1
1963 0.30 0.82 11 4.6 1963 0.48 1.54 11 4.6
1964 0.75 0.80 12 4.3 1964 1.38 1.51 12 4.3
1965 0.47 0.79 13 3.9 1965 0.50 1.47 13 3.9
1966 0.26 0.79 14 3.6 1966 0.41 1.40 14 3.6
1967 0.29 0.76 15 3.4 1967 0.46 1.38 15 3.4
1968 0.76 0.75 16 3.2 1968 1.40 1.33 16 3.2
1969 1.25 0.73 17 3.0 1969 2.38 1.18 17 3.0
1970 0.30 0.65 18 2.8 1970 0.55 1.18 18 2.8
1974 0.40 0.64 19 2.7 1974 0.80 1.15 19 2.7
1975 0.44 0.62 20 2.6 1975 0.76 1.12 20 2.6
1976 1.59 0.61 21 2.4 1976 3.05 1.10 21 2.4
1977 0.64 0.59 22 2.3 1977 1.15 1.04 22 2.3
1978 1.30 0.58 23 2.2 1978 2.60 1.01 23 2.2
1979 0.40 0.57 24 2.1 1979 0.67 1.00 24 2.1
1980 0.79 0.56 25 2.0 1980 1.18 0.98 25 2.0
1981 0.51 0.51 26 2.0 1981 0.94 0.94 26 2.0
1982 0.59 0.51 27 1.9 1982 0.98 0.90 27 1.9
1983 0.79 0.50 28 1.8 1983 1.54 0.90 28 1.8
1984 0.39 0.47 29 1.8 1984 0.76 0.81 29 1.8
1985 0.39 0.46 30 1.7 1985 0.79 0.80 30 1.7
1986 0.40 0.45 31 1.6 1986 0.67 0.79 31 1.6
1987 0.39 0.45 32 1.6 1987 0.71 0.79 32 1.6
1988 0.37 0.44 33 1.5 1988 0.61 0.78 33 1.5
1989 0.24 0.42 34 1.5 1989 0.36 0.78 34 1.5
1990 0.65 0.40 35 1.5 1990 1.18 0.76 35 1.5
1991 0.56 0.40 36 1.4 1991 1.00 0.75 36 1.4
1992 0.51 0.40 37 1.4 1992 0.90 0.71 37 1.4
1993 0.40 0.40 38 1.3 1993 0.68 0.68 38 1.3
1994 0.36 0.39 39 1.3 1994 0.60 0.67 39 1.3
1995 0.57 0.39 40 1.3 1995 1.01 0.67 40 1.3
1996 0.89 0.39 41 1.2 1996 1.65 0.61 41 1.2
1997 0.45 0.37 42 1.2 1997 0.78 0.60 42 1.2
1998 0.62 0.36 43 1.2 1998 1.12 0.55 43 1.2
1999 0.87 0.30 44 1.2 1999 1.61 0.50 44 1.2
2000 0.58 0.30 45 1.1 2000 1.04 0.48 45 1.1
2001 0.80 0.29 46 1.1 2001 1.47 0.46 46 1.1
2002 0.29 0.29 47 1.1 2002 0.45 0.45 47 1.1
2003 0.46 0.29 48 1.1 2003 0.81 0.41 48 1.1
2004 0.61 0.26 49 1.0 2004 1.10 0.37 49 1.0
2005 1.38 0.24 50 1.0 2005 2.64 0.36 50 1.0
91
Annexure-A
Table A.4.ii
(60 Minutes) (120 Minutes)

Year Year
1953 3.72 5.84 1 51.0 1953 4.50 7.03 1 51.0
1954 5.84 4.16 2 25.5 1954 7.03 5.03 2 25.5
1955 1.81 3.72 3 17.0 1955 2.24 4.50 3 17.0
1956 1.42 3.60 4 12.8 1956 2.22 4.37 4 12.8
1957 0.37 3.24 5 10.2 1957 0.61 3.94 5 10.2
1958 2.93 2.99 6 8.5 1958 3.56 3.56 6 8.5
1959 2.23 2.93 7 7.3 1959 2.59 3.15 7 7.3
1960 1.24 2.44 8 6.4 1960 1.46 3.03 8 6.4
1961 1.06 2.24 9 5.7 1961 1.34 2.75 9 5.7
1962 2.05 2.23 10 5.1 1962 2.52 2.68 10 5.1
1963 0.64 2.19 11 4.6 1963 0.84 2.59 11 4.6
1964 1.87 2.05 12 4.3 1964 2.31 2.56 12 4.3
1965 0.50 2.00 13 3.9 1965 0.87 2.52 13 3.9
1966 0.43 1.90 14 3.6 1966 0.48 2.46 14 3.6
1967 0.62 1.89 15 3.4 1967 0.81 2.34 15 3.4
1968 1.90 1.87 16 3.2 1968 2.34 2.31 16 3.2
1969 3.24 1.81 17 3.0 1969 3.94 2.24 17 3.0
1970 0.86 1.60 18 2.8 1970 1.28 2.22 18 2.8
1974 1.35 1.56 19 2.7 1974 1.40 1.99 19 2.7
1975 1.03 1.53 20 2.6 1975 1.30 1.94 20 2.6
1976 4.16 1.50 21 2.4 1976 5.03 1.90 21 2.4
1977 1.56 1.42 22 2.3 1977 1.94 1.86 22 2.3
1978 2.99 1.42 23 2.2 1978 3.15 1.80 23 2.2
1979 0.91 1.41 24 2.1 1979 1.16 1.76 24 2.1
1980 1.89 1.40 25 2.0 1980 2.56 1.71 25 2.0
1981 1.15 1.37 26 2.0 1981 1.80 1.69 26 2.0
1982 1.40 1.35 27 1.9 1982 1.56 1.56 27 1.9
1983 2.44 1.35 28 1.8 1983 3.03 1.54 28 1.8
1984 1.41 1.24 29 1.8 1984 1.41 1.46 29 1.8
1985 1.18 1.23 30 1.7 1985 1.34 1.41 30 1.7
1986 0.91 1.18 31 1.6 1986 1.16 1.40 31 1.6
1987 1.02 1.15 32 1.6 1987 1.02 1.38 32 1.6
1988 0.83 1.09 33 1.5 1988 1.06 1.34 33 1.5
1989 0.48 1.06 34 1.5 1989 0.65 1.34 34 1.5
1990 1.60 1.05 35 1.5 1990 1.99 1.33 35 1.5
1991 1.35 1.03 36 1.4 1991 1.69 1.30 36 1.4
1992 1.23 1.02 37 1.4 1992 1.54 1.28 37 1.4
1993 0.92 0.92 38 1.3 1993 1.18 1.18 38 1.3
1994 0.81 0.91 39 1.3 1994 1.04 1.16 39 1.3
1995 1.37 0.91 40 1.3 1995 1.71 1.16 40 1.3
1996 2.24 0.86 41 1.2 1996 2.75 1.06 41 1.2
1997 1.05 0.83 42 1.2 1997 1.33 1.04 42 1.2
1998 1.53 0.81 43 1.2 1998 1.90 1.02 43 1.2
1999 2.19 0.64 44 1.2 1999 2.68 0.87 44 1.2
2000 1.42 0.62 45 1.1 2000 1.76 0.84 45 1.1
2001 2.00 0.60 46 1.1 2001 2.46 0.81 46 1.1
2002 0.60 0.50 47 1.1 2002 0.79 0.79 47 1.1
2003 1.09 0.48 48 1.1 2003 1.38 0.65 48 1.1
2004 1.50 0.43 49 1.0 2004 1.86 0.61 49 1.0
2005 3.60 0.37 50 1.0 2005 4.37 0.48 50 1.0
92
Annexure-A
Table A.4.iii
(3 Hours) (6 Hours)
Year Year
1953 5.23 8.05 1 51.0 1953 5.35 8.05 1 51.0
1954 8.05 5.82 2 25.5 1954 8.05 6.72 2 25.5
1955 2.70 5.23 3 17.0 1955 3.40 5.39 3 17.0
1956 2.58 5.08 4 12.8 1956 2.60 5.35 4 12.8
1957 1.42 4.60 5 10.2 1957 1.82 4.69 5 10.2
1958 4.18 4.18 6 8.5 1958 4.38 4.64 6 8.5
1959 4.17 4.17 7 7.3 1959 4.25 4.61 7 7.3
1960 1.75 3.34 8 6.4 1960 1.75 4.41 8 6.4
1961 1.70 3.33 9 5.7 1961 1.70 4.38 9 5.7
1962 3.02 3.27 10 5.1 1962 3.23 4.25 10 5.1
1963 1.14 3.20 11 4.6 1963 1.15 3.74 11 4.6
1964 2.78 3.02 12 4.3 1964 2.99 3.53 12 4.3
1965 1.55 2.95 13 3.9 1965 1.72 3.44 13 3.9
1966 0.57 2.91 14 3.6 1966 1.05 3.43 14 3.6
1967 1.11 2.82 15 3.4 1967 1.11 3.40 15 3.4
1968 2.82 2.80 16 3.2 1968 2.87 3.31 16 3.2
1969 4.60 2.78 17 3.0 1969 4.64 3.31 17 3.0
1970 1.42 2.70 18 2.8 1970 1.73 3.23 18 2.8
1974 1.42 2.58 19 2.7 1974 1.47 2.99 19 2.7
1975 1.66 2.42 20 2.6 1975 2.00 2.98 20 2.6
1976 5.82 2.37 21 2.4 1976 6.72 2.87 21 2.4
1977 2.37 2.33 22 2.3 1977 2.74 2.74 22 2.3
1978 3.34 2.32 23 2.2 1978 3.74 2.60 23 2.2
1979 1.50 2.28 24 2.1 1979 1.91 2.59 24 2.1
1980 2.91 2.17 25 2.0 1980 4.69 2.51 25 2.0
1981 2.80 2.12 26 2.0 1981 4.41 2.45 26 2.0
1982 1.52 2.09 27 1.9 1982 1.87 2.41 27 1.9
1983 3.33 1.92 28 1.8 1983 3.53 2.35 28 1.8
1984 1.58 1.75 29 1.8 1984 1.58 2.33 29 1.8
1985 1.43 1.74 30 1.7 1985 2.98 2.32 30 1.7
1986 1.50 1.70 31 1.6 1986 2.35 2.28 31 1.6
1987 2.33 1.69 32 1.6 1987 2.33 2.22 32 1.6
1988 1.39 1.66 33 1.5 1988 2.19 2.19 33 1.5
1989 0.93 1.58 34 1.5 1989 1.23 2.00 34 1.5
1990 2.42 1.55 35 1.5 1990 2.59 1.91 35 1.5
1991 2.09 1.52 36 1.4 1991 2.41 1.87 36 1.4
1992 1.92 1.52 37 1.4 1992 2.22 1.82 37 1.4
1993 1.52 1.50 38 1.3 1993 1.75 1.75 38 1.3
1994 1.36 1.50 39 1.3 1994 1.57 1.75 39 1.3
1995 2.12 1.43 40 1.3 1995 2.45 1.73 40 1.3
1996 3.27 1.42 41 1.2 1996 4.61 1.72 41 1.2
1997 1.69 1.42 42 1.2 1997 2.51 1.70 42 1.2
1998 2.32 1.42 43 1.2 1998 2.32 1.58 43 1.2
1999 3.20 1.39 44 1.2 1999 3.44 1.57 44 1.2
2000 2.17 1.36 45 1.1 2000 3.31 1.47 45 1.1
2001 2.95 1.14 46 1.1 2001 3.43 1.23 46 1.1
2002 1.09 1.11 47 1.1 2002 1.16 1.16 47 1.1
2003 1.74 1.09 48 1.1 2003 3.31 1.15 48 1.1
2004 2.28 0.93 49 1.0 2004 2.28 1.11 49 1.0
2005 5.08 0.57 50 1.0 2005 5.39 1.05 50 1.0
93
Annexure-A
Table A.4.iv
(9 Hours) (12 Hours)

Year Year
1953 5.35 8.05 1 51.0 1953 5.35 8.07 1 51.0
1954 8.05 7.28 2 25.5 1954 8.06 8.06 2 25.5
1955 4.54 6.54 3 17.0 1955 4.56 7.61 3 17.0
1956 2.60 5.79 4 12.8 1956 3.16 6.91 4 12.8
1957 2.36 5.39 5 10.2 1957 2.96 6.15 5 10.2
1958 4.38 5.35 6 8.5 1958 6.15 5.39 6 8.5
1959 4.38 4.94 7 7.3 1959 4.41 5.35 7 7.3
1960 1.75 4.86 8 6.4 1960 1.75 4.94 8 6.4
1961 2.08 4.54 9 5.7 1961 2.16 4.86 9 5.7
1962 3.24 4.38 10 5.1 1962 3.46 4.56 10 5.1
1963 1.40 4.38 11 4.6 1963 1.40 4.51 11 4.6
1964 3.95 4.09 12 4.3 1964 4.51 4.41 12 4.3
1965 1.72 3.95 13 3.9 1965 1.72 4.33 13 3.9
1966 1.22 3.74 14 3.6 1966 1.52 4.02 14 3.6
1967 1.89 3.53 15 3.4 1967 1.93 3.74 15 3.4
1968 2.87 3.47 16 3.2 1968 2.87 3.53 16 3.2
1969 4.86 3.43 17 3.0 1969 4.86 3.47 17 3.0
1970 1.73 3.31 18 2.8 1970 1.93 3.46 18 2.8
1974 1.65 3.28 19 2.7 1974 1.65 3.43 19 2.7
1975 2.74 3.24 20 2.6 1975 2.74 3.31 20 2.6
1976 7.28 2.98 21 2.4 1976 7.61 3.16 21 2.4
1977 2.96 2.96 22 2.3 1977 3.10 3.10 22 2.3
1978 3.74 2.87 23 2.2 1978 3.74 2.98 23 2.2
1979 2.22 2.74 24 2.1 1979 2.22 2.96 24 2.1
1980 6.54 2.65 25 2.0 1980 8.07 2.87 25 2.0
1981 4.94 2.61 26 2.0 1981 4.94 2.77 26 2.0
1982 1.87 2.60 27 1.9 1982 2.30 2.74 27 1.9
1983 3.53 2.59 28 1.8 1983 3.53 2.73 28 1.8
1984 1.64 2.40 29 1.8 1984 1.70 2.59 29 1.8
1985 2.98 2.36 30 1.7 1985 2.98 2.51 30 1.7
1986 2.35 2.35 31 1.6 1986 2.35 2.35 31 1.6
1987 2.33 2.33 32 1.6 1987 2.33 2.33 32 1.6
1988 2.19 2.32 33 1.5 1988 2.22 2.32 33 1.5
1989 1.51 2.28 34 1.5 1989 1.51 2.30 34 1.5
1990 2.59 2.22 35 1.5 1990 2.59 2.28 35 1.5
1991 2.61 2.19 36 1.4 1991 2.73 2.22 36 1.4
1992 2.40 2.08 37 1.4 1992 2.51 2.22 37 1.4
1993 1.90 1.90 38 1.3 1993 1.99 2.16 38 1.3
1994 1.70 1.89 39 1.3 1994 1.78 1.99 39 1.3
1995 2.65 1.87 40 1.3 1995 2.77 1.93 40 1.3
1996 5.79 1.75 41 1.2 1996 6.91 1.93 41 1.2
1997 3.28 1.73 42 1.2 1997 4.02 1.78 42 1.2
1998 2.32 1.72 43 1.2 1998 2.32 1.75 43 1.2
1999 3.47 1.70 44 1.2 1999 3.47 1.72 44 1.2
2000 4.09 1.65 45 1.1 2000 4.33 1.70 45 1.1
2001 3.43 1.64 46 1.1 2001 3.43 1.65 46 1.1
2002 1.16 1.51 47 1.1 2002 1.16 1.52 47 1.1
2003 3.31 1.40 48 1.1 2003 3.31 1.51 48 1.1
2004 2.28 1.22 49 1.0 2004 2.28 1.40 49 1.0
2005 5.39 1.16 50 1.0 2005 5.39 1.16 50 1.0
94
Annexure-A
Table A.4.v
(24 Hours)
Rainfall Descending Rank Tr =
Year
(in) order (m) (N+1)/m
1953 5.35 8.98 1 51.0
1954 8.98 8.31 2 25.5
1955 4.55 8.09 3 17.0
1956 3.18 8.07 4 12.8
1957 3.67 7.87 5 10.2
1958 8.07 7.47 6 8.5
1959 4.93 5.95 7 7.3
1960 1.75 5.39 8 6.4
1961 2.17 5.35 9 5.7
1962 3.45 4.94 10 5.1
1963 2.59 4.93 11 4.6
1964 7.87 4.86 12 4.3
1965 1.72 4.62 13 3.9
1966 1.94 4.55 14 3.6
1967 2.02 4.33 15 3.4
1968 2.87 3.74 16 3.2
1969 4.86 3.69 17 3.0
1970 1.98 3.67 18 2.8
1974 1.65 3.47 19 2.7
1975 2.74 3.45 20 2.6
1976 8.31 3.43 21 2.4
1977 3.38 3.38 22 2.3
1978 3.74 3.31 23 2.2
1979 2.22 3.27 24 2.1
1980 8.09 3.18 25 2.0
1981 4.94 3.03 26 2.0
1982 2.66 3.02 27 1.9
1983 3.69 2.98 28 1.8
1984 2.39 2.87 29 1.8
1985 4.62 2.74 30 1.7
1986 2.57 2.74 31 1.6
1987 2.33 2.66 32 1.6
1988 3.03 2.59 33 1.5
1989 1.51 2.57 34 1.5
1990 3.27 2.39 35 1.5
1991 2.98 2.33 36 1.4
1992 2.74 2.32 37 1.4
1993 2.17 2.28 38 1.3
1994 1.94 2.22 39 1.3
1995 3.02 2.17 40 1.3
1996 7.47 2.17 41 1.2
1997 5.95 2.02 42 1.2
1998 2.32 1.98 43 1.2
1999 3.47 1.94 44 1.2
2000 4.33 1.94 45 1.1
2001 3.43 1.75 46 1.1
2002 1.16 1.72 47 1.1
2003 3.31 1.65 48 1.1
2004 2.28 1.51 49 1.0
2005 5.39 1.16 50 1.0
95
Annexure-A
Frequency Relationship Graphs
R e t u r n P e r io d V s R a in f a l l
( 1 5 M in u t e s )
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
Rainfall (in) 1 .5 0
1 .0 0
y = 0 . 4 4 4 5 L n (x ) + 0 . 2 3 4 5
0 .5 0 R 2 = 0.9833
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.5
R e t u r n P e r io d V s R a in f a ll
( 3 0 M in u t e s )
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
3 .5 0
Rainfall (in)
3 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
y = 0 . 8 8 3 3 L n (x ) + 0 . 3 4 6 8
1 .5 0
1 .0 0
R 2 = 0.9809
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.6
( 6 0 M in u t e s )
7 .0 0
6 .0 0
5 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
4 .0 0
3 .0 0
y = 1 . 1 8 7 4 L n (x ) + 0 . 4 9 6 8
2 .0 0 R 2 = 0 .9 8 0 3
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a r s )
Figure: A.7
96
Annexure-A
( 1 2 0 M in u t e s )
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
6 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
3 .0 0
y = 1 . 4 0 7 4 L n (x ) + 0 . 6 6 4 2
R 2 = 0.98 11
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.8
(3 H o u rs )
9 .0 0
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
6 .0 0
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
y = 1 . 5 7 5 6 L n (x ) + 0 . 9 6 0 3
3 .0 0
R 2 = 0 .9 7 9 4
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.9
R e tu r n P e r io d V s R a in fa ll
(6 H o u rs )
9 .0 0
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
6 .0 0
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
y = 1 . 6 4 4 4 L n (x ) + 1 . 3 0 3 2
3 .0 0
R 2 = 0 .9 8 6 4
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.10
97
Annexure-A
( 9 H o u rs)
9 .0 0
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
6 .0 0
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
y = 1 . 7 6 9 4 L n (x ) + 1 . 4 4 1 7
3 .0 0
R 2 = 0 .9 9 4 7
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.11
(1 2 H o u rs )
1 0 .0 0
9 .0 0
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
6 .0 0
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
y = 1 . 9 4 2 7 L n (x ) + 1 . 4 6 5 5
3 .0 0
R 2 = 0 .9 8 4 5
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Figure: A.12
(2 4 H o u rs )
1 2 .0 0
1 0 .0 0
Rainfall (in)
8 .0 0
6 .0 0
4 .0 0
y = 2 . 2 0 1 9 L n ( x) + 1 . 5 8 2 4
R 2 = 0 .9 6 7 8
2 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 3 5 .0 4 0 .0 4 5 .0 5 0 .0 5 5 .0
Tr (Y e a rs )
Table 4.10:- Rainfall Intensities

Figure: A.13
98
Annexure-A
Table A.5:- Design Short Duration Rainfall Depth (inches)
Return Time (Hours)

Period
(Years) 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 24.00
2 0.54 0.959 1.320 1.640 2.052 2.443 2.668 2.812 3.109

5 0.95 1.768 2.408 2.929 3.496 3.950 4.289 4.592 5.126
10 1.26 2.381 3.231 3.905 4.588 5.090 5.516 5.939 6.652
25 1.67 3.190 4.319 5.194 6.032 6.596 7.137 7.719 8.670
50 1.97 3.802 5.142 6.170 7.124 7.736 8.364 9.065 10.196
Table A.6:- Design Short Duration Rainfall Intensity (inches/Hour)
Return Time (Hours)

Period
(Years) 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 24.00
2 2.170 1.918 1.320 0.820 0.684 0.407 0.296 0.234 0.130

5 3.800 3.537 2.408 1.465 1.165 0.658 0.477 0.383 0.214
10 5.032 4.761 3.231 1.952 1.529 0.848 0.613 0.495 0.277
25 6.661 6.380 4.319 2.597 2.011 1.099 0.793 0.643 0.361
50 7.894 7.605 5.142 3.085 2.375 1.289 0.929 0.755 0.425
99
Annexure-A
8.00
-0.6317
7.00 y = 4.3198x
2
R = 0.9601
6.00 -0.6275
y = 3.6435x
2
R = 0.9614
Rainfall Intensity (in/Hr)
5.00 -0.6188
y = 2.7493x
2
R = 0.964
4.00 -0.6075
y = 2.0724x
2
R = 0.9674
3.00 -0.5741
y = 1.1762x
2
R = 0.977
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Duration (Hours)
Figure A-14: IDF curves with Regression Equations
100
Annexure-A
Table A.7:- Rainfall Intensities for shorter duration
2-Years 5-Years 10-Years 25-Years 50-Years
Intensity
Intensity
Intensity
Intensity
Intensity
Depth
Depth
Depth
Depth
Depth
Time
min in/hr in in/hr in in/hr in in/hr in in/hr in

5 2.58 0.21 4.64 0.39 6.19 0.52 8.25 0.69 9.81 0.82
10 2.24 0.37 4.03 0.67 5.39 0.90 7.17 1.20 8.53 1.42
15 2.05 0.51 3.68 0.92 4.91 1.23 6.54 1.64 7.77 1.94
20 1.91 0.64 3.43 1.14 4.58 1.53 6.09 2.03 7.24 2.41
25 1.81 0.75 3.24 1.35 4.32 1.80 5.75 2.39 6.83 2.85
30 1.72 0.86 3.08 1.54 4.10 2.05 5.46 2.73 6.49 3.25
35 1.64 0.96 2.94 1.72 3.92 2.29 5.22 3.05 6.20 3.62
40 1.58 1.05 2.83 1.88 3.77 2.51 5.01 3.34 5.96 3.97
45 1.52 1.14 2.72 2.04 3.63 2.72 4.83 3.62 5.74 4.30
50 1.47 1.23 2.63 2.19 3.51 2.92 4.67 3.89 5.54 4.62
55 1.43 1.31 2.55 2.34 3.40 3.11 4.52 4.14 5.37 4.92
60 1.39 1.39 2.47 2.47 3.30 3.30 4.38 4.38 5.21 5.21
65 1.35 1.46 2.40 2.60 3.20 3.47 4.26 4.61 5.06 5.48
70 1.31 1.53 2.34 2.73 3.12 3.64 4.14 4.83 4.92 5.74
75 1.28 1.60 2.28 2.85 3.04 3.79 4.04 5.04 4.79 5.99
80 1.25 1.66 2.22 2.96 2.96 3.95 3.94 5.25 4.67 6.23
85 1.22 1.73 2.17 3.07 2.89 4.09 3.84 5.44 4.56 6.46
90 1.19 1.79 2.12 3.18 2.82 4.23 3.75 5.63 4.45 6.68
95 1.17 1.84 2.07 3.28 2.76 4.37 3.67 5.81 4.35 6.89
100 1.14 1.90 2.03 3.38 2.70 4.50 3.59 5.98 4.26 7.10
105 1.12 1.96 1.99 3.48 2.64 4.63 3.51 6.15 4.17 7.30
110 1.09 2.01 1.95 3.57 2.59 4.75 3.44 6.31 4.08 7.48
115 1.07 2.06 1.91 3.65 2.54 4.86 3.37 6.46 4.00 7.67
120 1.05 2.11 1.87 3.74 2.49 4.97 3.30 6.61 3.92 7.84
125 1.03 2.15 1.83 3.82 2.44 5.08 3.24 6.75 3.85 8.01
130 1.01 2.20 1.80 3.90 2.39 5.19 3.18 6.89 3.77 8.17
135 1.00 2.24 1.77 3.98 2.35 5.29 3.12 7.02 3.70 8.33
140 0.98 2.28 1.74 4.05 2.31 5.38 3.06 7.15 3.64 8.48
145 0.96 2.33 1.70 4.12 2.27 5.48 3.01 7.27 3.57 8.63
150 0.95 2.37 1.68 4.19 2.23 5.57 2.96 7.39 3.51 8.77
155 0.93 2.40 1.65 4.25 2.19 5.65 2.91 7.50 3.45 8.90
160 0.92 2.44 1.62 4.32 2.15 5.74 2.86 7.62 3.39 9.04
165 0.90 2.48 1.59 4.38 2.12 5.82 2.81 7.72 3.33 9.16
170 0.89 2.51 1.57 4.44 2.08 5.90 2.76 7.82 3.28 9.28
175 0.87 2.54 1.54 4.50 2.05 5.97 2.72 7.92 3.22 9.40
180 0.86 2.58 1.52 4.55 2.01 6.04 2.67 8.02 3.17 9.51
185 0.85 2.61 1.49 4.60 1.98 6.11 2.63 8.11 3.12 9.62
190 0.83 2.64 1.47 4.65 1.95 6.18 2.59 8.20 3.07 9.72
195 0.82 2.67 1.45 4.70 1.92 6.24 2.55 8.28 3.02 9.82
200 0.81 2.69 1.42 4.75 1.89 6.31 2.51 8.36 2.97 9.92
205 0.80 2.72 1.40 4.80 1.86 6.36 2.47 8.44 2.93 10.01
210 0.78 2.75 1.38 4.84 1.83 6.42 2.43 8.51 2.88 10.09
215 0.77 2.77 1.36 4.88 1.81 6.48 2.40 8.58 2.84 10.18
220 0.76 2.80 1.34 4.92 1.78 6.53 2.36 8.65 2.80 10.26
101
Annexure-A
225 0.75 2.82 1.32 4.96 1.75 6.58 2.32 8.72 2.76 10.34
230 0.74 2.84 1.30 5.00 1.73 6.63 2.29 8.78 2.72 10.41
235 0.73 2.86 1.28 5.03 1.70 6.67 2.26 8.84 2.68 10.48
240 0.72 2.88 1.27 5.06 1.68 6.72 2.22 8.90 2.64 10.55
245 0.71 2.90 1.25 5.10 1.65 6.76 2.19 8.95 2.60 10.61
250 0.70 2.92 1.23 5.13 1.63 6.80 2.16 9.00 2.56 10.67
255 0.69 2.94 1.21 5.16 1.61 6.83 2.13 9.05 2.52 10.73
260 0.68 2.96 1.20 5.19 1.59 6.87 2.10 9.10 2.49 10.78
265 0.67 2.97 1.18 5.21 1.56 6.90 2.07 9.14 2.45 10.83
270 0.66 2.99 1.16 5.24 1.54 6.94 2.04 9.18 2.42 10.88
275 0.66 3.00 1.15 5.26 1.52 6.97 2.01 9.22 2.38 10.93
280 0.65 3.02 1.13 5.28 1.50 7.00 1.98 9.26 2.35 10.97
285 0.64 3.03 1.12 5.30 1.48 7.02 1.96 9.29 2.32 11.01
290 0.63 3.05 1.10 5.32 1.46 7.05 1.93 9.33 2.29 11.05
295 0.62 3.06 1.09 5.34 1.44 7.07 1.90 9.36 2.25 11.08
300 0.61 3.07 1.07 5.36 1.42 7.09 1.88 9.38 2.22 11.12
305 0.61 3.08 1.06 5.38 1.40 7.11 1.85 9.41 2.19 11.15
310 0.60 3.09 1.04 5.39 1.38 7.13 1.83 9.43 2.16 11.17
315 0.59 3.10 1.03 5.40 1.36 7.15 1.80 9.45 2.13 11.20
320 0.58 3.11 1.02 5.42 1.34 7.16 1.78 9.47 2.10 11.22
325 0.58 3.12 1.00 5.43 1.33 7.18 1.75 9.49 2.07 11.24
330 0.57 3.12 0.99 5.44 1.31 7.19 1.73 9.51 2.05 11.26
335 0.56 3.13 0.98 5.45 1.29 7.20 1.70 9.52 2.02 11.27
340 0.55 3.14 0.96 5.46 1.27 7.21 1.68 9.53 1.99 11.28
345 0.55 3.14 0.95 5.46 1.26 7.22 1.66 9.54 1.96 11.29
350 0.54 3.15 0.94 5.47 1.24 7.23 1.64 9.55 1.94 11.30
355 0.53 3.15 0.93 5.48 1.22 7.23 1.61 9.55 1.91 11.31
360 0.53 3.16 0.91 5.48 1.21 7.24 1.59 9.56 1.89 11.31
102
Annexure-A
Table A.8:- 24-Hrs Rainfall Distribution.
Year 3 hrs %age 6 hrs %age 9 hrs %age 12 hrs %age 24 hrs
1953 5.23 97.76 5.35 100.00 5.35 100.00 5.35 100.00 5.35
1954 8.05 89.64 8.05 89.64 8.05 89.64 8.06 89.76 8.98
1955 2.70 59.34 3.40 74.73 4.54 99.78 4.56 100.22 4.55
1956 2.58 81.13 2.60 81.76 2.60 81.76 3.16 99.37 3.18
1957 1.42 38.69 1.82 49.59 2.36 64.31 2.96 80.65 3.67
1958 4.18 51.80 4.38 54.28 4.38 54.28 6.15 76.21 8.07
1959 4.17 84.58 4.25 86.21 4.38 88.84 4.41 89.45 4.93
1960 1.75 100.00 1.75 100.00 1.75 100.00 1.75 100.00 1.75
1961 1.70 78.34 1.70 78.34 2.08 95.85 2.16 99.54 2.17
1962 3.02 87.54 3.23 93.62 3.24 93.91 3.46 100.29 3.45
1963 1.14 44.02 1.15 44.40 1.40 54.05 1.40 54.05 2.59
1964 2.78 35.32 2.99 37.99 3.95 50.19 4.51 57.31 7.87
1965 1.55 90.12 1.72 100.00 1.72 100.00 1.72 100.00 1.72
1966 0.57 29.38 1.05 54.12 1.22 62.89 1.52 78.35 1.94
1967 1.11 54.95 1.11 54.95 1.89 93.56 1.93 95.54 2.02
1968 2.82 98.26 2.87 100.00 2.87 100.00 2.87 100.00 2.87
1969 4.60 94.65 4.64 95.47 4.86 100.00 4.86 100.00 4.86
1970 1.42 71.72 1.73 87.37 1.73 87.37 1.93 97.47 1.98
1974 1.42 86.06 1.47 89.09 1.65 100.00 1.65 100.00 1.65
1975 1.66 60.58 2.00 72.99 2.74 100.00 2.74 100.00 2.74
1978 3.34 89.30 3.74 100.00 3.74 100.00 3.74 100.00 3.74
1979 1.50 67.57 1.91 86.04 2.22 100.00 2.22 100.00 2.22
1980 2.91 35.97 4.69 57.97 6.54 80.84 8.07 99.75 8.09
1981 2.80 56.68 4.41 89.27 4.94 100.00 4.94 100.00 4.94
1982 1.52 57.14 1.87 70.30 1.87 70.30 2.30 86.47 2.66
1983 3.33 90.24 3.53 95.66 3.53 95.66 3.53 95.66 3.69
1984 1.58 66.11 1.58 66.11 1.64 68.62 1.70 71.13 2.39
1985 1.43 30.95 2.98 64.50 2.98 64.50 2.98 64.50 4.62
1986 1.50 58.37 2.35 91.44 2.35 91.44 2.35 91.44 2.57
1987 2.33 100.00 2.33 100.00 2.33 100.00 2.33 100.00 2.33
1988 1.39 45.87 2.19 72.28 2.19 72.28 2.22 73.27 3.03
1989 0.93 61.59 1.23 81.46 1.51 100.00 1.51 100.00 1.51
1990 2.42 74.01 2.59 79.20 2.59 79.20 2.59 79.20 3.27
1996 3.27 43.78 4.61 61.71 5.79 77.51 6.91 92.50 7.47
1997 1.69 28.40 2.51 42.18 3.28 55.13 4.02 67.56 5.95
1998 2.32 100.00 2.32 100.00 2.32 100.00 2.32 100.00 2.32
1999 3.2 92.22 3.44 99.14 3.47 100.00 3.47 100.00 3.47
2000 2.17 50.12 3.31 76.44 4.09 94.46 4.33 100.00 4.33
2001 2.95 86.01 3.43 100.00 3.43 100.00 3.43 100.00 3.43
2002 1.09 93.97 1.16 100.00 1.16 100.00 1.16 100.00 1.16
2003 1.74 52.57 3.31 100.00 3.31 100.00 3.31 100.00 3.31
2004 2.28 100.00 2.28 100.00 2.28 100.00 2.28 100.00 2.28
2005 5.08 94.25 5.39 100.00 5.39 100.00 5.39 100.00 5.39
∑ %age 69.98 80.89 87.69 91.62
103
Annexure-A
Table A.9:- 3-Hrs Rainfall Distribution.
Year 0.25 hr %age 0.5 hr %age 1 hr %age 2 hrs %age 3 hrs

1940 0.89 40.45 1.65 75.00 2.05 93.18 2.05 93.18 2.20
1949 0.22 42.31 0.27 51.92 0.32 61.54 0.41 78.85 0.52
1956 0.42 16.28 0.79 30.62 1.42 55.04 2.22 86.05 2.58
1959 1.11 41.11 1.85 68.52 2.23 82.59 2.59 95.93 2.70
1960 0.50 28.57 0.90 51.43 1.24 70.86 1.46 83.43 1.75
1965 0.47 30.32 0.50 32.26 0.50 32.26 0.87 56.13 1.55
1966 0.26 45.61 0.41 71.93 0.43 75.44 0.48 84.21 0.57
1970 0.30 21.13 0.55 38.73 0.86 60.56 1.28 90.14 1.42
1974 0.40 28.17 0.80 56.34 1.35 95.07 1.40 98.59 1.42
1978 1.30 38.92 2.60 77.84 2.99 89.52 3.15 94.31 3.34
1980 0.79 27.15 1.18 40.55 1.89 64.95 2.56 87.97 2.91
1982 0.59 37.82 0.98 62.82 1.40 89.74 1.56 100.00 1.56
1983 0.79 23.72 1.54 46.25 2.44 73.27 3.03 90.99 3.33
1984 0.39 24.68 0.75 47.47 0.75 47.47 1.42 89.87 1.58
1985 0.39 25.00 0.79 50.64 1.18 75.64 1.34 85.90 1.56
∑ %age 31.42 53.49 71.14 87.70
104
Annexure-B
Annexure B
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF
PARTIALLY COMBINED SYSTEM
105
Annexure-B
106
Annexure-B
107
Annexure-B
108
Annexure-B
109
Annexure-B
110
Annexure-B
111
Annexure-B
112
Annexure-B
113
Annexure-B
114
Annexure-B
115
Annexure-B
116
Annexure-B
117
Annexure-B
118
Annexure-B
119
Annexure-B
120
Annexure-B
121
Annexure-B
122
Annexure-B
123
Annexure-B
124
Annexure-B
125
Annexure-B
126
Annexure-C
Annexure C
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF
SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
127
Annexure-C
128
Annexure-C
129
Annexure-C
130
Annexure-C
131
Annexure-C
132
Annexure-C
133
Annexure-C
134
Annexure-C
135
Annexure-C
136
Annexure-C
137
Annexure-C
138
Annexure-C
139
Annexure-C
140
Annexure-C
141
Annexure-C
142
Annexure-C
143
Annexure-C
144
Annexure-C
145
Annexure-C
146
Annexure-C
147
Annexure-C
148
Annexure-D
Annexure D
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF
WITH
PARK STORAGE
149
Annexure-D
150
Annexure-D
151
Annexure-D
152
Annexure-D
153
Annexure-D
154
Annexure-D
155
Annexure-D
156
Annexure-D
157
Annexure-D
158
Annexure-D
159
Annexure-D
160
Annexure-D
161
Annexure-D
162
Annexure-D
163
Annexure-D
164
Annexure-D
165
Annexure-D
166
Annexure-D
167
Annexure-D
168
Annexure-D
169
Annexure-D
170
Annexure-D
171
Annexure-D
172
Annexure-D
173
Annexure-E
Annexure E
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF
WITH
PARK & LAWN STORAGE
174
Annexure-E
175
Annexure-E
176
Annexure-E
177
Annexure-E
178
Annexure-E
179
Annexure-E
180
Annexure-E
181
Annexure-E
182
Annexure-E
183
Annexure-E
184
Annexure-E
185
Annexure-E
186
Annexure-E
187
Annexure-E
188
Annexure-E
189
Annexure-E
190
Annexure-E
191
Annexure-E
192
Annexure-E
193
Annexure-E
194
Annexure-E
195
Annexure-E
196
Annexure-E
197
Annexure-E
198
Annexure-E
199
Annexure-E
200
Annexure-E
201
Annexure-E
202
Annexure-E
203
Annexure-E
204
Annexure-F
Annexure F
ESTIMATION OF QUANTITIES
&
COSTING
205
Annexure-F
206
Annexure-F
207
Annexure-F
208
Annexure-F
209
Annexure-F
210
Annexure-F
211
Annexure-F
212
Annexure-F
213
Annexure-F
214
Annexure-F
215

Wasif M.SC thesis-IDF Curves For Lahore PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wasif M.SC thesis-IDF Curves For Lahore PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Evaluation of Alternative Techniques for

Stormwater Management under Local

PROF. DR. WARIS ALI

INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & RESEARCH,

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & RESEARCH,

Prof. Dr Javed Anwar Aziz

Figure 2.1 Typical Green-Roof Details 10

BMPs Best Management Practices

The objectives of the study are:

1) Identification of various stormwater control techniques for local conditions.

2) Evaluation of social, technical and economical feasibility of alternative stormwater

3) Development of guidelines for the design of stormwater drainage systems under

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

1) Field data were collected about topography, climatic conditions, Socio-economic

2) Different stormwater techniques (Vegetated Swales, Depressed Lawn and dry

2.1 STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

Conventional stormwater management is basically reactive in nature (i.e. action is taken

2.2 CONVENTIONAL STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

There are three approaches for the design of conventional system.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

In view of the problems associated with conventional drainage systems, alternative

Catchments wide approach is recommended for controlling the discharge of stormwater

2.4 DEFINATION OF BMPs CATEGORIES AND TYPES

Table 2.1: Classification of BMPs and their Definition

Category A: This category contains those BMPs which have a permanent

Wet pond The pond which have a permanent pool of water.

Shallow wetland A wetland that has a wet shallow marsh.

Extended detention A wetland system that provides some storage by detaining

Constructed wetland The systems that perform a series of pollutant removal

Retention pond (wet) Surface pond with a permanent pool of water.

Category B This category comprises of those practices which are used to

Category C A practice that provides storage along with gradual release of

Group D This category consists of those practices that capture and

Infiltration Basin It is relatively large, open depressions produced by either

Porous Pavement Pervious pavement consists of a permeable surface course

Category E This category consists of those practices which capture and

Swale Generally a swale refers to vegetated open channel

Dry Swale An open drainage channel designed to detain and promote

Wet Swale Basically designed for runoff treatment. It consists of an open

Infiltration Swale Planted areas designed specifically to accept runoff from

Green Roofs It consisting of a vegetative layer that effectively reduces

2.5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF BMPs

2.5.1 Green Roofs

Figure 2.1: Typical Green-Roof Details

provide firefighting needs. Storage/reuse techniques are useful in urban areas

Figure 2.2: Typical Rain Barrel

Cisterns are large, underground or surface containers designed to hold large

Figure 2.3: Underground Cistern for Landscape Irrigation

2.5.3 Recharge Garden / Bioretention

Figure 2.4: Typical Bioretention Facility

2.5.4 Dry Well / Seepage Pit

Figure 2.5: Cross Section of a Dry Well.

2.5.5 Modular Porous Paver System

Figure 2.6: Examples of Modular Porous Pavers

Figure 2.7: Typical Modular Porous Paver System Applications

2.5.6 Vegetated Swale

Typically a vegetated swale consists of dense vegetation, underlain by permeable

Figure 2.8: Plan and Profile of a vegetated Swale

Figure 2.9: Vegetated Swale with Infiltration Trench

2.5.7 Infiltration Trench

Figure 2.11: Infiltration Trench

Upgraded source code to Visual Basic