CHAPTER 14

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF
URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Ben Chie Yen

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois
A.Osman Akan
Department of Civil and Enviromental Engineering
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia

U.I.

INTRODUCTION

Generally speaking urban drainage systems consist of three parts: the overland surface
flow system, the sewer network, and the underground porous media drainage system.
Some elements of these components are shown schematically in Fig. 14.1. Traditionally
no design is considered for the urban porous media drainage part. Recently porous media
drainage facilities such as infiltration trenches have been designed for flood reduction or
pollution control in cities with high land costs. For example, preliminary work on this
aspect of urban porous media drainage design can be found in Fujita (1987), Morita et al.
(1996), Takaaki and Fujita (1984) and Yen and Akan (1983). Much has yet to be developed to refine and standardize on such designs; no further discussion on this underground
subject will be given in this chapter.
From a hydraulic engineering viewpoint, urban drainage problems can be classified
into two types: (1) design and (2) prediction for forecasting or operation. The required
hydraulic level of the latter is often higher than the former. In design, a drainage facility
is to be built to serve all future events not exceeding a specified design hydrologic level.
Implicitly the size of the apparatus is so determined that all rainstorms equal to and
smaller than the design storm are presumably considered and accounted for. Sewers,
ditches, and channels in a drainage network each has its own time of concentration and
hence its own design storm. In the design of a network all these different rainstorms
should be considered. On the other hand, in runoff prediction the drainage apparatus has
already been built or predetermined, its dimensions known, and simulation of flow from
a particular single rainstorm event is made for the purpose of real-time forecasting to be
used for operation and runoff control, or sometimes for the determination of the flow of
a past event for legal purposes. The hydrologic requirements for these two types of problems are different. In the case of prediction, a given rainstorm with its specific temporal
and spatial distributions is considered. For design purposes, hypothetical rainstorms with
assigned design return period or acceptable risk level and assumed temporal and spatial

FIGURE 14.1 Schematic of components of urban catchment. (From Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. et al., 1971).
distributions of the rainfall are used. Table 14.1 lists some of these two types of design
and prediction problems.
In the case of sanitary sewers, for design purposes the problem becomes the estimation of the critical runoffs in both quantity and quality, from domestic, commercial, and
TABLE 14.1 Types of Urban Drainage Problems (a) Design Problems
Type

Design Purpose

Hydro Information
Sought

Required Hydraulic
Level

Sewers

Pipe size (and slope)

determination
Channel dimensions

Peak discharge, Qp for

design return period
Peak discharge, Qp for
design return period
Design hydrograph, Q(t)

Low

Design hydrograph, Q(t)

Low to moderate

Design peak discharge,

G,
Design peak discharge,
G,,
Design hydrograph
Design hydrograph

Low to moderate

Drainage channels
Detention/retention
storage ponds
Manholes and
junctions
Roadside gutters

Geometric dimensions
(and outlet design)
Geometric dimensions

Inlet catch basins

Geometric dimensions

Pumps
Control gates
or valves

Capacity
Capacity

Geometric dimensions

Low to moderate
Low to moderate

Low

Moderate to high
Moderate to high

TABLE 14.1 (continued) Types of Urban Drainage Problems (b) Prediction Problems
Type

Purpose

Hydro Input

Real-time
operation

Real-time
regulation
of flow
Simulation for
evaluation of
a system
Determination
of runoff at
specific locations
for particular past
or specified events
Determination
of the extent
of flooding
Reduce and
control of water
pollution due to
runoff from
rainstorms
Long-term, usually
large spatial scale
planning for
stormwater
management

Predicted and/or just Hydrographs, Q(t, jc() High

measured rainfall,
network data
Specific storm
Hydrographs, Q(t, x) High
event, network data

Performance
evaluation
Storm event
simulation

Flood level
determination
Storm runoff
quality
control
Storm runoff
master
planning

Hydro Information
Sought

Required Hydraulic
Level

Given past storm

event or specified
input hyetographs,
network data

Hydrographs, Q(t, jc.)

Moderate-high

Specific storm
hyetographs,
netwark data
Event or continuous
rain and pollutant
data, network data

Hydrographs and
stages

High

Long-term data

Hydrographs Q(t, Jt1) Moderate to high

Pollutographs, c(t, X1)

Runoff volume
Pollutant volume

Low

industrial sources over the service period in the future. For real-time control problems it
involves simulation and prediction of the sanitary runoff in conjunction with the control
measures.
The basic hydraulic principles useful for urban drainage have been presented in
Chapter 3 for free surface flows, Chapters 2 and 12 for pipe flows, and Chapter 10 for
pump systems. In the following, more specific applications of the hydraulics to urban
drainage components will be described. However, the hydraulic design for drainage of
highway and street surfaces, roadside gutters, and inlets has been described in Chapter 13,
design of stable erodible open channels in Chapter 16, and certain flow measurement
structures adaptable to urban drainage in Chapter 21; therefore they are not included in
this chapter.

74.2

HYDRAULICS OF DRAINAGE CHANNELS

Flows in urban drainage channels usually are open-channel flows with a free water surface.
However, sewer pipes, culverts, and similar conduits under high flow conditions could
become surcharged, and pressurized conduit flows do occur. Strictly speaking, the flow is

always unsteady, that is, changing with time. Nevertheless, in a number of situations, such
as in most cases of flow in sanitary sewers and for some rainstorm runoffs, change of flow
with time is slow enough that the flow can be regarded as approximately steady.
14.2.1 Open-Channel Flow
Open-channel flow occurs on overland, ditches, channels, and sewers in urban areas.
Unsteady flow in open channels can be described by a momentum equation given below
in both discharge (conservative) and velocity (nonconservative) forms together with its
various simplified approximate models:
_ L M + i afPfi!]+ i f Uj11*,+ -*. +s,f = o.
gA dt
gAdx(A ) gA Ja ^
dx

(i4.i)

dynamic wave
quasi-steady dynamic wave
noninertia
kinematic wave
lf

(2p-l)^ + ( p - l ) ^ + M + f - 5 . + ^a

(14.2)

where x = flow longitudinal direction measured horizontally (Fig. 14.2); A = flow crosssectional area normal to x\ y = vertical direction; Y = depth of flow of the cross section,
measured vertically; Q = discharge through A; V = QIA, cross-sectional average velocity along x direction; S0 = channel slope, equal to tan 6, 9 = angle between channel bed
and horizontal plane; Sf = friction slope; a = perimeter bounding the cross section A; ql
= lateral flow rate (e.g., rain or infiltration) per unit length of channel and unit length of
perimeter a, being positive for inflow; Ux = ^-component velocity of lateral flow when

FIGURE 14.2 Schematic of open, channel flow.

joining the main flow; g = gravitational acceleration; t = time; M = CgA)-1 I (Ux

V)q1 da and (3 = Boussinesq momentum flux correction coefficient for velocity distribution:
P = ^l u2dA

(14.3)

u = ^-component of local (point) velocity averaged over turbulence.

The continuity equation is
(14 4)
+ f = i*
If the channel is prismatic or very wide, such as the case of overland flow, Eq. (14.4) can
be written as

f + s (vy) = U-*

(14 5)

where b is the water surface width of the cross section.

In practice, it is more convenient to set the x and y coordinates along the horizontal
longitudinal direction and gravitational vertical direction, respectively, when applied to
flow on overland surface and natural channels for which S0 = tan 0. For human-made
straight prismatic channels, sewers, pipes, and culverts, it is more convenient to set the xy directions along and perpendicular to the longitudinal channel bottom. In this case, the
flow depth h is measured along the y direction normal to the bed and it is related to Y by
Y= h cos 6, whereas the channel slope S0 = sin 0.
The friction slope Sf is usually estimated by using a semiempirical formula such as
Manning's formula
riiy\-y\
n2Q\Q\
Sf = ^P R -^ = -^ R ^
(14.6)
or the Darcy-Weisbach formula
^-ife-M-j^
where n = Manning's roughness factor, Kn = 1.486 for English units and 1.0 for SI units;
/ = the Weisbach resistance coefficient; and R = the hydraulic radius, which is equal to
A divided by the wetted perimeter. The absolute sign is used to account for the occurrence
of flow reversal.
Theoretically, the values of n and / for unsteady nonuniform open-channel and pressurized conduit flows have not been established. They depend on the pipe surface roughness and bed form if sediment is transported, Reynolds number, Froude number, and
unsteadiness and nonuniformity of the flow (Yen, 1991). One should be careful that for
unsteady nonuniform flow, the friction slope is different from either the pipe slope, the dissipated energy gradient, the total-head gradient, or the hydraulic gradient. Only for steady
uniform flow without lateral flow are these different gradients equal to one another.
At present, we can only use the steady uniform flow values of n and/given in the literature as approximations. The advantage of/is its theoretical basis from fluid mechanics and its being nondimensional. Its values for steady uniform flow can be found from
the Moody diagram or the Colebrook-White formula given in Chap. 2, as well as in stan-

dard hydraulics and fluid mechanics references. Its major disadvantage is that for a given
pipe and surface roughness, the value of/varies not merely with the Reynolds number but
also with the flow depth. In other words, as the flow depth in the sewer changes during a
storm runoff,/must be recomputed repeatedly.
Manning's n was originally derived empirically. Its major disadvantage is its troublesome dimension of length to one-sixth power that is often misunderstood. Its main advantage is that for flows with sufficiently high Reynolds number over a rigid boundary with
a given surface roughness in a prismatic channel, the value of n is nearly constant over a
wide range of depth (Yen, 1991). Values of n can be found in Chow (1959) or Chap. 3.
Other resistance coefficients and formulas, such as Chezy's or Hazen-Williams's, have
also been used. They possess neither the direct fluid mechanics justification as/nor independence of depth as n. Therefore, they are not recommended here. In fact, HazenWilliams' may be considered as a special situation of Darcy-Weisbach's formula. A discussion of the preference of the resistance coefficients can be found in Yen (1991).
Equations (14.6) and (14.7) are applicable to both surcharged and open-channel
flows. For the open-channel case, the pipe is flowing partially filled and the geometric
parameters of the flow cross section are computed from the geometry equations given
in Fig. 14.3.
The pair of momentum and continuity equations [Eqs. (14.1) and (14.4) or Eqs. (14.2)
and (14.5)] with ( 3 = 1 and no lateral flow is often referred to as the Saint-Venant equations or full dynamic wave equations. Actually, they are not an exact representation of the
unsteady flow because they involve at least the following assumptions: hydrostatic
pressure distribution over A, uniform velocity distribution over A (hence (3 = 1), and negligible spatial gradient of the force due to internal stresses.
Those interested in the more exact form of the unsteady flow equations should refer to
Yen (1973b, 1975,1996). Conversely, simplified forms of the momentum equation, namely, the noninertia (misnomer diffusion wave) and kinematic wave approximations of the
full momentum equation [Eq. (14.1)] are often used for the analysis of urban drainage
flow problems.
Among the approximations shown in Eqs. (14.1) or (14.2), the quasi-steady dynamic
wave equation is usually less accurate and more costly in computation than the noninertia equation, and hence, is not recommended for sewer flows. Akan and Yen (1981),
among others, compared the application of the dynamic wave, noninertia, and kinematic
wave equations for flow routing in networks and found the noninertia approximation generally agrees well with the dynamic wave solutions, whereas the solution of the kinematic wave approximate is clearly different from the dynamic wave solution, especially when
the downstream backwater effect is important. Table 25.2 of Yen (1996) gives the proper
form of the equations to be used for different flow conditions.

Flow Area A= -^-($-sin$)

Hydraulic Radius R * -^-(I--~^-)
Depth h = Y11"008"!"5
Water Surface Width 8 = Dsin-|4, in Radians
FIGURE 14.3 Sewer pipe flow geometry. (From Yen, 1986a)

TABLE 14.2 Theoretical Comparison of Approximations to Dynamic Wave Equation

Boundary conditions required

Account for downstream
backwater effect and flow reversal
Damping of flood peak
Account for flow acceleration

Kinematic
wave

Noninertia

Quasi-steady
dynamic wave

Dynamic
wave

1
No

2
Yes

2
Yes

2
Yes

No
No

Yes
No

Yes
Only
convective
acceleration

Yes
Yes

Analytical solutions do not exist for Eqs. (14.1) and (14.2) or their simplified forms
except for very simple cases of the kinematic wave and noninertia approximations.
Solutions are usually sought numerically as described in Chap. 12. In solving the differential equations, in addition to the initial condition, boundary conditions should also be
properly specified. Table 14.2 shows the boundary conditions required for the different
levels of approximations of the momentum equation. It also shows the abilities of the
approximations in accounting for downstream backwater effects, flood peak attenuation,
and flow acceleration.
For flows that can be considered as invariant with time the steady flow momentum
equations which are simplified from Eq. (14.2) for different conditions are given in Table
14.3. The lateral flow contribution, mq, can be from rainfall (positive) or infiltration (negative) or both. Instead of these equations, the following Bernoulli total head equation is
often used for flow profile computations:
TABLE 14.3 Cross-Section-Averaged One-Dimensional Momentum Equations for Steady Flow of
Incompressible Homogeneous Fluid
Prismatic channel
Constant piezometric
pressure distribution
K = K' = 1
P = constant
K=K' = I
Prismatic or wide
channel
Definitions:
Dh=A/ water surface width;

K and K* = piezometric pressure distribution cor

rection factors for main an lateral flows;

oc V2
a V2
-^f + Y2 +yb2 = -^+Yl+ybl + he + hq,

(14.8)

where the subscripts 1 and 2 = the cross sections at the two ends of the computational reach,
Ax, of the channel, Y + yb the stage of the water surface where the channel bed elevation
at section 1 is ybl and that at section 2 is yb2 = ybl + S0 Ax; hq is the energy head from the
lateral flow, if any; the energy head loss he = Se Ax where Se is the slope of the energy line;
and a = the Coriolis convective kinetic energy flux correction coefficient due to nonuniform velocity distribution over the cross section (Chow, 1959; Yen, 1973). If there are other
energy losses, they should be added to the right-hand side of the equation. Methods of backwater surface profile computation using these equations are discussed in Chap. 3.
If the flow is steady and uniform, Eqs. (14.1) and (14.4) or Eqs. (14.2) and (14.5)
reduce to S0 = Sf and Q = AV. Hence, for steady uniform flow using Manning's formula,
Q = 0.0496 ^ S0"2 D ^ ~(t)S2^(|))5/3

(14.9)

where <|) is in radians (Fig. 14.3). Correspondingly, the Darcy-Weisbach formula yields
Q = l^ D 5 f l (^n^
Figure 14.4 is a plot of these two equations that can be used to find $.

(141Q)

14.2.2 Surcharge Flow

Sewers, culverts, and other drainage pipes sometimes flow full with water under pressure,
often known as surcharge flow (Fig. 14.5). Such pressurized conduit flow occurs under
extreme heavy rainstorms or under designed pipes. There are two ways to simulate
unsteady surcharge flow in urban drainage: (1) The standard transient pipe flow approach
and (2) the hypothetical piezometric open slot approach.
14.2.2.1 Standard transient pipe flow approach. In this approach, the flow is considered as it is physically, that is, pressurized transient pipe flow. For a uniform size
pipe, the flow cross-sectional area is constant, being equal to the full pipe area A^
hence 3A/3.X = O. The continuity and momentum equations [Eqs. (14.4) and (14.2)
with ql = O] can be rewritten as
Q=AfV

(14.11)

S /
-^
f
g 8r + ^{
dx ( g + -}=YJ

<14-12>

where P0 = the piezometric pressure of the flow and y = the specfic weight of the fluid.
If the pipe has a constant cross section and is flowing full with an incompressible fluid
throughout its length, then 3V/3jt = O. By further neglecting the spatial variation of P,
integration of Eq. (14.12) over the entire length, L, of the sewer pipe yields
P

exit

-f entrance

V2
=

yi

i av"i

v 5/+ ^
"-*i-^-*'IH

'

(1413)

(Degrees)

< (Radians)
FIGURE 14.4 Central angle cj> of water surface
in circular pipe (from Yen, 1986a).

FIGURE 14.5 Surcharge flow in a sewer. (After

Pansic, 1980).
or
(14 14)
Jr?-*--*'-^ + *^-^
'
where H11 = the total head at the entrance of the pipe, Hd = the water surface outside the
pipe exit, and Ku and Kd = the entrance and exit loss coefficients, respectively (Fig. 14.5).
Equations (14.11) and (14.12) can also be derived as a special case of the commonly used
general, basic, closed conduit transient flow continuity equation for waterhammer and
pressure surge analysis, see, e.g., Chaudhry, 1979; Stephenson, 1984; Wood, 1980; Wylie
and Streeter, 1983.

or

+
T^
A Jr -
p Jr ?
a* =

<14-15)

i a# a# c2 av
----1 + ^-+- -- + ^n 9 = 0
F a/
dx gV dx

(14.16)

and the momentum equation

i av v av a//
-^- + -^- + - ^ - + &f = 0
S ar
g dx
dx

(14.17)

where p = the bulk density of the fluid, H = PJj = the piezometric head above the reference datum, and c = the celerity of the pressure surge. The fact that Eqs. (14.11) and
(14.12) can be derived from Eqs. (14.2) and (14.5) is the theoretical basis of the
Preissmann hypothetical slot concept, which will be discussed below.
14.2.2.2 Hypothetical slot approach. This approach introduces hypothetically a continuous, narrow, piezometric slot attached to the pipe crown and over the entire length of the
pipe as shown in Fig. 14.6. The idea is to transform the pressurized conduit flow situation
into a conceptual open-channel flow situation by introducing a virtual free surface to the
flow. The idea was suggested by Preissmann (Cunge and Wegner, 1964). The hypothetical open-top slot should be narrow so that it would not introduce appreciable error in the
volume of water. Conversely, the slot cannot be too narrow, with the aim of avoiding the
numerical problem associated with a rapidly moving pressure surge.
A theoretical basis for the determination of the width of the slot is to size the width
such that the wave celerity in the slotted sewer is the same as the surge celerity of the compressible water in the actual elastic pipe. The celerity C1 of the slot pipe is
C1 = ^A/b

(14.18)

where b = the slot width and A = the flow cross-sectional area. Neglecting the area contribution of the slot and hence A = Af = nD2/4 for a circular pipe, and equating C1 to the
pressure wave speed c in the elastic pipe without the hypothetical slot, the theoretical slot
width is

FIGURE 14.6 Preissmann hypothetical piezometric open slot.

b = ngD2/4c2

(14.19)

The surge speed in a pipe usually ranged from a few hundred feet per second to a few
thousand feet per second. For an elastic pipe with a wall thickness e and Young's modulus of
elasticity EpJ assuming no pressure force from the soil acting on the pipe, the surge speed c is
Hf)('+(^)]
where Ef is the bulk modulus of elasticity and p/ is the bulk density, respectively, of the
flowing water (Wylie and Streeter, 1983). Special conditions of pipe anchoring against
longitudinal expansion or contraction and elasticity relevant to the surge speed c are given
in Table 14.4 where co = Poisson's ratio for the pipe wall material, that is, -co is the ratio
of the lateral unit strain to axial unit strain, and a is a constant to account for the rigidity
with respect to axial expansion of the pipe. For small pipes, Eq. (14.19) may give too
small a slot width, which would cause numerical problems. Cunge et al. (1980) recommend a width of 1 cm or larger.
The transition between part-full pipe flow and slot flow is by no means computationally smooth and easy, and assumptions are necessary (Cunge and Mazadou, 1984). One
approach is to assume a gradual width transition from the pipe to the slot. Sjoberg (1982)
suggested two alternatives for the slot width based on two different values of the wave
speed c in Eq. (14.19). For the alternative applicable to h/D > 0.9999, his suggested slot
width b can be expressed as
L = 10-6 + 0.05423 exp[-(/i/>)24]

(14.21)

He further proposed to compute the flow area A and hydraulic radius R when the depth h
is greater than the pipe diameter D as
TABLE 14.4 Special Conditions of Surge Speed in Full Pipe, Eq. (14.20)
Factor
Pipe Anchor

Condition
T| = ^(l + (D) + a D D+ e

Freedom of pipe
longitudinal
expansion

Only one
Entirely free
(expansion joints at both ends) end anchored

Entire length
anchored

Value of axial
expansion factor a

1 -co 2

Rigid pipe
, = 00

Air entrainment
P7 = pwVw + pfla

c> = Ef/Pf

Ef

1 - 0.5 co

Elasticity E

1 + VJi(EJEJ - 1

Subscript w denotes water (liquid); Subscript a = air; subscript/ = fluid mixture; Y = volume.

No air

P/ = Pw
E

f=

E
W

A = (nD2/4) + (h- D)b

(14.22)

R = D/4

(14.23)

A slight improvement to Sjoberg's suggestion to provide a smoother computational

transition is to use
A = A9999 + b(h - 0.9999Z))
(14.24)
for hiD > 0.9999 and assume that the transition starts at hiD = 0.91. Between hiD = 0.91
and 0.9999, real pipe area A and surface width B are used. However, for h/D > 0.91, R is
computed from Manning's formula using pipe slope and a discharge equal to the steady
uniform flow at h = 0.9ID, Q91; thus, for h/D > 0.91
R = (A91IA)R91

(14.25)

Because of the lack of reliable data, neither the standard surcharge sewer solution
method nor the Preissmann hypothetical open-slot approach has been verified for a single
pipe or a network of pipes. Past experiences with waterhammer and pressure surge problems in closed conduits may provide some indirect verification of the applicability of the
basic flow equations to unsteady sewer flows. Nevertheless, direct verification is highly
desirable.
Jun and Yen (1985) performed a numerical testing and found there is no clear superiority of one approach over the other. Nevertheless, specific comparison between them is
given in Table 14.5. They suggested that if the sewers in a network are each divided into
many computational reaches and a significant part of the flow duration is under surcharge,
the standard approach saves computer time. Conversely, if transition between open-channel and pressurized conduit flows occurs frequently and the transitional stability problem
is important, the slot model would be preferred.

TABLE 14.5 Comparison Between Standard Surcharge Approach and Slot Approach
Item

Standard Surcharge Approach

Hypothetical Slot Approach

Concept
Flow equations

Direct physical
Two different sets, one equation
for surcharge flow, two equations
for open-channel flow

Discretization for solution

Whole pipe length for

surcharge flow
Constant

Conceptual
Same set of two equations
(continuity and momentum)
for surcharge and openchannel flows
Divide into AJC' s

Water volume within pipe

Discharge in pipe at
given time

Same

Transition between
open channel flow and
surcharge flow

Specific criteria

Varies slightly with slot

size, inaccurate if slot is too
wide, stability problems if
slot is too narrow
Varies slightly with AJC, thus
allows transition to progress
within pipe
Slot width transition to avoid
numerical instability

TABLE 14.5 (Continued)

Item

Standard Surcharge Approach

Part full over pipe length

Assume entire pipe length full

or free
Time accounting for transition Yes, specific inventory of
surcharged pipes at different times
Programming efforts
More complicated because of two
sets of equations and time accountirig
and computer storage for transition

Computational effort

74.3

Depending mainly on accounting

for transition times

Hypothetical Slot Approach

Assume full or free Ax by Ar
No, implicit
Relatively simple because of
one equation set and no
specific accounting and
storage for transition
between open-channel and
full-pipe flows
Depending mainly on space
discretization Ax

FLOWINASEWER

14.3.1 Flow in a Single Sewer

Open-channel flow in sewers and other drainage conduits are usually unsteady, nonuniform, and turbulent. Subcritical flows occur more often than supercritical. For slowly time
varying flow such as the case of the flow traveling time through the entire length of the
sewer much smaller than the rising time of the flow hydrograph, the flow can often be
treated approximately as stepwise steady without significant error.
The flow in a sewer can be divided into three regions: the entrance, the pipe flow, and
the exit. Figure 14.7 shows a classification of 10 different cases of nonuniform pipe flow

subcritical

supercritical to surcharge

supercritical

subcritical to surcharge

supercritical to subcritical

surcnarge to supercritical

subcritical to supercritical

surcharge to subcritical

supercritical jump to surcharge

surcharge

FIGURE 14.7 Classification of flow in a sewer pip

(After Yen, 1986a).

easel

(b) case II

(c) case HI

(d) case IV
FIGURE 14.8 Types of sewer entrance flow.
(After Yen, 1986a).
based on whether the flow at a given instant is subcritical, supercritical, or surcharge.
There are four cases of pipe entrance condition, as shown in Fig. 14.8 and below:
Case

Pipe entrance hydraulic condition

I
II
III
IV

Nonsubmerged entrance, subcritical flow

Nonsubmerged entrance, supercritical flow
Submerged entrance, air pocket
Submerged entrance, water pocket

Case I is associated with downstream control of the pipe flow. Case II is associated
with upstream control. In Case III, the pipe flow under the air pocket may be subcritical,
supercritical, or transitional. In Case IV, the sewer flow is often controlled by both the
upstream and downstream conditions.
Pipe exit conditions also can be grouped into four cases as shown in Fig. 14.9 and
below:
Case

Pipe exit hydraulic condition

A
B
C
D

Nonsubmerged, free fall

Nonsubmerged, continuous
Nonsubmerged, hydraulic jump
Submerged

case A

case B

case C

case D
FIGURE 14.9 Types of sewer exit flow. (After
Yen, 1986a).
In Case A, the pipe flow is under exit control. In Case B, the flow is under upstream
control if it is supercritical and downstream control if subcritical. In Case C, the pipe flow
is under upstream control while the junction water surface is under downstream control.
In Case D, the pipe flow is often under downstream control, but it can also be under both
upstream and downstream control.
The possible combinations of the 10 cases of pipe flow with the entrance and exit conditions are shown in Table 14.6 for unsteady nonuniform flow. Some of these 27 possible
combinations are rather rare for unsteady flow and nonexistent for steady flow, for example, Case 6. For steady flow in a single sewer, by considering the different mild-slope M
and steep-slope 5 backwater curves (Chow, 1959) as different cases, there are 27 possible
cases in addition to the uniform flow, of which six types were reported by Bodhaine (1968).
TABLE 14.6 Pipe Flow Conditions
Pipe Flow

Possible
Entrance Conditions

Possible Exit
Conditions

Subcritical
Supercritical
Subcritical > hydraulic drop - supercritical
Supercritical > hydraulic jump > subcritical
Supercritical > hydraulic jump > surcharge
Supercritical surcharge
Subcritical > surcharge
Surcharge -> supercritical
Surcharge > subcritical
Surcharge

I, III
II, III
I, III
II, III
II, III
II, III
I, III
IV
IV
IV

A, B
B, C
B, C
A, B
D
D
D
B, C
A, B
D

Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Source: From Yen (1986a).

The nonuniform pipe flows shown in Fig. 14.7 are classified without considering the
different modes of air entrainment. The types of the water surface profile, equivalent to
the M, S, and A (adverse slope) types of backwater curves for steady flow, are also not
taken into account. Additional subcases of the 10 pipe flow cases can also be classified
according to rising, falling, or stationary water surface profiles. For the cases with a
hydraulic jump or drop, subcases can be grouped according to the movement of the jump
or drop, be it moving upstream or downstream or stationary. Furthermore, flow with
adverse sewer slope also exists because of flow reversal.
During runoff, the change in magnitude of the flow in a sewer can range from only a few
times dry weather low flow in a sanitary sewer to as much as manyfold for a heavy rainstorm runoff in a storm sewer. The time variation of storm sewer flow is usually much more
rapid than that of sanitary sewers. Therefore, the approximation of assuming steady flow is
more acceptable for sanitary sewers than for storm and combined sewers.
In the case of a heavy storm runoff entering an initially dry sewer, as the flow enters the
sewer, both the depth and discharge start to increase as illustrated in Fig. 14.10 at times J1,
t2, and t3 for the open-channel phase. As the flow continues to rise, the sewer pipe becomes
completely filled and surcharges as shown at t4 and ^5 in Fig. 14.10. Surcharge flow occurs
when the sewer is underdesigned, when the flood exceeds that of the design return period,
when the sewer is not properly maintained, or when storage and pumping occur.
Under surcharge conditions, the flow-cross-sectional area and depth can no longer
increase because of the sewer pipe boundary. However, as the flood inflow continues
to increase, the discharge in the sewer also increases due to the increasing difference
in head between the upstream and downstream ends of the sewer, as sketched in the
discharge hydrograph in Fig. 14.10. Even under surcharge conditions while the sewer

FIGURE 14.10 Time variation of flow in a sewer. (After

Yen, 1986a).

diameter remains constant, the flow is usually nonuniform. This is due to the effects of
the entrance and exit on the flow inside the sewer, and hence, the streamlines are
not parallel.
As the flood starts to recede, the aforementioned flow process is reversed. The sewer
will return from surcharged pipe flow to open-channel flow, shown at t6 and I1 in Figure
14.1. Since the recession is usuallybut not alwaysmore gradual than the rising of the
flood, the water surface profile in the sewer is usually more gradual during flow recession
than during rising.
The differences in the gradient of the water surface profiles during the rising and recession of the flood bear importance in the self-cleaning and pollutant-transport abilities of
the sewer. During the rising period, with relatively steep gradient, the flow can carry not
only the sediment it brings into the sewer but also erodes the deposit at the sewer bottom
from previous storms. For a given discharge and gradient, the amount of erosion increases with the antecedent duration of wetting and softening of the deposit. During the recession, with a flatter water surface gradient and deceleration of the flow, the sediment being
carried into the sewer by the flow tends to settle onto the sewer bottom.
If the storm is not heavy and the flood is not severe, the rising flow will not reach surcharge state. The flood may rise, for example, to the stage at r3 shown in Fig. 14.10 and
then starts to recede. The sewer remains under open-channel flow throughout the storm
runoff. For such frequent small storms, the flow in the sewer is so small that it is unable
to transport out the sediment it carries into the sewer, resulting in deposition to be cleaned
up by later heavy storms or through artificial means.
For a single-peak flood entering a long circular sewer having a diameter D and pipe
surface roughness k, Yen (1973a) reported that for open-channel flow, the attenuation of
the flood peak, Qpx, at a distance x downstream from the pipe entrance (x = O) and the corresponding occurrence time of this peak, tpx, can be described dimensionlessly as
n
(
( V / H17 (K Vo.42 ( Qn v-16
|-= exp
^
MH=
p -0.0771*- A
Qp0
l
(D][DJ (Dj
(D^ V^)
x

r (f
j?132 ~M
p *-^iM \

<14-26)

v
r
\(o ^
i
}(j V0-11 (R >66
(^-W^={6.03.oglo[{|)-0,8]-52o}(A)
[]
f
x

O4-4 l 0 -^

a0.82~|0.5

(1427)
[slM F ^ - ^ i M '
where Qp0 and tp0 = the peak discharge and its time of occurrence at x = O, respectively;
Qb is the steady base flow rate and Rb = hydraulic radius of the base flow; tg = the time
to the centroid of the inflow hydrograph at x = O above the base flow; g = the gravitational acceleration; and Vw = (QJA1) + (gAJB1)112 = the wave celerity of the base flow,
where Ab = the base flow cross = sectional area and Bb = the corresponding water-surface width. In both equations, the second nondimensional parameter in the right-hand side
klD is a pipe property parameter; the third parameter R1JD is a base flow parameter; the
fourth nondimensional parameter represents the influence of the flood discharge; whereas the fifth and last nondimensional parameter reflects the shape of the inflow hydrograph.
The single - peak hydrograph shown in Fig. 14.10 is an ideal case for the purpose of
illustration. In reality, because the phase shift of the peak flows in upstream sewers and
the time-varying nature of rainfall and inflow, usually the real hydrographs are multipeak.

Piezometric Gradient

Because the flow is nonuniform and unsteady, the depth-discharge relationship, also
known as the rating curve in hydrology, is nonunique. Even if we are willing to consider
the flow to be steady uniform as an approximation, the depth-discharge relation is nonlinear, and within a certain range, nonunique, as shown nondimensionally and ideally in Fig.
14.11 for a circular pipe. The nonunique depth-discharge relationship for nonuniform flow,
aided by the poor quality of the water and restricted access to the sewer, makes it difficult
to measure reliably the time-vary ing flow in sewers. Among the many simple and sophisticated mechanical or electronic measurement devices that have been attempted on sewers
and reported in the literature, the simple, mechanical Venturi-type meter, which has side
constriction instead of bottom constriction to minimize the effect of sediment clogging,
still appears to be the most practical measurement means, that is, if it is properly designed,
constructed, and calibrated and if it is located at a sufficient distance from the entrance and
exit of the sewer. On the other hand, the hydraulic performance graph described in Sec.
14.6.1 can be used to establish the rating curve for a steady nonuniform flow.

Depth-Diameter Ratio,

Area

Discharge

Hidraulic Radius

Velocity

Hydraulic Elements Relative to Full Cross Section,

FIGURE 14.11 Rating curve for steady uniform flow in
circular pipe.

Flow in sewers is perhaps one of the most complicated hydraulic phenomena. Even for
a single sewer, there are a number of transitional flow instability problems. One of them
is the surge instability of the flow in pipes of a network. The other four types of instabilities that could occur in a single sewer pipe are the following: The instability at the
transition between open-channel flow and full conduit flow, the transitional instability
between supercritical flow and subcritical flow in the open-channel phase, the water-surface roll-wave instability of supercritical open-channel flow, and a near dry-bed flow
instability. Further discussion on these instabilities can be found in Yen (1978b, 1986a). It
is important to realize the existence of these instabilities in flow modeling.
14.3.2. Discretization of Space-Time Domain of
a Sewer for Simulation
No analytical solutions are known for the SaintVenant equations or the surcharged
sewer flow equation. Therefore, these equations for sewer flows are solved numerically
with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. The differential terms in the partial differential equations are approximated by finite differences of selected grid points on a
space and time domain, a process often known as discretization. Substitution of the finite
differences into a partial differential equation transforms it into an algebraic equation.
Thus, the original set of differential equations can be transformed into a set of finite difference algebraic equations for numerical solution.
Theoretically, the computational grid of space and time need not be rectangular.
Neither need the space and time differences AJC and Af be kept constant. Nonetheless, it is
usually easier for computer coding to keep AJC and At constant throughout a computation.
For surcharge flow, Eq. (14.14) dictates the application of the equation to the entire length
of the sewer, and the discretization applies only to the time domain. In an open-channel
flow, it is normally advisable to subdivide the length of a sewer into two or three computational reaches of Ax, unless the sewer is unusually long or short. One computational
reach tends to carry significant inaccuracy due to the entrance and exit of the sewer and
is usually incapable of sufficiently reflecting the flow inside the sewer. Conversely, too
many computational reaches would increase the computational complexity and costs
without significant improvement in accuracy.
The selection of the time difference Ar is often an unhappy compromise of three criteria. The first criterion is the physically significant time required for the flow to pass
through the computational reach. Consider a typical range of sewer length between 100
and 1000 ft and divide it into two or three AJC, and a high flow velocity of 5-10 ft/s, a suitable computational time interval would be approximately 0.2-2 min. For a slowly varying unsteady flow, this criterion is not important and larger computational Ar will suffice.
For a rapidly varying unsteady flow, this criterion should be taken into account to ensure
the computation is physically meaningful.
The second criterion is a sufficiently small Ar to ensure numerical stability. An often-used
guide is the Courant criterion
Ac/Ar > V + VgAIB

(14.28)

In sewers, which usually have small AJC compared to rivers and estuaries, this criterion
often requires a Ar less than half a minute and sometimes 1 or 2 s.
The third criterion is the time interval of the available input data. It is rare to have rainfall or corresponding inflow hydrograph data with a time resolution as short as 2, 5, or
even 10 min. Values for Ar smaller than the data time resolution can only be interpolated.
This criterion becomes important if the in-between values cannot be reliably interpolated.

In a realistic application, all three criteria should be considered. Unfortunately, in many

computations only the second numerical stability is considered.
There are many, many numerical schemes that can be adopted for the solution of the
Saint-Venant equations or their approximate forms [Eqs. (14.1)-(14.5)]. They can be classified as explicit schemes, implicit schemes, and the method of characteristics. Many of
these methods are described in Chap. 12, as well as in Abbott and Basco (1990), Cunge
et al. (1980), Lai (1986), and Yen (1986a).
14.3.3 Initial and Boundary Conditions
As discussed previously and indicated in Table 14.1, boundary conditions, in addition to
initial conditions, must be specified to obtain a unique solution of the Saint-Venant equations or their approximate simplified equations.
The initial condition is, of course, the flow condition in the sewer pipe when computations start, t = O, that is, either the discharge Q(X, O), or the velocity V(x, O), paired with
the depth h(x, O). For a combined sewer, this is usually the dry-weather flow or base flow.
For a storm sewer, theoretically, this initial condition is a dry bed with zero depth, zero
velocity, and zero discharge. However, this zero initial condition imposes a singularity in
the numerical computation. To avoid this singularity problem, either a small depth or a
small discharge is assumed so that the computation can start. This assumption is justifiable because physically there is dry-bed film flow instability, and the flow, in fact, does
not start gradually and smoothly from dry bed. Based on dry-bed stability consideration,
an initial depth on the order of 0.25 in., or less than 5 mm, appears reasonable.
However, in sewers, this small initial depth usually is unsatisfactory because negative
depth is obtained at the end of the initial time step of the computation. The reason is that
the continuity equation of the reach often requires a water volume much bigger than the
amount of water in the sewer reach with a small depth. Hence, an initial discharge, or base
flow, that permits the computation to start is assumed. For a storm sewer, the magnitude
of the base flow depends on the characteristics of the inflow hydrograph, the sewer pipe,
the numerical scheme, and the size of Ar and AJC used. For small Ax and Ar, a relatively
large base flow is required, but may cause a significant error in the solution. In either case,
it is not uncommon that in the first few time steps of the computation, the calculated depth
and discharge decrease as the flood propagates, a result that contradicts the actual physical process of rising depth and discharge. Nonetheless, if the base flow is reasonably
selected and the numerical scheme is stable, this anomaly would soon disappear as the
computation progresses. An alternative to this assumed base flow approach to avoid the
numerical problem is to use an inverted Priessmann hypothetical slot throughout the pipe
bottom and assigning a small initial depth, discharge or velocity to start the computation.
Currey (1998) reported satisfactory use of slot width between 0.001 and 0.01 ft.
As to boundary conditions, when the Saint-Venant equations are applied to an interior
reach of a sewer not connected to its entrance or exit, the upstream condition is simply the
depth and discharge (or velocity) at the downstream end of the preceding reach, which are
identical with the depth and discharge at the upstream of the present reach. Likewise, the
downstream condition of the reach is the shared values of depth and discharge (or velocity) with the following reach. Therefore, the boundary conditions for an interior reach
need not be explicitly specified because they are implicitly accounted for in the flow equations of the adjacent reaches.
For the exterior reaches containing either the sewer entrance or the exit, the upstream
boundary conditions required depend on whether the flow is subcritical or supercritical as
indicated in Table 14.7.

TABLE 14.7 Some Types of Specified Boundary Conditions for Simulation of Exterior
Reaches of Sewers
Location

Upstream End of Sewer

Entrance Reach (x = O)

Downstream End of Sewer

Exit Reach (x = L)

Subcritical flow

One of
G(O, O
/z(0, f}
V(O, O

One of
/z(L, t)', e.g. ocean tides, lakes
Q(L, t)', release hydrograph
<2(/i); rating curve
V(h); storage- velocity relation
for all t to be simulated
None

Supercritical flow

for all t to be simulated

Two of the above

For a sewer that is divided into M computational reaches and M + 1 stations, there is
a continuity equation and a momentum equation written in finite difference algebraic form
for each reach. There are 2(M + 1) unknowns, namely, the depth and discharge (or velocity) at each station. The 2(M + 1 ) equations required to solve for the unknowns come
from M continuity equations and M momentum equations for the M reaches, plus the two
boundary conditions. If the flow is subcritical, one boundary condition is at the sewer
entrance (x = O) and the other is at the sewer exit (x = L). If the flow is supercritical, both
boundary conditions are at the upstream end, the entrance, one of them often is a critical
depth criterion. If at one instant a hydraulic jump occurs in an interior reach inside the
sewer, two upstream boundary conditions at the sewer entrance and one downstream
boundary condition at the sewer exit should be specified. If a hydraulic drop occurs inside
the sewer, one boundary condition each at the entrance and exit of the sewer is needed;
the drop is described with a critical depth relation as an interior boundary condition.
Handling the moving surface discontinuity, shown schematically in Fig. 14.12, is not a
simple matter. The moving front may travel from reach to reach slowly in different Ar, or
it may move through the entire sewer in one Ar. If, for any reason, it is desired to compute
the velocity of the moving front Vw between two computational stations / and / + 1 in a
sewer, the following equation can be used as an approximation;

Supercriticol to Subcriticol

Subcritical to Supercritical

Supercritical to Subcritical

Subcritical to Supercritical

FIGURE 14.12 Moving water surface discontinuity in a

sewer. (After Yen, 1986a).

AV-A V
Vn = ' ' . '^V + '
A- + 1 A

(14-29)

14.3.4 Storm Sewer Design with Rational Method

The most important components of an urban storm drainage system are storm sewers.
A number of methods exist for designing the size of such sewers. Some are highly sophisticated, using the Saint-Venant equations, whereas others are relatively simple. In contrast
to storm runoff prediction/simulation models, sophisticated storm sewer design methods
do not necessarily provide a better design than the simpler methods, mainly because of the
discrete sizes of commercially available sewer pipes.
If the peak design discharge Qp for a sewer is known, the required sewer dimensions
can be computed by using Manning's formula such that
ARW = ^e(14.30)
K
n VS0
which can be obtained from Eq. (14.6) by assuming the friction slope Sf is equal to the
sewer slope S0. All other symbols in the equation have been defined previously. For a circular sewer pipe, the minimum required diameter dr is
f
n Q T/8
d,= 3.208
(14.3Ia)
K fM
L
n ^o J
where kn = 1 for SI units and 1.486 for English units. If the Darcy-Wesibach formula (Eq.
14.7) is used,
r
/
11/5
dr= 0.811 -^- G,2
(14.3Ib)
L
OO J
These two equations are plotted in Fig. 14.13 for design applications. The assumption S0
= Sf essentially implies that around the time of peak discharge, the flow can well be
regarded approximately as steady uniform flow for the design, despite the fact that the
actual spatial and temporal variations of the flow are far more complicated as described
in Sec. 14.3.1.
In sewer designs, there are a number of constraints and assumptions that are commonly
used in engineering practice. Those pertinent to sewer hydraulic design are as follows:

1. Free surface flow exists for the design discharge, that is, the sewer is under "gravity
flow" or open-channel flow. The design discharge used is the peak discharge of the
total inflow hydrograph of the sewer.
2. The sewers are commercially available circular sizes no smaller than, say, 8 in. or 200
mm in diameter. In the United States, the commercial sizes in inches are usually 8, 10,
12, and from 15 to 30 inches with a 3-in. increment, and from 36 to 120 in. with an
increment of 6 in. In SI units, commercial sizes, depending on location, include most
if not all of the following: 150, 175, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 750, 1000, 1250,
1500, 1750, 2000, 2500, and 3000 mm.
3. The design diameter is the smallest commercially available pipe that has a flow capacity equal to or greater than the design discharge and satisfies all the appropriate constraints.
4. To prevent or reduce permanent deposition in the sewers, a nominal minimum permissible flow velocity at design discharge or at nearly full-pipe gravity flow is speci-

FIGURE 14.13 Required sewer diameter, (m or ft)

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

fied. A minimum full-pipe flow velocity of 2 ft/s or 0.5 m/s at the design discharge is
usually recommended or required.
To prevent the occurrence of scour and other undesirable effects of high velocity =
flow, a maximum permissible flow velocity is also specified. The most commonly
used value is 10 ft/s or 3 m/s. However, recent studies indicate that due to the improved
quality of modern concrete and other sewer pipe materials, the acceptable velocity can
be considerably higher.
Storm sewers must be placed at a depth that will allow sufficient cushioning to prevent
breakage due to ground surface loading and will not be susceptible to frost. Therefore,
minimum cover depths must be specified.
The sewer system is a tree-type network, converging toward downstream.
The sewers are joined at junctions or manholes with specified alignment, for example,
the crowns aligned, the inverts aligned, or the centerlines aligned.
At any junction or manhole, the downstream sewer cannot be smaller than any of the
upstream sewers at that junction, unless the junction has significantly large detention

storage capacity or pumping. There also is evidence that this constraint is unnecessary
for very large sewers.
Various hydrologic and hydraulic methods exist for the determination of the design
discharge Qp. Among them the rational method is perhaps the most widely and simplest
used method for storm sewer design. With this method, each sewer is designed individually and independently, except that the upstream sewer flow time may be used to estimate
the time of concentration. The design peak discharge for a sewer is computed by using the
rational formula
Q11 = I ^ C f J

(14.32)

where i = the intensity of the design rainfall; C = the runoff coefficient (see Chap. 5 for
its values); and a is surface area. The subscript j represents they'th subarea upstream to be
drained. Note that ^a. includes all the subareas upstream of the sewer being designed.
Each sewer has its own design i because each sewer has its own flow time of concentration and design storm. The only information needed from upstream sewers for the design
of a current sewer is the upstream flow time for the determination of the time of concentration.
The rational formula is dimensionally homogenous and is applicable to any consistent
measurement units. The runoff coefficient C is dimensionless. It is a peak discharge coefficient but not a runoff volume fraction coefficient. However, in English units usually the
formula is used with the area aj in acres and rain intensity i in inches per hour. The conversion factor 1.0083 is approximated as unity.
The procedure of the rational method is illustrated in the following in English units for
the design of the sewers of the simple example drainage basin A shown schematically in
Fig. 14.14. The catchment properties are given in Table 14.8. For each catchment, the
length L0 and slope S0 of the longest flow pathor better, the largest LJvS0 should
first be identified. As discussed Sec. 14.7, a number of formulas are available to estimate
the inlet time or time of concentration of the catchment to the inlet. In this example, Eq.
(14.86) is used with K = 0.7 for English units and heavy rain, that is, t0 =
0.7(nL0A/S^)-6. The catchment overland surface texture factor TV is determined from
Table 14.16
The design rainfall intensity is computed from the intensity-duration-frequency relation for this location,
i QQT 0.2
i(in./h) = -^(14.33)
ld T- ZJ
TABLE 14.8 Characteristics of Catchments of Example Drainage Basin A
Catchment

Area
(acres)

I
II
III
IV
V

2
3
3
5
5

Total area =18 acres

Longest Overland Path

Length L0
Slope
Surface Texture
(ft)
N
250
420
400
640
660

0.010
0.0081
0.012
0.010
0.010

0.015
0.016
0.030
0.020
0.021

Inlet Time
t0
(min)

Runoff
Coefficient
C

6.2
9.3
11.7
12.9
13.1

0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6

Manhole
Ground

(10-YrFlood Level)
Note: All elevations are in feet
(Channel Bed)
FIGURE 14.14 Sewer design example drainage basin A. (a) Layout (b) Profiles.
where td = the rain duration (min) which is assumed equal to the time of concentration,
tc, of the area described, and Tr = the design return period in years. For this example, Tr
= 10 years. Determination of / for the sewers is shown in Table 14.9a. The entries in this
table are explained as follows:
Column L Sewer number identified by the inlet numbers at its two ends.
Column 2. The sewer number immediately upstream, or the number of the catchment
that drains directly through manhole or junction into the sewer being considered.
Column 3. The size of the directly drained catchment.
Column 4. Value of the runoff coefficient for each catchment.
Column 5. Product of C and the corresponding catchment area.
Column 6. Summation of C}a. for all the areas drained by the sewer; it is equal to the
sum of contributing values in Column 5.

Column 7. Values of inlet time to the sewer for the catchments drained, that is, the
overland flow inlet time for directly drained catchments, or the time of
concentration for the immediate upstream connecting sewers.
Column 8. The sewer flow time of the immediate upstream connecting sewer as
given in Column 9 in Table 14.9&.
Column 9. The time of concentration tc for each of the possible critical flow paths,
tc = inlet time (Column 7) + sewer flow time (Column 10) for each
flow path.
Column 10. The design rainfall duration td is assumed equal to the longest of the different times of concentration of different flow paths to arrive at the
entrance of the sewer being considered, for example, for Sewer 31, td is
equal to 13.9 min from Sewer 21, which is longer than that from directly
contributing Catchment V (13.1 min).
Column IL The rainfall intensity i for the duration given in Column 10 is obtained
from the intensity-duration relation for the given location, in this case, Eq.
(14.33) for the 10-year design return period.
Table 14.9/? shows the design of the sewers for which the Manning n = 0.015, minimum soil cover is 4.0 ft, and minimum nominal design velocity is 2.5 ft/s. The exit sewer
of the system (Sewer 31) flows into a creek for which the bottom elevation is 11.90 ft, the
ground elevation of its bank is 21.00 ft, and its 10-year flood water level is 20.00 ft.
Column L
Column 2.
Column 3.
Column 4.

Sewer number identified by its upstream inlet (manhole) number.

Ground elevation at the upstream manhole of the sewer.
Length of the sewer.
Slope of the sewer, usually follows approximately the average ground
slope along the sewer.
Column 5. Design discharge Qp computed according to Eq. (14.32); thus, the product
of Columns 6 and 11 in Table 14.90.
Column 6. Required sewer diameter, as computed by using Eq. (14.31) or Fig. 14.13;
for Manning's formula with n = 0.015 and dr in ft, Eq. (14.3Ia) yields
dr

(
o Y8
= [0.0324 ^-j

in which Qp, in ftVs, is given in Column 5 and S0 is in Column 4.

Column 7. The nearest commercial nominal pipe size that is not smaller than the
required size is adopted.
Column 8. Flow velocity computed as V = Q/A^ that is, it is calculated as Column 5
multiplied by 4/n and divided by the square of Column 7. As discussed in
Yen (1978b), there are several ways to estimate the average velocity of the
flow through the length of the sewer. Since the flow is actually unsteady
and nonuniform, usually the one used here, using full pipe cross section,
is a good approximation.
Column 9. Sewer flow time is computed as equal to LIV, that is, Column 3 divided
by Column 8 and converted into minutes.

TABLE 14.9 Rational Method Design of Sewers of Example Drainage Basin A

(a) Design Rain Intensity
Sewer
(1)

Directly Drained Area

a
Catchment or
i
Contributing
Upstream Sewer (acres)
(2)
(3)

Runoff
Coefficient

Inlet Time
CA

-L CH

Cj
(4)

<5)

(6)

11-21

I
II

2
3

0.8
0.7

1.6
2.1

12-21
21-31

m
IV
ii
12

3
5

0.4
0.6

1.2
3.0
3.7
1.2

V
21

3.7
1.2

(min)
(7)

Upstream
Time of
Design Rain Design Rain
Sewer Flow Concentration Duration
Intensity
Time
i
(min)
(min)
(min)
(in./h)
(10)
(8)
(U)
(9)

6.2
9.3

6.2
9.3

11.7
12.9
9.3
11.7

1.4
0.9

11.7
12.9
10.7
12.6

1.0

13.1
13.9

7.9

31-41

0.6

3.0
7.9

13.1
12.9
10.9

9.3
11.7

4.62
4.32

12.9

4.18

13.9

4.07

TABLE 14.9 (Continued)

(b) Sewer Design
Length

Slope

(1)

Upstream
Manhole
Ground
Elev.
(ft)
(2)

(ft)
(3)

11
12
21
31
(31

35.00
41.50
31.90
28.70
28.70

450
360
400
500
500

Sewer

Design Required Diameter Flow

Discharge Diam.
Used
Velocity
d
V
r
J
QP
n

Sewer
Flow
Time

SL

Upstream
Upstream Downstream Downstream
Crown Elev. Invert Elev. Crown Elev. Invert Elev.

(4)

(ft3/*)
(5)

(ft)
(6)

(ft)
(7)

(ft/*)
(8)

(min)
(9)

(ft)
(10)

(ft)
(U)

(ft)
(12)

(ft)
(13)

(ft)
(14)

0.0081
0.0290
0.0100
0.0144
0.0156

17.1
5.2
33.0
44.4
44.4

1.98
0.99
2.43
2.53
2.50

2.00
1.00
2.50
2.75
2.50

5.4
6.6
6.7

1.4
0.9
1.0

3.65
10.444.00
7.20
7.80

31.00
37.50
27.85
23.85
23.85

29.00
36.50
25.35
21.10
21.35

27.35
27.06
23.85
16.65
16.05

25.35
26.06
21.35
13.90
13.55)

Column 10. Product of Columns 3 and 4; this is the elevation difference between the
two ends of the sewer.
Column 11. The upstream pipe crown elevation of Sewer 11 is computed from the
ground elevation minus the minimum soil cover, 4.0 ft, to save soil excavation cost. In this example, sewers are assumed invert aligned except the
last one (Sewer 31), which is crown aligned at its upstream (23.85 ft for
upstream of Sewer 31 and downstream of Sewer 21) to reduce backwater
influence from the water level at sewer exit.
Column 12. Pipe invert elevation at the upstream end of the sewer, equal to Column
11 minus Column 7.
Column 13. Pipe crown elevation at the downstream end of the sewer, equal to
Column 11 minus Column 10.
Column 14. Pipe invert elevation at the downstream end of the sewer, equal to Column
13 minus Column 7. For the last sewer, the downstream invert elevation
should be higher than the creek bottom elevation, 11.90 ft.
The above example demonstrates that, in the rational method, each sewer is designed
individually and independently, except the computation of sewer flow time for the purpose of rainfall duration determination for the next sewer, that is, the values of tf in
Column 8 of Table 14.9a are taken from those in Column 9 of Table 14.96.
The profile of the example designed sewers are shown as the solid lines in Fig. 14.14.
If the water level of the creek downstream of Sewer 31 is ignored, theoretically a cheaper design could be achieved by putting the exit Sewer 31 on a slightly steeper slope, from
0.0144 to 0.0156 to reduce the pipe diameter from 2.75 to 2.50 ft. The new slope can be
estimated from
(1434)
H^H'*"
This alternative is shown with the parentheses in Table 14.9Z? and as dashed lines in Fig.
14.14b. However, one should be aware that the water level of a 10-year flood in the creek
is 20.00 ft and hence, the last sewer is actually surcharged and its exit is submerged. The
sewer will not achieve the design discharge unless its upstream manhole is surcharged by
almost 4 ft (20.00-16.05). Therefore, the original design of 2.75 ft diameter is a safer and
preferred option in view of the backwater effect from the tailwater level in the creek. In
fact, Sewer 21-31 may also be surcharged due to the downstream backwater effect.
Sometimes, a backwater profile analysis is performed on the sewer network to assess
the degree of surcharge in the sewers and manholes. In such an analysis, energy losses in
the pipes and manholes should be realistically accounted for. However, the intensity-duration-frequency-based design rainfall used in the rational method design is an idealistic,
conceptual, simplistic rain and the probability of its future occurrence is nil. The actual
performance of the sewer system varies with different actual rainstorms, each having different temporal and spatial rain distributions. But it is impossible to know the distributions of these future rainstorms, whereas the ideal rainstorms adopted in the design of the
rational method are used as a consistent measure of protection level. Although designing
sewers using the rational method is a relatively simple and straightforward matter, checking the performance of the sewer system is a far more complex task requiring thorough
understanding of the hydrology and hydraulics of watershed runoff. For instance, checking the network performance by using an unsteady flow simulation model would require
simulation of the unsteady flow in various locations in the network accounting for losses

in sewer pipes as well as in manholes and junctions (the latter will be discussed in the next
section).
Moreover, for a given sewer network layout, by using different sewer slopes, alternative designs of the network sewers can be obtained. A cost analysis should be conducted
to select the most economic feasible design. This can be done with a system optimization
model such as Illinois Least-Cost Sewer System Design Model (ILSD) (Yen et al., 1984).

74.4

HYDRAULICSOFSEWERJUNCTIONS

There are various auxiliary hydraulic structures such as junctions, manholes, weirs,
siphons, pumps, valves, gates, transition structures, outlet controls, and drop shafts in a
sewer network. Information relevant to design of most of these apparatuses are well
described in standard fluid mechanics textbooks and references, particularly in the
German text by Hager (1994) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 1996). In this
section, the most important auxiliary component in modeling the sewer junctions are discussed. For sewers of common size and length, the headloss for the flow through a sewer
is usually two to five times the velocity head. Thus, the head loss through a junction is
comparable to the sewer pipe loss, and is not a minor loss.
14.4.1 Junction Classifications
A sewer junction usually has three or four sewer pipes joined to it. Under normal flow
conditions, one downstream pipe receives the outflow from the junction and other pipes
flow into the junction. However, junctions with only two or more than four joining pipes
are not uncommon. The most upstream junctions of a sewer network are usually one-way
junctions having only one sewer connected to a junction. The horizontal cross section of
the junction can be circular or square or may be another shape. The diameter or horizontal dimension of a junction normally is not smaller than the largest diameter of the joining sewers. To allow the workers room to operate, usually junctions are not smaller than
3 ft (1 m) in diameter. For large sewers, the access to the junction can be smaller than the
diameter of the largest joining sewer.
Sewers may join a junction with different vertical and horizontal alignments, and they
may have different sizes and slopes. Vertically, the pipes may join at the junction with
their centerlines or inverts or crowns aligned, or with any line of alignment in between.
There is no clearly preferred alignment that could simultaneously satisfy the requirements
of good hydraulics at low and high flows without complicating either construction cost or
design. The bottom of the junction is usually at or slightly lower than the lowest invert of
the joining sewers.
In the horizontal alignment, often the outflow sewer is aligned with one (usually the
major) inflow sewer in a straight line with other sewers joining at an angle. For cities with
square blocks, right-angle junctions are most common. Typical sewer benching and flow
guides injunctions are shown in Fig. 14.15.
With the alignment of the joining pipes and the shape and dimensions of junctions not
standardized, the precise, quantitative hydraulic characteristics of the junctions vary considerably. As a result, there are many individual studies of specified junctions, but a general comprehensive quantitative description of junctions is yet to be produced.
For the purpose of hydraulic analysis, junctions can be classified according to the following scheme (Yen, 1986a):

Directly Opposed Lolerol With Deflector

(Heod Losses Are Slill Excessive With
lhis Method. But Are Significontly
Less Thon When No Deflectors Exist)

Bend With Stroight Deflector

Depressed

Flat
Bend With Curved Deflector

Inline Uostreom Moin & 9(J Loterol

With Deflector
Half

Full

FIGURE 14.15 Junction benching of sewers and flow guides.

1. According to the geometry: (a) one-way junction, (b) two-way junction, (c) threeway junctionmerging (two pipes flow into one pipe) or dividing (one pipe flows into
two pipes), and (d) four- or more-way junctionmerging, dividing, or merging and
dividing.
2. According to the flow in the joining pipes: (a) open-channel junction (with openchannel flow in all joining pipes), (b) surcharge junction (with all joining pipes surcharged), and (c) partially surcharged junction (with some, but not all, joining pipes
surcharged).
3. According to the significance of the junction storage on the flow: storage junction or
point junction.
Hydraulically, the most important feature of a junction is that it imposes backwater
effects to the sewers connected to it. A junction provides, in addition to a volumehowever smallof temporal storage, redistribution and dissipation of energy, and mixing and
transfer of momentum of the flow and of the sediments and pollutants it carries. The precise, detailed hydraulic description of the flow in a sewer junction is rather complicated
because of the high degree of mixing, separation, turbulence, and energy losses. However,
correct representation of the junction hydraulics is important in realistic simulation and
reliable computation of the flow in a sewer system (Sevuk and Yen, 1973).

14.4.2 Junction Hydraulic Equations

The continuity equation of the water in a junction is
ds
1,Q1+Qj = ^

(14.35)

where Q1 = the flow into or out from the junction by the /-th joining sewer, being positive for inflow and negative for outflow; Q. = the direct, temporally variable water inflow
into (positive) or the pumpage or overflow or leakage out from (negative) the junction, if
any; s = the storage in the junction; and t = time. For a two-way junction, the index i =
1, 2; for a three-way junction, / = 1, 2, 3, and so on.
The energy equation in a one-dimensional analysis form is

T/2 p
"N
_i + _i + Z j j + f i ^

fly
T/2
,_ + lG^_i

(14.36)

where Z1., P1, V1 = the pipe invert elevation above the reference datum, piezometric pressure above the pipe invert, and velocity of the flow at the end of the section of the /th
sewer where it meets the junction, respectively; Hj = the net energy input per unit volume
of the direct inflow expressed in water head; K1 = the entrance or exit loss coefficient for
the /th sewer; Y the depth of water in the junction; and g = the gravitational acceleration. The first summation term in Eq. (14.36) is the sum of the energy input and output by
the joining pipes. The second term at the left-hand side of the equation is the net energy
brought in by the direct inflow. The first term to the right of the equal sign is the energy
stored in the junction as its water depth rises. The last term is the energy loss.
The momentum equations for the two horizontal orthogonal directions x and z are
1(2^,) = Jg^JA

(14.37)

2(avfe) = JgydA

(14.38)

and

where px and pz = the x and z components of the pressure acting on the junction boundary, respectively, and A = the solid and water boundary surface of the junction. The direct
flow QJ is assumed entering the junction without horizontal velocity component. The
right-hand side term of Eqs. (14.37 and 14.38) is the x or z component force, where the
integration is over the entire junction boundary surface A. The left-hand side term is the
sum of momentum of the inflow and outflow of the joining pipes. Note that for a threeway merging junction, two of the Q. 's are positive and one Q. is negative, whereas for a
three-way dividing junction, two of the Q. 's are negative.
Joliffe (1982), Kanda and Kitada (1977), Taylor (1944), and others suggested the use
of momentum approach to deal with high velocity situations. To illustrate this approach,
consider the three-way junction shown in Fig. 14.16. The control volume of water at the
junction enclosed by the dashed line is regarded as a point, and there is no volume change
associated with a change of depth within it. One of the two merging sewers is along the
direction of the downstream sewer, whereas the branch sewer makes an angle (p with it.
When one assumes that the pressure distribution is hydrostatic and the flow is steady, the
force-momentum relation can be written as

FIGURE 14.16 Control volume of junction

for momentum analysis.

Jh2A2 + Jh3A3 cos 9 - Jh^ sin (p - Y^1A1 + F

(14.39)

= PQ1V1 - PQ2V2 - PQ3V3 cos cp

where A = the flow cross-sectional area in a sewer; h = depth of the centroid of A; y
= the specific weight; p = the density of water; Q = the discharge; V = QIA = the
cross-sectional mean velocity; and F = the sum of other forces that are normally
neglected. Some of these neglected forces are the component of the water weight in the
control volume along the small bottom slope, the shear stresses on the walls and bottom, and the force due to geometry of the junction if the sewers are not invert aligned
or the longitudinal sewers are of different dimensions. The subscripts 1, 2, and 3 identify the sewers shown in Fig. 14.16, and b represents the exposed wall surface of the
branch in the control volume shown as ab in the figure. For the special case of invert
aligned sewers with the branch (pipe 3) joining at right angle, (p = 90, Eq. (14.39) can
be simplified as
A2(gh2 +\q)= A1^h1 + Vf)

(14.40)

or

& JW (SW)+ 1T"

1)
(144
(
Q1 LUJ(sW)+ iJ
'
Based on experimental results of invert-aligned equal-size pipes merging with (p = 90,
Joliffe (1982) observed that the upstream depth /I1 = h2 and proposed that
=
b
(14 42)
h = 7T
7r
cl hcl ^where hcl = the critical depth in the downstream sewer, F3 = the Froude number of the
flow in the branch sewer, and

^ = 0.999 - 0.482 (-^ 1 - 0.381 (^-T

(Qi)
(Qi)

(14.43)

b = 0.514 - 0.067 [^] + 0.197 [^ [ - 0.122 ^T

(Qi)
(Qi)
(Qi)

(14.44)

The equation describing the load of sediment or pollutants, expressed in terms of concentration c, can be derived from the principle of conservation as
^J cds + I Qf1 + Qfj = G
S

(14.45)

where G = a source (positive) or sink (negative) of the sediment or pollutants in the

junction.
Equations (14.35-14.44) are the theoretical basic equations for sewer junctions. They
are applicable to junctions under surcharge as well as open-channel flows in the joining
pipes. However, more specific equations can be written for the point-type and storagetype junctions.
14.4.3 Experiments on Three-Way Sewer Junctions and
Loss Coefficients
Proper handling of flow in sewer networks required information on the loss coefficients at the junctions. Unfortunately, there exists practically no useful quantitative
information on energy and momentum losses of unsteady flow passing through a junction. Therefore, steady flow information on sewer junction losses are commonly used
as an approximation.
Table 14.10 summarizes the experimental conditions of three-way merging, surcharging, top-open sewer junctions conducted by Johnston and Volker (1990), Lindyall (1984),
and Sangster et al. (1958, 1961). Also listed in the table are the experiments by Blaisdell
and Mason (1967), Serre et al. (1994), and Ramamurthy and Zhu (1997); these experiments were not conducted on open-top sewer junctions but on three-way merging closed
pipes. They are listed in the table as an example because these tests were conducted with
different branch and main diameter ratios and with different pipe alignments. Hence, they
may provide helpful information for sewer junctions. There exists considerably
more information on merging or dividing branched closed conduits than on sewer junctions. The reader may look elsewhere (e.g., Fried and Idelchik, 1989; Miller, 1990) for
information about centerline-aligned three-way joining pipes as an approximation to
sewer junctions.
The loss coefficients K21 and ^31 for the merging flow are defined as
Tfv 2
1 fv2
11
+h
+z
+h
z
,tj _
- \\tz
LLfS > \-\tz
) ^ \\ JJ
k

(14 46)

Figure 14.17 shows the experimental resultsfej

of (1987) and Sangster et al. (1958) and
Lindvall for the case of identical pipe size of the main and 90 merging lateral. The corresponding curves suggested by Miller (1990) and Fried and Idelchik (1989) for threeway identical closed pipe junctions are also shown as a reference. The values of the loss
coefficients in a sewer junction that is open to air on its top are expected to be slightly
higher than the enclosed pipe junction cases given by Miller because of the water volume
at the junction above the pipes.
The effect of the relative size of the joining branch pipe is shown in Fig. 14.18. The experimental data of Sangster et al. (1961) have identical upstream pipe sizes, D2 = D3 for four different values of lateral branch to downstream main pipe area ratio, A3M1. The data of Johnston
and Volker (1990) on surcharged circular open-top sewer junction are not plotted in Fig. 14.18
because the mainline pipe area ratio A2M1 = 0.41 instead of unity in the figure. Conversely,
as a comparison, the smoothed curve of ^T21 for A3M1 = 0.5 of the three-way pipe junction of
Serre et al. (1994) with A 1 =A 2 is plotted in Fig. 14.18a, and their experimental curves of ^T31
for A3M1 = 0.21 and 0.118 are plotted in Fig. 14.18b. Also shown in the figure, as reference,
are the three-way pipe junction curves for different values of A3M1 suggested by Fried and
Idelchik (1989) and Miller (1990) for identical size of main pipes, A2 = A 1 . The experiments
of Sangster et al. (1961) indicated that for a given A3M1, the effect OfA 2 M 1 on the loss coefficients is minor. Therefore, their curves should be comparable with those of Fried and Idelchik,

TABLE 14.10 Experimental Studies on Three-way Junction of Merging Surcharged Channels

Reference

Type of Junction

Shape of Channels

Channel
Slope

Sangster et al. Square,

(1958, 1961) rectangular, or
round box

Circular,
D = 3.0 in.3.75 in.
4.75 in. or 5.72 in.

Horizontal

Flushed bottom

Lindvall
(1984, 1987)

Circular,
Dmam = 144 mm,
A>/Anain = 1A
0.686, or 0.389

Horizontal

Round box

Johnston and Square box

Volker (1990)
Blaisdell and Enclosed pipe
Mason (1967) junction
Serre et al.
(1994)
Ramamurthy
and Zhu
(1997)

Enclosed pipe
junction

Circular,
Horizontal
Anain d = 70 ^Hl,
/U up/Anain,= 0.64,
>b/Dmain, = 0.91
Circular,
DJD^ = 0.25 ~ 1.0

Pipe Alignment at Junction

Vertical
Longitudinal

Type of
Flow

Remarks

Straight through and

one 90 merging channel

Steady

Center aligned

Straight through and one

90 merging channel

Steady

Also tests of opposed

lateral pipes;
tests with grate
inflow into junction
Loss coefficient
dependent on
junction diameter,
lateral pipe diameter,
and flow ratio

Flushed bottom

Centerline aligned with

slight deflector for
lateral in junction

Steady

Center or top
aligned

Straight through and one

Steady
mergin channel at 15-165
by 15 increments
Straight through and one
Steady
90 merging channel

Circular,
(Horizontal) Center aligned
^main = 4441^11'
/V/U, = 0.14, 0.23,
0.34, or 0.46
Enclosed
Rectangular,
(Horizontal) Same height
rectangular
4. 14 mm high,
conduit junction main width 91.5 mm,
branch width
20.4 mm,70.5 mm,
or 91.5 mm

Straight through and one

90 emerging branch

Steady

Reynolds number
effect insignificant

Sangsteretal. (1958)
Lindvall (1987)
Lindvall (1984)
Mil er (1990)
Fri(1989)
ed & ldelchick

Marsalek(1985)M1
Marsalek(1985)M3
deGroot&Boyd(1983)
Sangsteretal. (1958)
Lindvall (1984) Type 1
Mil er (1990)
Fri
ed & ldelchik
(1989)

FIGURE 14.17 Experimental headless coefficients for surcharged 3-way sewer junction with identical
pipe sizes and 90 merging lateral, (a) Mainline loss coefficient K21; (b) Branch loss coefficient K31.
Miller, and Serre et al. However, Fig. 14.18 depicts considerable disagreement among the different sources, indicating the need for more reliable investigations.
The joining angle of the lateral branch is a significant factor affecting the loss coefficients, particular on K^ P The values of the loss coefficients decrease if the joining angle
more or less aligns with the flow direction of the main, and increase if the lateral flow is
directed against the main. The references of Fried and ldelchik (1989) and Miller (1990)
provide some idea on the adjustment needed for the K values due to the joining angle.

Mil er (1990)
Serre etal( 1994)

Sangsteretal (1961)
Mil er
lFridelecdhi&k
Serre
etal

Sangsteretal (1961)

FIGURE 14.18 Headless coefficients for surcharged 3-way junction with 90 merging lateral of different sizes, (a) Mainline loss coefficient K21. (b) Branch loss coefficient K31.

Townsend & Prina

(1978)
Marsalek
(1985)

FIGURE 14.19 Headless coefficients for 3-way open-channel sewer junction with identical pipe
sizes and 90 merging lateral, (a) Mainline loss coefficient K21 (B) Branch loss coefficient ^31 (After
Yen, 1987).
Listed in Table 14.11 is a summary of experiments on steady flow in three-way merging open-channel junctions. Most of the studies were done with point-type junctions. The
experimental subcritical flow results of storage-type junctions by Marsalek (1985) and
Townsend and Prins (1978) are plotted in Fig. 14.19 for lateral joining 90 to the same size
mainline pipes. Yevjevich and Barnes (1970) gave the combined main and lateral loss
coefficient but not the separate coefficients, making the result difficult to be used in routing simulation. The points in the figure scatter considerably, but they are generally in the
same range of the loss coefficient values for surcharged three-way 90 merging junction
except K3, for Townsend and Prins' data. It is interesting to note that the most frequently
encountered sewer junctions are three- and four-way box junctions with unsteady subcritical flow in the joining circular sewers. None of the open-channel experiments was
conducted under these conditions. All were tested with steady flow. It is obvious that
existing experimental evidence and theory do not yield reliable quantitative information
on the loss coefficients of three-way sewer junctions. Before more reliable information is
obtained, provincially for design and simulation of three joining identical size sewers, for
K2 j a curve drawn between that of Lindvall and that of Sangster et al. can be used as an
approximation. For ^3}, the curve of Lindvall can be used. For joining pipes of unequal
sizes, the curves of Sangster et al. appear to be tentatively acceptable.
14.4.4 Loss Coefficient for Two-Way Sewer Junctions
Two-way junctions are used for change of pipe slope, pipe alignment, or pipe size.
Experimental studies on two-way, surcharged, top-open sewer junctions are listed in Table

TABLE 14.11 Experimental Studies on Three- Way Junction of Merging Open Channels
Pipe Alignment at Junction
Channel
Slope

Vertical

Longitudinal

Point

Rectangular,
identical width,
B = 4 in.

Horizontal

Flushed
bottom

Straight through Subcritical

and one merging
channel at 45
or 135

Bowers (1950) Point

Trapezoidal,
identical width,
B = 7.2 in.

0.0062, 0.012 Flushed

bottom

Behlke and
Pritchett
(1966)

Rectangular or
trapezoidal
(side slope 1:1)

Each channel Flushed

slope varied bottom
independently

Webber and
Point
Greated (1966)

Rectangular,
B = 5 in.

Horizontal

Flushed
bottom

Yevjevich and
Barnes (1970)

Circular,
Anain = 6'25 inDbT= 1.87 in.

0.00008
0.00054
0.00107

Flushed
bottom
or crown
aligned

Taylor (1944)

Type of
Junction

Type of Flow
Upstream
Downstream Remarks
Pipes
Pipe

Shape of
Channels

References

Point

Square
box

Subcritical

Also theoretical analysis

based on momentum,
good agreement with
45 merging but not
with 135 merging
Straight through Supercritical Supercritical Structure P7, hydraulic
and one merging
jumps formed upstream
channel at 51
of junction, other
structures with lateral
bottom up to 3 ft
above main
Straight through Supercritical Supercritical Use of tapered wall in
and one merging
the junction to diminish
channel at 15,
diagonal wave and
30, or 45
pile-up problems
Straight through Subcritical Subcritical Greater losses associated
and one merging
with increasing merging
channel at 30,
angles of branch channel
60, or 90
Straight through Subcritical Subcritical Greater loss for the case
and one 90
of crown aligned lateral
merging pipe

TABLE 14.11

(Continued)

Kanda and
Kitada (1977)

Point

Rectangular,
Horizontal
* main =100,200,
400mm
Bbr= 100mm;
Circular, different
sizes
Circular,
Horizontal
different sizes

Radojkovic and Point

Maksimovic
(1977)
Townsend and Rectangular Circular,
box
Prins (1978)
Anain = 161^11'
DbT = 102 mm

Flushed
bottom

Flushed
bottom

Straight through Supercritical Supercritical Also theoretical analysis

and one merging
based on momentum
channel at 30
60, or 90

Straight through
and one merging
channel
Less than 0.01 Invert drop Straight through
and one merging
across
junction box channel at 45
or 90
Rectangular,
Lin and Soong Point
Invert drop Straight through
Horizontal
B = 457 mm
(15 or
and one 90
(1979)
merging channel
18mm)
Circular,
Joliffe (1982) Point
Flushed
Straight through
Horizontal,
equal diameter,
and one 90
0.0001, 0.0075, bottom
D = 69mm
merging channel
0.005, or 0.01
Rectangular,
Point
Channel slope Not available Straight through
Best and
and one merging
Reid (1984)
identical width,
adjustable
B = 0.5 ft
channel at 15,
to achieve
45, 70, or 90
equilibrium
water depth
Marsalek
Square box Circular,
Flushed
Horizontal
(1985)
or round box identical diameter
bottom

Supercritical Supercritical Junction zone with

expansion and without
expansion
Subcritical Subcritical Simple junction box
and special junction
box with flow deflector
Subcritical

Subcritical

Subcritical
Subcritical

Sub- or
supercritical
Subcritical

Subcritical

Subcritical

Energy loss coefficient

as a function of lateral
to totalflowrate ratio
Upstream flow depth
depends on critical depth
in downstream pipe
Systems operated for
O.K F < 0.3

TABLE 14.12 Experimental Studies on Straight-Through Two- Way Open-Top Junction of Surcharged Channels
References

Type of
Junction

Shape of Channels

Channel Slope

Pipe Alignment at Junction

Vertical Longitudinal

Type of
Flow

Remarks

Sangster et al.
(1958, 1961)

Square,
rectangular,
or round box
Rectangular
box

Circular,
D = 3.0, 3.75,
4.75, or 5.72 in.
Circular, identical
diameter, D = 6 in.

Horizontal

Flushed
bottom

Steady

Also test of grate inflow

into junction

0.0094-0.0192

Flushed
bottom

Steady

Also studied part-full

supercritical flow

Rectangular
box or round
box
Rectangular
box or round
box
Round box

Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 102 mm
Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 88 mm
Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 144 mm
Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 6 in
Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 88 mm
Circular, identical
diameter,
D = 90 mm

0.002 and 0.010

Flushed
bottom

Horizontal

Flushed
bottom

Horizontal

Center
aligned

Straight through

Steady

Horizontal

Flushed
bottom

Straight through

Steady

Horizontal

Center
aligned

Straight through

Steady

Manhole diameter < 2.26D,

headloss coefficient constant
for given junction geometry
Three types of benching

Horizontal

Center
aligned

Straight through

Steady

Four types of benching

Ackers (1959)

Archer et al.
(1978)
Howarth and
Saul (1984)
Lindvall
(1984)
Marsalek
(1984)

Square box
or round box

Johnston and
Volker (1990)

Square box

Bo Pedersen
and Mark
(1990)

Round box

Straight
through
or 90 bend
Straight through
or 45 bend in
junction or 52
bend downstream
of junction
Straight through,
or 30 or 60
bend in junction
Straight through

Steady
Steady or
unsteady

Loss coefficient increases as

junction diameter increases

14.12. All the experiments were conducted with the same size upstream and downstream
pipes joining the junction. Only Sangster et al. (1958, 1961) tested also the effect of different joining pipe sizes. These experimental results show that for a straight-through, twoway junction, the value of the loss coefficient is usually no higher than 0.2. Alignment of
the joining pipes and benching in the junction are also important factors to determine the
value of the loss coefficient.
Figure 14.2Oa shows the headloss coefficiet of a surcharged two-way open-top junction connecting two pipes of identical diameters aligned centrally given by the experiments of Archer et al. (1978), Howarth and Saul (1984), Johnston and Volker (1990) and
Lindvall (1984). Noticeable is the swirl and instability phenomena when the junction submergence (junction depth to pipe diameter ratio) is close to two and the corresponding
high head loss coefficient. The ranges of loss coefficient given by Ackers (1959),
Marsalek (1984), and Sangster et al. (1958) are also indicated in Fig. 14.2Oa, but the data
on the variation with the pipe-to-junction-size ratio was not given by these investigators.
Sangster et al. (1958) also tested the effect of different sizes of joining pipes for surcharged two-way junction. Some of their results are plotted in Fig. 14.2Ob. They did not
indicate a clear influence of the effect of the size of the junction box. However, Bo
Pedersen and Mark (1990) demonstrated that the loss coefficient of a two-way junction
can be estimated as a combination of the exit headloss due to a submerged discharging jet
and the entrance loss of flow contraction. They suggested that the loss coefficient K
depends mainly on the size ratio between the junction and the joining pipes of identical
size. For an infinitely large storage junction, the theoretical limit of K is 1.5. For the junction-diameter to pipe-diameter ratio, DJD less than 4, they proposed to estimate the K
values according to benching as shown in Fig. 14.21.
14.4.5 Storage Junctions
For a storage- (or reservoir-) type junction, the storage capacity of the junction is relatively large in comparison to the flow volume and hydraulically it behaves like a reservoir. A water surface, and hence, the depth in the junction can be defined without great
difficulty. A significant portion of the energy carried in by the flows from upstream sewers is dissipated in the junction. If the horizontal cross-sectional area of the junction A7
remains constant, independent of the junction depth 7, the storage is s = AjY. Hence, dsldt
= Aj(dY/dt) = Aj(dH/dt), where H = Y + Z = the water surface elevation above the reference datum, and Z = the elevation of the junction bottom. Therefore, from Eq. (14.35),
^Q,+ Qj = Aj ^-

(14.47)

Either the energy equation (Eq. 14.36) or the momentum equations [Eqs. (14.37) and
(14.38)] can be used as the dynamic equation of the junction. If the energy loss coefficient
K1 in Eq. (14.36) can be determined, use of the energy equation is appropriate. On the
other hand, if the pressure on the junction boundary can be determined, the momentum
equation is also applicable. If the junction were truly a large reservoir, both the loss coefficients and the pressure could reasonably be estimated on the basis of information on
steady flow entering or leaving a reservoir.
Customarily for the convenience of computation, instead of Eq. (14.36), the junction
energy relationship is divided for each joining sewer by relating the total head of the sewer
flow to the total head in the junction. Assuming that the energy contribution from the
direct lateral inflow Qj is negligible, the component of Eq. (14.36) for each joining sewer
/ can be written as

Marsalek, half benched

Lindvall
Howarth &
Saul
Archer
etal.
Johnston &
Volker

Sangster et al.
(1958, Eq.7)

FIGURE 14.20 Headless coefficient for surcharged 2way open-top straight-through sewer junction,
(a) Same size sewers upstream and downstream, (b)
Different joining pipe sizes. (After Yen, 1987).

Shape

FIGURE 14.21 Effect of benching on loss coefficient of surcharged two-way sewer junction
according to Bo Pedersen and Mark (1990).
H=(I- K1)(VfVg) + (P1Ii) + Z1

(14.48)

For open-channel flow in the joining pipes, the piezometric term P/y is
P/y=ht

(14.49)

where ht is the open-channel flow depth of the ith pipe at the junction. It should be cautioned that Eq. (14.48) is applicable only when there is no free surface discontinuity
between the junction and the sewer. In other words, they are applicable to Cases B and D
in Fig. 14.9 and all four cases in Fig. 14.8. The flow equations for these pipe exit and
entrance cases are given in Table 14.13.
14.4.6 Point Junctions
A point-type junction is the one whose storage capacity is negligible, and the junction is
treated as a single confluence point. Hence, Eq. (14.35) is reduced to
Za + QJ. = O

(14.50)

For subcritical flow in the sewers emptying into the point junction, the flow can discharge freely into and without the influence of the junction only when a free fall exists
over a nonsubmerged drop at the end of the pipe (Case A in Fig. 14.9). Otherwise, the subcritical flow in the sewer is subject to backwater effect from the junction. Since the junction is treated as a point, the dynamic condition of the junction is usually represented by
a kinematic compatibility condition of common water surface at the junctions for all the
joining pipes without a free fall (Harris, 1968; Larson et al., 1971; Roesner et al., 1984;
Sevuk and Yen, 1973; and Yen, 1986a). Thus, by neglecting the junction storage and for
subcritical sewer flow into the junction,
ht = hic

if Z,.+ /*,,> Z 0 + /*0

(Case A in Fig. 14.9)

(H51)

TABLE 14.13 Storage Junction Flow Equations

Case in
Fig. 14.8
or 14.9

Condition

Equation

Remarks

For reservoir
junction K = I

For sewerflowinginto junction

D

Submerged sewer exit

H>Z + D

H=(I- K)(V2Kg) + (P/y) + Z

Free fall at sewer exit

h = hc

Subcritical flow
in sewer

Supercritical
flow in sewer

H<Z+hc
F< 1
Z + D>H
H>Z + hc
F< 1
Z + D>H
Z + hc>H
F> 1
H>Z+hc
but F > 1
hc> h

Supercritical flow in
sewer, hydraulic jump
in junction
For outflow from junction into sewer
I

Subcritical flow
in sewer

II

Supercritical flow
in sewer
Submerged sewer
entrance, openchannel flow in sewer
Surcharged sewer

III
IV

h>hc
H<Z + D + S(V2 2Kg)
H>Z+hc + (Vc /2g)
H < Z + D + S(Vc2/2)
(h = hc)
H> Z + D + S(V2Kg)
h<D
H> Z + D + 8(V2/2g)
h> D

H=(I- K)(V1IIg) + h + Z

For reservoir
junction K = I

H = h +Z

Upstream control
for sewer
Upstream control for
sewer; H determined
by other sewers

H = (1 - K)(V2SIg) + h + Z

5-1

H = ( I - K)(V2Kg) + hc + Z

8-1

Q = AVVV
Vv = Cv V2g(H - Z)

8-1

H=(I- K)(V2Kg) + (P/y) + Z

8-1

ht + Z. = h0 + Z0

otherwise

(Case B in Fig. 14.9)

where Z0 and h0 = the invert elevation and depth of the flow at the entrance of the downstream sewer taking the outflow from the junction, respectively.
For a supercritical flow in a sewer flowing into a point junction, Case C in Fig. 14.9
would not occur. Only a subcase of Case B in Fig. 14.9 with ht < hic exists where Eq.
(14.51) applies. For Case D of Fig. 14.9 with submerged exit,
Zi + WY) = (PJD + Z0> ZI + D1

(14.52)

The flow in the downstream sewer, which takes water out from the junction, may be
subcritical, supercritical, or submerged, depending on the geometry and flow conditions. The flow equations are the same as the storage junction outflow Cases I-IV given
in Table 14.13.

74.5.

HYDRAULICS OF A SEWER NETWORK

Hydraulically, sewers in a network interact, and the mutual flow interaction must be
accounted for to achieve realistic results. In designing the sewers in a network, the constraints and assumptions on sizing sewers as discussed in Sec. 14.3.4 should be noted.
The rational method is the most commonly and traditionally used method for the
design of sewer sizes. As described in Sec. 14.3.4, each sewer is designed independently
without direct, explicit consideration of the flow in other sewers. This can be done
because to design a sewer, only the peak discharge, not the entire hydrograph, of the
design-storm runoff is required. As previously explained in Sec. 14.3.4, each sewer has its
own design storm. The information needed from upstream sewers is only for the alignment and bury depth of the sewer and the flow time to estimate the time of concentration
for the determination of the rainfall intensity / for the sewer to be designed.
Contrarily, in simulation of flow in an existing or predetermined sewer network for
urban stormwater control and management, often the hydrograph, not merely the peak discharge, is needed, and a higher level of hydraulic analysis that considers the interaction of
the sewers in the network is required. This network system analysis involves combining
the hydraulics of individual sewers as described in Sec. 14.3, together with the hydraulics
of junctions described in Sec. 14.4.
A sewer network can be considered as a number of nodes joined together by a number
of links. The nodes are the manholes, junctions, and network outlets. The links are the
sewer pipes. Depending on their locations in the network, the nodes and links can be classified as exterior or interior. The exterior links are the most upstream sewers or the last
sewer having the network exit at its downstream end. An exterior sewer has only one end
connected to other sewers. Interior links are the sewers inside the network that have both
ends connected to other sewers. Exterior nodes are the junctions or manholes connected
to the upstream end of the most upstream sewers, or the exit node of the network. An exterior node has only one link connected to it. Interior nodes (junctions) inside the network
have more than one link connected to each node.
A systematic numeric representation of the nodes or links is important for computer
simulation of a network. One approach is to number the links (sewers) according to the
branches and the order of the pipes in the branch, similar to Horton's numbering of river
systems. Another approach is to identify the links by the node numbers at the two ends of
the link. Using the node number identification system, a numbering order technique similar to topographic contour lines called the isonodal line method, can be used. This method
Next Page