Role of Urban Storm‐Flow Volume in Local Drainage Problems
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 120, Issue 4
Abstract
At culvert entrances and other drainage obstructions the area upstream of the obstruction acts as a reservoir, holding arriving runoff while earlier arriving waters are still passing through. Urban development in a watershed increases storm‐flow volume and peak rate, increasing the potential accumulation of water and hence rising of stage and overflowing. Storm hydrographs with different flow volumes and peak rates were routed through a computer model of a culvert entrance, with the upstream area functioning as a reservoir. Maximum stage rose with increasing flow volume for more than half of the modeled combinations of conditions. Thus in an urbanizing watershed, for a wide range of conditions, the tendency to overflow at an obstruction increases unless volume of flow is suppressed, whether or not peak rate is suppressed by detention. Storm‐water infiltration, which controls both flow volume and peak rate, would be a more complete solution. Storm‐water management policy that is aimed to prevent overflows at drainage obstructions should consider flow volume control in addition to peak rate control.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Debo, T. N., and Ruby, H. (1982). “Detention basins, an urban experience.” Public Works, (Jan.), 42–93.
2.
Dreher, D. W., Schaefer, G. C., and Hey, D. L. (1991). Evaluation of stormwater detention effectiveness in Northeastern Illinois. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, Ill.
3.
Ellington, M. M., and Ferguson, B. K. (1991). “Comparison of infiltration and detention in the Georgia Piedmont using recent hydrologic models.” Proc., Georgia Water Resour. Conf., Kathryn Hatcher, ed., University of Georgia Institute of Natural Resources, Athens, Ga., 213–216.
4.
Ferguson, B. K. (1990). “Urban stormwater infiltration: purposes, implementation, results.” J. Soil and Water Conservation, 45(6), 605–609.
5.
Ferguson, B. K. (1991). “The failure of detention and the future of stormwater design.” Landscape Arch., 81(12), 76–79.
6.
Ferguson, B. K., and Suckling, P. W. (1990). “Changing rainfall‐runoff relationships in the urbanizing Peachtree Creek Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia.” Water Resour. Bull., 26(2), 313–322.
7.
Jones, D. E., (1967). “Urban hydrology—a redirection.” Civ. Engrg., 37(8), 58–62.
8.
Leopold, L. B. (1968). Urban hydrology for land planning; Circular 554, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
9.
Maryland Water Resources Administration. (1984). Standards and specifications for infiltration practices. Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Md.
10.
McCuen, R. H. (1974). “A regional approach to urban storm water detention.” Geophysical Res. Letters, 1(7), 321–322.
11.
McCuen, R. H., and Moglen, G. E. (1988). “Multicriterion stormwater management methods.” J. Water Resour. Plnng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 114(4), 414–431.
12.
National engineering handbook; section 4, hydrology. (1972). U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Washington, D.C.
13.
Stahre, P., and Urbonas, B. (1990). Stormwater detention for drainage, water quality, and CSO management. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 120 • Issue 4 • July 1994
Pages: 523 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 28, 1993
Published online: Jul 1, 1994
Published in print: Jul 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.