COVER PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TASK A: SLUICE GATE LABORATORY EXPERIMENT ................................................................................. 1
1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. AIM ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4. EQUIPMENTS................................................................................................................................. 1
1.5. RELATED THEORY .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5.1. FLOW TYPES .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5.2. SPECIFIC ENERGY AND ENERGY GRADE LINE ........................................................................ 3
1.5.3. CONTINUITY EQUATION ........................................................................................................ 3
1.6. CALCULATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.7. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.8. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................... 9
1.9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 9
2. TASK B: STORM SEWER DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 10
2.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1. MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ........................................................................................... 10
2.2.2. CONTINUITY EQUATION FOR PIPE DIAMETER..................................................................... 11
2.2.3. MANNINGS EQUATION........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.4. COLEBROOK-WHITE EQUATION .......................................................................................... 12
2.2.5. DARCY-WEISBACH EQUATION FOR HEAD LOSS ................................................................... 12
2.3. CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 13
2.4. SELF CLEASING VELOCITY CHECK ................................................................................................ 15
2.5. COLEBROOK-WHITE EQUATION CHECK ....................................................................................... 16
2.6. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 16
2.7. MATLAB 3D FIGURE FOR VALIDATING DIAMETER, SLOPE AND VELOCITY .................................. 17
2.8. DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.8.1. DESIGN AND OTHER DESIGNS ............................................................................................. 18
2.8.2. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 18
2.8.3. ITEM A: ADDING A LAKE AND EVALUATING ITS IMPACT ..................................................... 18
2.8.4. ITEM B: DIRECTING DISCHARGE TO A WATER TREATMENT PLANT ..................................... 18
2.9. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 19
3. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 20
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Showing sluice gate ........................................................................................................................ 1

Figure 2 showing schematic diagram for flow through sluice gate ................................................ 2

Figure 3 showing relationship between total energy and points on flume...................................... 7

Figure 4 showing graphical flow type at different points ............................................................... 8

Figure 5 showing storm water system installation ........................................................................ 10

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 showing results for task A " flow through sluice gate" ...................................................... 7

Table 2 Showing results for strom water design ........................................................................... 16

1. TASK A: SLUICE GATE LABORATORY EXPERIMENT
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Here in this experiment, we analyse the distribution of open-channel flow through a sluice gate
which is a typical example of control section in channel. Our ultimate goal is to regulate and
analyze the flow conditions below, at, and above the critical depth downstream of the gate by
controlling the gate height. By observing flow depths at various cross sections in the water flume,
and gauging changes in energy grade lines, we assess the impacts of the sluice gate on water flow
characteristics. This experiment enables understanding some principles on fluid dynamics, energy
distribution, and classification of fluids that is important in hydraulic operation such as flood
control and water resource management systems.

Figure 1 Showing sluice gate

1.2. AIM
To study the behavior of water when flowing through sluice gate
1.3. OBJECTIVES
• The aim of this experiment is to study and understand the characteristics of flow through
the sluice gate in a laboratory flume setup.
• Calculating flow depths at various points on the channel and determining energy and
flow characteristics at those points
1.4. EQUIPMENTS
• Water flume with width B = 100mm or 0.1m
• Sluice gate with width 100mm
• Four rulers for determining water depth in four distinct locations
• Water pump with maximum discharge of 7 liters/second

1
1.5. RELATED THEORY
1.5.1 SLUICE GATE
A sluice gate is employed in the management of the flow rate and water level in open channels.
One may control the flow of water at the gate and hence control the type of flow that is experienced
downstream. When the sluice gate is closed, the flow is reduced, and the velocity and depth of the
flow change, which in turn leads to a reduction in energy. The sluice gate results into flow
formations upstream where the velocities are often subcritical and downstream with velocities
being supercritical at certain flow rates and configurations of the sluice gate.

Figure 2 showing schematic diagram for flow through sluice gate

1.5.1. FLOW TYPES

• Subcritical flow is defined as a condition where the Froude number (Fr) is less than 1. In
subcritical flow condition, force of gravity is the principal force control, and therefore the depth
of the flow is relatively large and the speeds are comparatively slow.
• Critical flow takes place when the Froude number is equal to one. Supercritical flow is
achieved when the velocity of flow is equal to gravitational forces and this is reached at the
critical flow. The specific energy is also at the minimum at this instance.
• Subcritical flow is experienced when the Froude number is less than one, and this means that
the flow is dominated by external forces. This leads to a primarily single-threaded and therefore
fast water flow. This is evident from the fact that supercritical flow is typical common
downstream the sluice gate since the cross sectional area is reduced and this leads to a faster
flow speed.

2
The Froude number (Fr) is used to determine the type of flow and is defined as:
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
√𝑔𝐻

where:

• V = flow velocity,

• g = acceleration due to gravity, and

• H = depth of flow.

1.5.2. SPECIFIC ENERGY AND ENERGY GRADE LINE

Specific energy (E) of a flow is the energy per unit weight and includes the kinetic and potential
energy. For a section of an open channel, it is given by
𝑉2
𝐸 =𝐻+
2𝑔

where:
• H= depth of flow (or head),
• V = velocity of flow, and
• g= gravitational acceleration.
The total energy grade line assist in representing energy changes along the channel. These lines
demonstrate how energy is dissipated in the process through mechanism such as friction and
flow regime shockers (such as the sluice gate).
1.5.3. CONTINUITY EQUATION
For incompressible fluid flow, the continuity equation states that the flow rate remains constant
along the channel, represented as:
𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉
where:

• Q = flow rate,
• A = cross-sectional area of flow, and
• V = average velocity.
1.6. CALCULATIONS
For H1 = 142mm Q = 4.7L/s = 0.0047m3/sec B = 0.1m

𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉

• Area of cross-section at point 1

:. 𝐴 = 𝐵. 𝐻

3
𝐴1 = 𝐵. 𝐻1
𝐴1 = 0.1 × 0.142
𝐴1 = 0.0142𝑚2

• Velocity of flow at point 1

𝑄
𝑉1 =
𝐴1
0.0047
𝑉1 =
0.0142
𝑉1 = 0.33𝑚/𝑠

• Specific energy calculations

𝑉12
𝐸1 = 𝐻1 +
2𝑔
0.332
𝐸1 = 0.142 +
2 × 9.81
𝐸1 = 0.147

• Froude Number Fr
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
√𝑔𝐻
0.33
𝐹𝑟 =
√9.81 × 0.142
𝐹𝑟 = 0.280 < 1 So, the flow at point 1 is subcritical

For H2 = 35.50mm Q = 4.7L/s = 0.0047m3/sec B = 0.1m

𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉

• Area of cross-section at point 2

:. 𝐴 = 𝐵. 𝐻

𝐴2 = 𝐵. 𝐻2
𝐴2 = 0.1 × 0.0355

𝐴2 = 0.00355𝑚2

• Velocity of flow at point 2

𝑄
𝑉2 =
𝐴2

4
 0.0047
𝑉2 =
0.00355
𝑉2 = 1.32𝑚/𝑠

• Specific energy calculations

𝑉22
𝐸2 = 𝐻2 +
2𝑔
1.322
𝐸2 = 0.0355 +
2 × 9.81
𝐸2 = 0.124

• Froude Number Fr at point 2

𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
√𝑔𝐻
1.32
𝐹𝑟 =
√9.81 × 0.0355
𝐹𝑟 = 2.23 > 1 So, the flow at point 2 is super-critical

For H3 = 37.1mm Q = 4.7L/s = 0.0047m3/sec B = 0.1m

𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉

• Area of cross-section at point 3

:. 𝐴 = 𝐵. 𝐻

𝐴3 = 𝐵. 𝐻3
𝐴3 = 0.1 × 0.037
𝐴3 = 0.0037𝑚2

• Velocity of flow at point 3

𝑄
𝑉3 =
𝐴3
0.0047
𝑉3 =
0.0037
𝑉3 = 1.27𝑚/𝑠

• Specific energy calculations

𝑉32
𝐸3 = 𝐻3 +
2𝑔

5
 1.272
𝐸3 = 0.037 +
2 × 9.81
𝐸3 = 0.119𝑚

• Froude Number Fr
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
√𝑔𝐻
1.27
𝐹𝑟 =
√9.81 × 0.037
𝐹𝑟 = 2.107 > 1 So, the flow at point 3 is super-critical

For H4 = 96.5mm Q = 4.7L/s = 0.0047m3/sec B = 0.1m

𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉

• Area of cross-section at point 4

:. 𝐴 = 𝐵. 𝐻

𝐴4 = 𝐵. 𝐻4
𝐴4 = 0.1 × 0.0965
𝐴4 = 0.00965𝑚2

• Velocity of flow at point 4

𝑄
𝑉4 =
𝐴4
0.0047
𝑉3 =
0.00965
𝑉3 = 0.487𝑚/𝑠

• Specific energy at point 4

𝑉42
𝐸4 = 𝐻4 +
2𝑔
0.4872
𝐸4 = 0.0965 +
2 × 9.81
𝐸4 = 0.108𝑚

• Froude Number Fr
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
√𝑔𝐻

6
 0.487
𝐹𝑟 =
√9.81 × 0.0965
𝐹𝑟 = 0.5 < 1 So, the flow at point 4 is sub-critical

1.7. RESULTS
Froude
Points Depth(m) Discharge(m3/s) Velocity(m/s) Energy Flow Type
Number
1 0.142 0.33 0.147 0.28 Sub critical
Super
2 0.0355 1.32 0.124 2.23
critical
0.0047 Super
3 0.0371 1.27 0.119 2.10
critical
4 0.0965 0.487 0.108 0.5 Sub critical

Table 1 showing results for task A " flow through sluice gate"

Total energy variation along the flume

0.15 0.147

0.145
0.14
0.135
Total energy(m)

0.13
0.124
0.125
0.119
0.12
0.115
0.108
0.11
0.105
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Horizontal profile of flume

Figure 3 showing relationship between total energy and points on flume

7
 Flow type graphical represenation bytotal energy vs flow
depth
0.16
Sub-critical
0.14

0.12
Flow depth(m)

Sub-critical
0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02 Super-critical Super-critical

0
0.105 0.11 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.135 0.14 0.145 0.15
Total Energy(m)

Figure 4 showing graphical flow type at different points

8
1.8. DISCUSSION
The experiment illustrates open channel flow behavior under a sluice gate, highlighting changes
in depth and energy at various channel points. The Froude number (Fr) calculated at each point
identified different flow regimes: Points 1 and 4 experienced subcritical flow (Fr < 1), where
gravitational forces led to slower, deeper flow, while Points 2 and 3 displayed supercritical flow
(Fr > 1), dominated by inertial forces with faster, shallower flow. This transition from subcritical
to supercritical flow downstream of the sluice gate aligns with hydrodynamic principles, where
constriction increases flow velocity and decreases depth. The results emphasize the sluice gate’s
effectiveness in regulating flow regimes by adjusting gate height. Specific energy calculations
further revealed energy changes along the channel, impacted by friction and turbulence near the
gate. These findings support practical hydraulic applications for managing flow and energy in
water control structures.
1.9. CONCLUSION
This experiment demonstrated the sluice gate's effectiveness in controlling open-channel flow
characteristics. By adjusting the gate, different flow regimes were observed, allowing for the study
of flow depth, velocity, and energy. The results confirmed that a downstream sluice gate can induce
both subcritical and supercritical flows, valuable for applications like flood management and
irrigation. This experiment provided key insights into open-channel flow, essential in hydraulic
engineering.

9
 2. TASK B: STORM SEWER DESIGN
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this task is to design and verify a storm sewer system for a 0.4-hectare residential
area with a density of 39 dwellings per hectare, discharging stormwater 100 meters away into the
sea. Due to a lack of specific rainfall data, the Modified Rational Method was used to estimate
peak flow rates. The report outlines calculations for pipe diameter, slope, and other hydraulic
properties using the Colebrook-White equation, following standards like BS EN 752:2017 and
CSA B 767.0 MC:1998. Through the Rational Method, Darcy-Weisbach, and Manning’s
equations, the design ensures optimal flow velocity, self-cleansing, and maintains the hydraulic
grade line, confirming system efficiency and reliability for stormwater management.

Figure 5 showing storm water system installation

2.2. METHODOLOGY
2.2.1. MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD
Modified rational method is used to calculate peak flow (Q) based on the calculated runoff
coefficient and rainfall intensity
𝑄𝑃 = 2.78 𝐶𝐼𝐴
Where!

• QP is Peak flow (L/s)

• C is runoff coefficient
• I is rainfall intensity(mm/hr)
• A is imperious Area (ha)

10
 Runoff coefficient
𝐶 = 𝐶𝑉 𝐶𝑅
𝐶𝑅 = 1.3, 𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐶𝑣 = 0.01𝑃𝑅( )
𝐴

𝑃𝑅 = 0.829𝑃𝐼𝑀𝑃 + 25𝑆𝑂𝐼𝐿 − 0.078𝑈𝐶𝑊𝐼 − 20.7

𝑃𝐼𝑀𝑃 is percentage of imperious surface from (G. Badea (1), C. Bacoţiu (2), 2002)
SOIL = Soil index
UCWI = the Urban Catchment Wetness Index
Rainfall Intensity
Rainfall intensity can be found once we find the return period and time of concentration
Return period = 10 years from BS EN 752:2017
𝑇𝐶 = 𝑇𝐸 + 𝑇𝐹
𝑇𝐶 is time of concentration
TE is entry time
TF is the time when water flow through the system of storm water
𝐿
𝑇𝐹 =
𝑉
L is length of storm water system up to its outlet(m)
V is flow velocity (m/s)
2.2.2. CONTINUITY EQUATION FOR PIPE DIAMETER
𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉

Q is discharge through pipe

V is velocity flowing the pipe

A is cross sectional area of pipe
𝜋𝐷2
𝐴=
4
2.2.3. MANNINGS EQUATION

1 2 1
𝑄= 𝐴𝑅 3 𝑆 2
𝑛
By rearranging for slope s

11
 𝑛𝑄 2
𝑆=( 2)
𝐴𝑅 3

S= Slope of pipe
n = Manning's roughness coefficient
Q = Peak flow or discharge(m3/s)
A = Cross sectional area(m2)
𝐴
R =𝑃

P = Wetted perimeter of pipe(m)

R – hydraulics radius(m)

2.2.4. COLEBROOK-WHITE EQUATION

The Colebrook-White equation is applied to confirm the adequacy of the pipe design by
checking head loss:
𝜀
1 𝐷 2.51
= −2 log ( + )
√𝑓 3.7 𝑅𝑒 √𝑓

f = Friction factor
𝜀 is pipe roughness coefficient can be found from BS EN 752–4:1998
D is diameter of pipe(m)
Re is renold number
𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇
𝜌 is density of water = 1000kg/m3
V is flow velocity (m/s)
𝜇 is dynamic viscosity of water = 0. 001Pa.s
2.2.5. DARCY-WEISBACH EQUATION FOR HEAD LOSS
𝐿 𝑉2
𝐻𝑓 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔
𝐻𝑓 = head loss (m)

12
𝑓 = friction factor
L = length of pipe(m)
V = flow velocity(m/s)
D = diameter of pipe(m)
g = acceleration due to gravity(m/s2)
This check ensured that the head loss remained within the allowable drop along the pipe length.
2.3. CALCULATIONS
Given Data
Area of land= 0.4ha= 4000m2 Permeable Surface = 39 dwellings/ha, L= 100m, Soil
factor = 0.35 UCWI = 200
PIMP = 60% according to Permeable Surface.
Return period
10 years from BS EN 752:2017
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐶𝑣 = 0.01𝑃𝑅( )
𝐴

Percentage runoff calculations

𝑃𝑅 = 0.829𝑃𝐼𝑀𝑃 + 25𝑆𝑂𝐼𝐿 − 0.078𝑈𝐶𝑊𝐼 − 20.7
Put values
𝑃𝑅 = 0.829 × 60 + 25 × 0.35 − 0.078 × 200 − 20.7
𝑃𝑅 = 22.19%
Volumetric runoff coefficient calculations
Total area of catchment = 0.4ha = 4000m2
60
Area of impervious land = 𝐴 = 100 × 4000

𝐴 = 2400𝑚2
4000
𝐶𝑣 = 0.01 × 22.19(2400)

𝐶𝑣 = 0.37
Runoff coefficient calculations
𝐶 = 𝐶𝑉 𝐶𝑅 : 𝐶𝑅 = 1.3
𝐶 = 0.37 × 1.3

13
𝐶 = 0.48
Calculations for TC
𝑇𝐶 = 𝑇𝐸 + 𝑇𝐹
𝑇𝐸 is entry time
𝑇𝐹 time of flow
𝑇𝐸 = 5𝑚𝑖𝑛 Given
𝐿
𝑇𝐹 =
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐿 = 100𝑚, 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.914𝑚/𝑠 : As we are designing for the peak flow, so we will use Vmax
100
𝑇𝐹 =
0.914
𝑇𝐹 = 109.4𝑠
𝑇𝐹 = 1.82𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≅ 2𝑚𝑖𝑛
So, 𝑇𝐶 = 5 + 2 = 7𝑚𝑖𝑛
Rainfall intensity calculations
Using tables for return period of 10 years and Tc = 7min
Rainfall Intensity = 203.5mm/hr
Peak flow calculations
Using the formula
𝑄𝑃 = 2.78 𝐶𝐼𝐴
Putting values
𝑄𝑃 = 2.78 × 0.48 × 203.5 × 0.24
65.2𝐿
𝑄𝑃 =
𝑠
𝑄𝑃 = 0.0652𝑚3 /𝑠
Diameter of pipe calculations
Using Continuity Equation
𝑄 = 𝐴. 𝑉
𝑄𝑃
𝐴=
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥

14
 𝜋𝐷2 0.0652
𝐴= =
4 0.914
𝐷 =300mm
Slope calculation by manning’s formula
1 2 1
𝑄= 𝐴𝑅 3 𝑆 2
𝑛
By rearranging for slope s
𝑛𝑄 2
𝑆=( 2)
𝐴𝑅 3
𝜋𝐷 2 𝜋×0.32
For concrete pipes n= 0.015, 𝐴 = 4
= 4

𝐴 = 0.0706𝑚2
𝑝 = 𝜋𝐷 = 𝜋 × 0.3
𝑝 = 0.942𝑚
𝐴
𝑅=
𝑃
0.0706
𝑅=
0.942
𝑅 = 0.075𝑚
0.015 × 0.0652 2
𝑆=( 2)
0.0706 × 0.0753
𝑆 = 0.0066
So, the gradient is 0.66m fall in 100m
2.4. SELF CLEASING VELOCITY CHECK
Flow velocity calculations
𝑄 𝑄
𝑉= =
𝐴 𝜋𝐷 2
4
0.0652
𝑉= 𝜋0.32
4

0.92𝑚 0.6𝑚
𝑉= 𝑠
> 𝑠
𝑂𝑘𝑎𝑦

15
2.5. COLEBROOK-WHITE EQUATION CHECK
𝜀
1 𝐷 2.51
= −2 log ( + )
√𝑓 3.7 𝑅𝑒 √𝑓

𝜀 = 1.5𝑚𝑚, 𝐵𝑦 𝐵𝑆 𝐸𝑁 752– 4: 1998

𝑉 = 0.92𝑚/𝑠

Renold number calculations

𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇
For water 𝜌 = 1000𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 , and 𝜇 = 0.001𝑃𝑎 . 𝑠
1000 × 0.92 × 0.3
𝑅𝑒 =
0.001
𝑅𝑒 = 276000 > 4000 𝑆𝑜, 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
Friction factor calculations
Put values in Colebrook-white equation
0.0015
1 2.51
= −2 log ( 0.3 + )
√𝑓 3.7 276000√𝑓

Solving by iterative method

𝑓 = 0.0307
Head loss calculations
𝐿 𝑉2
𝐻𝑓 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔
100 × 0.922
𝐻𝑓 = 0.0307 ×
0.3 2 × 9.81
𝐻𝑓 = 0.44𝑚 > 0.66𝑚 𝑂𝑘𝑎𝑦

2.6. RESULTS
Intensity Colebrook-
Runoff TC Peak Velocity
(I) Diameter(mm) Slope white
coefficient(C) (min) flow(m3/s) check
(mm/hr) check
0.48 7 203.5 0.0652 300 0.0066 Ok Ok
Table 2 Showing results for strom water design

16
2.7. MATLAB 3D FIGURE FOR VALIDATING DIAMETER, SLOPE AND VELOCITY

17
2.8. DISCUSSIONS
2.8.1. DESIGN AND OTHER DESIGNS
Our design aims to control stormwater runoff by calculating the runoff coefficient, peak flow, and
pipe diameter, along with slope and velocity considerations. A 300mm pipe with a 0.0066 slope
was selected to handle runoff based on rainfall intensity and time of concentration, using a runoff
coefficient (C) derived from surface permeability and soil properties. To improve runoff
management, additional elements like a lake or green infrastructure could be incorporated.
Alternative designs, such as rainwater collection systems, permeable pavements, and retention
basins, could further reduce runoff, decrease load on treatment systems, and enhance water quality
by filtering pollutants before they reach the treatment plant.
2.8.2. LIMITATIONS
A key drawback in current designs is the space required for features like lakes or detention ponds.
In urban areas, limited space makes implementation challenging. Another limitation is the potential
for high runoff to overwhelm water treatment plants, especially if they were not designed to handle
large volumes with high pollutant loads. To address these issues, underground or modular storage
systems distributed across the catchment area could be used, reducing space needs while
effectively managing runoff. Additionally, green infrastructure and low-impact development
practices can aid in source control by promoting infiltration, thereby easing pressure on traditional
stormwater systems.
ITEM A: ADDING A LAKE AND EVALUATING ITS IMPACT
Including a lake provides a storage basin for stormwater, reducing peak flow in the drainage system
and lowering the runoff coefficient. This approach can prevent flash floods by allowing controlled
water release, potentially reducing the need for large pipes and lowering construction and
maintenance costs. However, the primary drawback is the significant space required, which is often
unavailable in urban areas. Lakes also need regular cleaning and water quality monitoring, adding
to maintenance costs. Alternatives like underground storage tanks or retention basins can offer
similar benefits with less spatial impact.
2.8.3. ITEM B: DIRECTING DISCHARGE TO A WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Directing runoff to a water treatment plant introduces challenges due to high pollutant levels and
variable stormwater quality. Runoff often contains organic material, oils, heavy metals, and debris,
which can overwhelm treatment plants, especially during high flow periods. This may strain
primary treatment stages responsible for solids removal, overload secondary biological processes
requiring steady flow, and complicate tertiary nutrient and pollutant filtration. To mitigate these
issues, pre-treatment measures like oil-water separators, sedimentation tanks, or filtration units can
remove larger pollutants before the runoff reaches the plant. Green solutions, such as permeable
pavements, rain gardens, and vegetated swales, can also reduce runoff volume, easing the load on
the treatment plant. Incorporating smart monitoring systems would further help regulate flow rates
and pollutant levels, allowing adjustments that improve the plant's capacity to manage stormwater
without compromising effluent quality or environmental standards.

18
2.9. CONCLUSION
Results demonstrate a comprehensive approach to managing stormwater runoff. The runoff
coefficient was determined to be 0.48, with a time of concentration (Tc) of 7 minutes and a rainfall
intensity of 203.5 mm/hr, leading to a peak flow of 0.0652 m³/s. The pipe diameter was calculated
to be 300 mm, with a slope of 0.0066, and the velocity was confirmed to be 0.92 m/s, meeting the
self-cleansing requirements. Additionally, the Colebrook-White equation confirmed that the flow
remains turbulent, and head loss was within acceptable limits.
Further it highlighted the benefits of adding a lake or retention system to reduce peak flow, though
challenges related to space and maintenance remain. Directing runoff to a water treatment plant
poses challenges such as pollutant load and treatment capacity, but pre-treatment systems and
green infrastructure can address these issues. Overall, the results confirm that the design is sound,
and by integrating additional solutions like retention basins and green infrastructure, the system
can efficiently manage stormwater, ensuring minimal environmental impact and maintaining water
quality standards.

19
 3. REFERENCES
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). Hydraulic Design Manual. ASCE Press.

[2] Badea, G., & Bacoţiu, C. (2002). Calculation methods in urban hydrology. Romanian
Academy of Sciences Journal, 35(2), 100–108.

[3] British Standards Institution. (1998). BS EN 752-4: Drain and sewer systems outside
buildings – Hydraulic design and environmental considerations. BSI.

[4] British Standards Institution. (2017). BS EN 752: Drain and sewer systems outside
buildings – Requirements for hydraulic design. BSI.

[5] Chow, V. T. (1959). Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill.

[6] Mays, L. W. (2005). Water resources engineering. John Wiley & Sons.

[7] Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse (4th ed.).
McGraw-Hill.

[8] Shaw, E. M. (1994). Hydrology in practice (3rd ed.). Chapman & Hall.

[9] Sturm, T. W. (2001). Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill.

[10] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Stormwater best management practice
design guide: Volume 1 – General considerations. EPA 600/R-04/121.

[11] Wurbs, R. A., & James, W. P. (2001). Water resources engineering. Prentice Hall.

[12] Wright, R. (2009). Introduction to hydraulic modeling. Water Resources Publications

20