Closure to “Rational “Rational” Method of Storm Drainage Design”

1970 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-343
Author(s):  
Richard A. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Rational Method ◽  
Drainage Design ◽  
Storm Drainage

Discussion of “Rational “Rational” Method of Storm Drainage Design”

1969 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 634-637
Author(s):  
Lamont W. Curtis ◽  
Dah-Cheng Woo
Keyword(s):  
Rational Method ◽  
Drainage Design ◽  
Storm Drainage

scholarly journals Historical rainfall for urban storm drainage design

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 105-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasna Petrovic ◽  
Jovan Despotovic
Keyword(s):  
Design Method ◽  
Design Procedure ◽  
Urban Drainage ◽  
Rainfall Runoff ◽  
Runoff Simulation ◽  
Major Drawback ◽  
Peak Flows ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Drainage Design ◽  
Storm Drainage

Traditional design method for urban drainage systems is based on design storms and its major drawback is that frequencies of peak flows in the system are considered equal to frequencies of design storms. An alternative is to use historical storms with rainfall-runoff models to produce a series of possible flows in the system and their frequencies. The latter approach involves more computations and can be laborious for larger catchments. This paper considers ways to reduce the set of historical storms to be involved in design procedure and yet to lead to realistic flow frequencies. Frequencies obtained by rainfall-runoff simulation at an experimental catchment are compared with frequencies of observed peak flows in the system.

Call for Awakenings in Storm Drainage Design

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommy S. W. Wong
Keyword(s):  
Drainage Design ◽  
Storm Drainage

Upstream–downstream: Rights and responsibilities

1983 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
D. H. Waller
Keyword(s):  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Stormwater Management ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Department Of Transportation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Drainage Design ◽  
Storm Drainage ◽  
Development Levels

A lengthy trial in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia may influence design of future stormwater systems in Canada. The developer of a 203 ha area sued an upstream developer and the provincial department of transportation, claiming real and anticipated damages from increased flows and volumes of stormwater. The plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to have the defendants reduce quantities and rates of flow, or to have costs of enlarging its system paid by the defendants. The Court concluded that the defendants were not required to restrict flows to pre-development levels as long as they used natural watercourses and did not cause their natural capacity to be exceeded. The paper discusses the implications of these findings and their relationship to requirements of storm drainage design criteria developed by a municipal–provincial drainage task force. Keywords: drainage law, riparian rights, storm drainage criteria, stormwater management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document