Surface Water Channels

and Outfalls:
Recommendations on Design

M Escarameia
R W P May

Report SR 406
March 1995

!!!l HR Wallingford
Registered Office: HR Wnllingford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BA, UK
Telephone: 0491 835381 International + 44 491 835381 Telex: 848552 HRSWAL G.
Facsinlile: 0491 832233 International + 44 491 832233 Registered in England No. 2562099
HR Wallingford Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of HR Wallingford Group Limited.
Contract
This report describes work funded by the Department of Transport (DOT)
under Research Contract DPU 8/9/03 for which the nominated officers were
Mr S V Santhalingam for DOT and Dr W R White for HR Wallingford. The
work was carried out in association with the Transport Research Laboratory
(TRL) who provided specialist input on construction, on safety aspects and on
the review of existing surface water channels. The HR job number was RTS
0263. The report is published on behalf of the Department of Transport, but
any opinions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the funding
department. The work was carried out by MS M Escarameia and Mr R W P
May who also managed the project, with contributions from Dr B J Chaddock
and Mr B Robinson from T R L.

Prepared by ,h&t.d~~%w-- L.JL.EW*

(name) ( J O ~title)

Approved by ..........................

Date 15 MYS
.................................

@ HR Wallingford Limited 1995

Summary

Surface Water Channels and Outfalls: Recommendations on Design

R W P May
M Escarameia

Report SR 406
March 1995

This report describes a research project funded by the Department of

Transport which was carried out at HR Wallingford in association with the
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) from September 1992 to December
1994. The objectives of the study were: 1. to review the current situation and
research needs concerning the use of surface water channels for road
drainage; and 2. to prepare recommendations on outlet design and general
recommendations on the use of surface water channels.

To achieve the first of these objectives two questionnaires were produced and
several site visits were carried out. The first, and more general, questionnaire
was circulated to regional operating units of DOT in England and to
corresponding organisations in DOE Northern Ireland, and the Scottish and
Welsh Offices. A very positive response was obtained from these
organisations: general information was collated from 39 schemes that had
already been built or were at various stages between design and construction.
The information gathered concerned the geometric characteristics of the
surface water channels, the type and gradient of the road, and the type and
size of the outfalls. A second, more detailed, questionnaire was prepared and
used as a check list during site meetings to obtain qualitative information about
the experience of road engineers in designing, constructing and maintaining
surface water channels.

In order to achieve the second objective of the study an extensive testing

program was carried out involving field measurements of outlet performance
in two existing road schemes and laboratory tests of a number of outlet
designs. The two sites selected for the field tests were the A20 Folkestone to
Dover (Contract l ) , in Kent, and the A487 Port Dinonvic Bypass, in Gwynedd,
Wales. These sites offered a variety of channel geometries and outlet
designs, as well as a wide range of longitudinal slopes, and the tests were
carried out with various flow conditions. The most important conclusion from
the field measurements concerns the performance of existing outlet designs
in schemes where the longitudinal gradient of the road is very steep. In these
situations it is likely that considerable flow bypassing of the outlet will occur
under channel-full conditions, and therefore an outlet specifically designed for
these cases may be required.

The recommendations for the hydraulic design of outfalls were mainly

developed from the laboratory tests since these allowed a more systematic
way of varying the geometry of the outlets and the flow conditions. It was
agreed with DOT to test outlets in symmetrical triangular channels with cross-
falls of 1:5and in a higher capacity channel of trapezoidal cross-section, with
Summary Continued

a design depth of 0.150m, base width of 0.300m and cross-falls of 1:4.5. This
trapezoidal channel provides an increase in capacity of 45% in relation to a
triangular channel of the same depth and cross-falls of 1:5. Two types of
outlet were studied, according to their position along the channel: intermediate
outlets, which are located at points part-way along a length of channel, and
terminal outlets located at low points. Both in-line and off-line outlet designs
were tested for each of the two types of channel. Tests were also carried out
to determine the hydraulic performance of a type of outlet which is suitable for
very high velocity flows such as those occurring in steep roads. This design
consists of a side transition which gently directs the water away from the
carriageway onto the verge side and then over a side weir into a lower
collecting chamber. The test results, as well as the information obtained from
the questionnaires and the site visits, were used to produce design
recommendations in a draft Advice Note on Outfall Design. The Advice Note
is presented in Appendix Ill of this report.

The main conclusions drawn from the study and recommendations for further
work are presented in the last part of the report. These refer to the design,
construction and use of surface water channels and to further work that is
required for revision of the existing Advice Note HA 37/88.
List of Symbols

Cross-sectional area of the flow

Water surface width
Surface width of flow for channel-full
Surface width of flow in surcharged channel neglecting the width of
surcharge on hard strip or hard shoulder
Pipe diameter
Width of collecting channel for weir outlet
Froude number
Froude number upstream of disturbance
Non-dimensional number for channel-full
Non-dimensional number for surcharged channel
Grating width
Acceleration due to gravity
Water depth of flow
Water depth of bypass flow
Depth of collecting channel for weir outlet
Coefficient
Angled stretch of weir outlet
Straight stretch of weir outlet
Total length of weir outlet
Manning roughness coefficient
Wetted perimeter of channel
Flow rate
Intercepted flow
Approach flow for channel-full conditions
Bypassing flow
Approach flow for surcharged conditions
Hydraulic radius of channel
Longitudinal gradient
Mean flow velocity
Water depth upstream of oblique wave
Water depth downstream of oblique wave
Depth of flow from the lower edge of the carriageway
Depth of the channel from the upper edge of the carriageway
Overall depth of surcharged channel
Head of water above pipe invert

P Angle of oblique wave in relation to direction of flow

V Efficiency
VD Efficiency of outlet for gratings with diagonal bar pattern
VL Efficiency of outlet for gratings with longitudinal bar pattern
'I0 Efficiency of outlet for channel-full conditions
'Is Efficiency of outlet for surcharged conditions
8 Angle of weir outlet
Predicted angle of weir outlet
Contents
Page

Title page
Contract
Summary
List of Symbols
Contents

PART A SCOPE OF STUDY ............................. 1

A.l GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A.2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART B EXPERIENCE IN USE OF SURFACE WATER

CHANNELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B.l INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B.2 GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B.2.1 Overall description of the schemes
(Questions A and D of the questionnaire) . . . . . . . . . . 5
B.2.2 Description of the channels
(Question E of the questionnaire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2.3 Description of channel outfalls
(Question F of the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3 SITE VISITS TO SELECTED SCHEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3.1 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B.3.2 Data from visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.4 MEETINGS AND SECOND-STAGE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . 10
8.4.1 General considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.4.2 Hydraulic design of channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.4.3 Pavement drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4.4 Hydraulic design of outfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.4.5 Constructional aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4.6 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4.7 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.5 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

PART C EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF OUTFALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

C.l INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C.2 FIELDTESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C.2.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C.2.2 Description of the sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C.2.2.1 A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1) .... 23
C.2.2.2 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.2.3 Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C.2.3.1 Equipment and test procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C.2.3.2 Tests at A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1) 24
Contents continued

C.2.3.3 Tests at A487 Port Dinonvic Bypass . . . . . . . 25

C.2.4 Analysis of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
C.2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C.3 LABORATORY TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C.3.2 Description of test rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C.3.3 Test procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
C.3.4 Triangular channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.3.4.1 In-line outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C.3.4.2 Off-line outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.3.5 Trapezoidal channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.3.5.1 Scale of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
C.3.5.2 In-line outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.3.5.3 Off-line outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.3.6 Weir outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C.4 PREPARATION OF ADVICE NOTE ON OUTFALL
DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
(2.4.1 Analysis of laboratory tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
C.4.2 Triangular channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
C.4.3 Trapezoidal channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C.4.4 Design of weir outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C.4.5 Design of outfall structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
C.4.6 Analysis of field tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
C.5 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

PART D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 44

D1. MAlN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

PART6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
D.2 MAlN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
PARTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Tables
Table 1 Summary of results of questionnaire
Overall description of scheme
Table 2 Summary of results of questionnaire
Surface water channels in verge
Table 3 Summary of results of questionnaire
Surface water channels in central reserve
Table 4 Summary of results of questionnaire
Description of channel outfalls
Table 5 Schemes visited
Table 6 List of meetings with resident engineers of schemes visited
Table 7 Results of field tests at A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1)
Table 8 Results of field tests at A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass
Contents continued

Table 9 Bypass flow at A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass

Table 10 Triangular channel
In-line outlet, intermediate
Table 11 Triangular channel
In-line outlet, terminal
Table 12 Effect of different bar patterns
Table 13 Triangular channel
Off-line outlet, intermediate
Table 14 Triangular channel
Off-line outlet, intermediate
Ramps between gratings
Table 15 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, intermediate
Model values
Table 16 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, terminal
Model values
Table 17 Trapezoidal channel
Off-line outlet, Intermediate
Model values
Table 18 Trapezoidal channel
Off-line outlet, terminal
Model values
Table 19 Weir outlet
Model values
Table 20 Analysis of field tests according to new Advice Note

Figures
Figure 1 Results of general questionnaire
a) Maximum longitudinal gradient of road
b) Channel depth
Figure 2 Results of general questionnaire
Minimum and maximum distances between outlets
Figure 3 Results of general questionnaire
Where outlets discharge into
Figure 4 General layout of test rig
Figure 5 Bar patterns used in laboratory tests
Figure 6 Triangular channel - In-line outlet
Figure 7 Triangular channel - Section A-A of in-line outlet
Figure 8 Triangular channel - Off-line outlet
Figure 9 Triangular channel - Section A-A of off-line outlet
Figure 10 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 - In-line outlet
Figure 11 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 - Section A-A of in-line outlet
Figure 12 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 - Off-line outlet
Figure 13 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 - Section A-A of off-line outlet
Figure 14 Weir outlet
Figure 15 Design curves. Triangular channel - In-line outlet
Channel-full
Figure 16 Design curves. Triangular channel - In-line outlet
Surcharged channel
Contents continued

Figure 17 Design curves. Triangular channel - Off-line outlet

Channel-full
Figure 18 Design curves. Triangular channel - Off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
Figure 19 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5.
In-line outlet. Channel-full
Figure 20 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1A.5.
In-line outlet. Surcharged channel.
Figure 21 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5.
Off -line outlet. Channel-full
Figure 22 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5.
Off-line outlet. Surcharged channel
Figure 23 Formation of oblique wave due to deflection of channel walls

Plates
Plate 1 Example of asymmetrical triangular channel
Plate 2 Example of symmetrical triangular channel
Plate 3 A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1). Central reserve
outlets
Plate 4 A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1). Test of central
reserve outlets
Plate 5 A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1). Test of verge outlet
Plate 6 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass. Terminal outlet
Plate 7 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass. Test of terminal outlet
Plate 8 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass. Test of intermediate outlet
(slope 1: l 6.5)
Plate 9 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass. Test of intermediate outlet
(slope 1:204)
Plate 10 General view of flume with in-line outlet in triangular channel
(2 pairs of gratings)
Plate 11 Triangular channel
In-line outlet, 2 pairs of gratings
Channel-full, slope 1.60
Plate 12 General view of flume with off-line in triangular channel
(3 gratings)
Plate 13 Triangular channel
Off-line outlet, 3 gratings
Surcharged slope 1:l 00
Plate 14 Triangular channel
Off -line outlet
Ramps between gratings
Plate 15 Triangular channel
Ramps between gratings
Channel-full, slope 1.60
Plate 16 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, 3 gratings
Plate 17 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, 3 gratings
Channel-full, slope 1:400
Plate 18 Trapezoidal channel
Off-line outlet, 3 gratings
Contents continued
Plate 19 Trapezoidal channel
Off-line outlet, 3 gratings
Channel-f ull, slope 1:400
Plate 20 Weir outlet with grating
Slope 1.40

Appendices
Appendix I General questionnaire
Appendix II Detailed questionnaire
Appendix Ill Advice Note on Design of outfalls for surface water
channels
PARTA SCOPE OF STUDY

A.l GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Since 1989, the Highways Agency of the Department of Transport (DOT) has
promoted the use of purpose-built surface water channels as an alternative to
filter drains or kerb-and-gully systems for dealing with rainfall run-off from
roads. In principle the channels offer several advantages over the two older
methods of drainage. Firstly, they are very accessible so that any blockages
are visible and can be quickly deah with. Secondly, the channels enable the
surface water to be kept quite separate from the system draining the sub-base
allowing the smaller seepage flows to be collected by narrow fin drains along
the edge of the road. The separation of the two systems also prevents the
possibility of surface water flowing back into the sub-base, as can happen if
filter drains become surcharged. Thirdly, the channels do not interrupt the
continuity of the road construction, unlike kerb gullies which can produce
cracks in the pavement through which surface water can enter the sub-base.
Fourthly, surface channels generally have a much higher flow capacity than
the shallow triangular gutters formed by kerbs and the cross-fall of the road.
As a result, the distance between outlets in surface channels can be much
greater than with conventional kerb-and-gully systems.

A method of determining the capacity of surface channels and the required

spacing between outlets was provided by the publication of DOT Advice Note
HA 37/88. The method is based on kinematic wave theory and takes account
of flow variations with time during a storm and the interrelation between rainfall
intensity, storm duration and frequency of occurrence. Surface channels are
most suited to slip-form construction in mass concrete and recommendations
on their geometry and use are given in Highway Construction Details Series
B and DOT Advice Note HA 37/88. When the first schemes with channels
were constructed (starting with the A21 Pembury Bypass in 1988), many were
designed and built with triangular channels having a maximum depth of
150mm and a side-slope of 1:5 (vertical:horizontal) on the carriageway side
and 1: l on the verge side; in the central reserve, the channels were required
to have symmetrical side-slopes of 1:5. In 1991, Amendment No. 1 to HA
37/88 was published which specified that symmetrical side-slopes of 1.5 or
flatter should be used both in the verge and the central reserve; local
variations in side-slope to a maximum of 1:4 were permitted in special cases.

Information on the flow capacity of British Standard gully gratings was

published in Contractor Report 2 (1984) but this document applies only to
kerb-and-gully situations where the triangular gutter has a near-vertical kerb
and the cross-fall of the road is not steeper than 1:20 (or in some cases 1:15).
Conditions in surface water channels are more severe because the depth and
velocities of flow can be significantly higher than in normal kerb-side gutters.
In the absence of suitable capacity data, road engineers have produced a wide
range of outlet designs for the surface water channels that have so far been
constructed. In some cases, the gully gratings have been installed along the
centreline of the channel ("in-line" type) and in others they have been offset
towards the verge ("off-line" type). The number of gratings considered
necessary at each outlet has also varied from scheme to scheme.
The Highways Engineering Division (now the Highways Agency, of the
Department of Transport) therefore identified that a need existed for an Advice
Note giving recommendations on the design of outfalls from surface water
channels. It was anticipated that it would first be necessary to review the
various designs that have already been built and collate the experience that
has been accumulated by road engineers in the use of surface water channels.
However, it was also appreciated that detailed laboratory testing and field
measurements would be needed in order to develop suitable outfall designs
and produce methods for determining their hydraulic performance. A contract
for the research project was awarded by DOT to HR Wallingford, in association
with the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), in September 1992. The
primary division of work involved HR (as Contractor) carrying out the hydraulic
testing of the outfalls and the development of the design methods for the
Advice Note, with TRL (as Sub-Contractor) providing specialist inputs
concerning construction and safety aspects and the review of existing
experience.

This final report of the project is divided into four main parts. Part A comprises
this general introduction and details of the technical specification for the work.
Part B describes the results of two surveys and several site visits that were
carried out to collect data and experience on existing schemes with surface
water channels. Part C describes the experimental work on outfall designs that
was carried out in the laboratory at HR Wallingford and in the field on two road
schemes. The text also explains how the data were analysed and used to
produce the design recommendations contained in the draft Advice Note, a
copy of which is included as Appendix Ill. Part D draws together the main
results from Parts B and C and identifies what changes are necessary or
desirable in other design documents relating to the use of surface water
drainage channels.

A.2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

The agreed technical specification for the project resulted from a combination
of the original DOT Work Specification (Appendix A in the contract documents)
and certain alternative items which were proposed in the HR/TRL tender
submission and accepted by DOT on 15 September 1992. A limited extension
to the contract was also agreed on 23 July 1994 to cover the development of
an additional type of outfall for use with steep channels.

The objectives of the research were to:

review the current situation and research needs concerning the use of
surface water channels.
prepare recommendations on outlet design together with general
recommendations on the use of surface water channels.

The items of work and the methods needed to achieve these objectives can
be summarised as follows:

(1) Review of existing schemes

Collect and collate information on channel geometry in use or at the
design or construction stages, and make recommendations on the
applicability of the channel drainage system, describing the advantages
and disadvantages during design, construction and maintenance.
 The work method proposed by H W R L involved use of two separate
questionnaires and site visits to at least five schemes. The first
questionnaire was needed to obtain general geometric data about as
many existing schemes with surface water channels as possible. The
second questionnaire was required during the site visits to record more
qualitative information about the experience of road engineers in
designing, constructing and maintaining the channels.

(2) Testing of outfall designs

Consider a wide range of outfall designs and measure the performance
of existing outfalls on the road network and, if necessary, using specialist
laboratory equipment.

The work method proposed by HRfrRL emphasised the use of laboratory

tests because of the need to carry out accurate measurements under a
wide range of controlled conditions. Allowance was initially made for
testing three outfall designs with each of the two agreed channel
geometries; an outfall design for steep channels was added later. Also
included was field testing of two outfalls from existing road schemes in
order to provide data for comparison with the laboratory results.

(3) Design recommendations

Analyse results and produce Advice Note giving guidance on predicting
performance of various outfall designs. Collect and collate experience on
the best use of channels and produce Final Report to advise DOT on the
best way forward.

The H W R L proposal was in accordance with these required outputs

from the project.
PART B EXPERIENCE IN USE OF SURFACE
WATER CHANNELS

B.l INTRODUCTION
It was explained in Section A.2 that one of the objectives of the project was to
collate information and experience on the use of surface water channels in
existing road schemes. The information was needed in order to identify
possible improvements in design and construction and to produce guidance on
the applicability of channels to different types of drainage problem. Data about
the various designs of outfall already in use were also needed when planning
the laboratory and field tests.

The collection of the information about existing schemes therefore formed the
first stage of the project and was carried out by means of two questionnaires
and several site visits. Details held centrally by DOT on a number of projects
with surface water channels were also made available.

The purpose of the first questionnaire was to obtain basic quantitative data
about factors such as the size and shape of the channels, the slopes of the
roads and the typical distances between outlets. Based on advice from the
Highways Engineering Division of DOT, it was decided to circulate the
questionnaire to the nine regional Operating Units in England and to the
corresponding organizations in DOE for Northern Ireland, the Scottish Office
and the Welsh Office. Each Operating Unit was requested to provide separate
details for each of the schemes in its area with surface water channels that
had either been built or were at any stage between design and construction.
The Operating Units in turn passed the questionnaires to relevant
organisations such as County Council highway departments and Consulting
Engineers who held the required information for particular schemes. The main
batch of questionnaires was sent out in December 1992 after approval by DOT
and replies were received up until about July 1993. The questionnaire is
described in Section 8.2 where the results are also discussed.

It was realised that it would be difficult to obtain more qualitative information

about experience in the use of surface water channels through the use of
another impersonally-addressed questionnaire. It was therefore decided to
select a range of representative schemes on the basis of the information from
the first-stage questionnaire, and then arrange site meetings with the
engineers involved in the design, construction and maintenance of the
schemes. A second, more detailed questionnaire was prepared with DOT
approval covering questions such as hydraulic design, construction tolerances
and maintenance aspects. However, the questionnaire was only used as a
check list during the site meetings, with the answers received being recorded
by a member of the HWrRL project team. The site visits were carried out
between July and December 1993 and are described in Section 8.3. The
information obtained from the meetings and the second questionnaire are
summarised and discussed in Section 8.5. Overall conclusions about the
applicability of channels to different types of surface drainage problem are
presented in Section B.6.
6.2 GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaires requesting information on road schemes using surface
water channels produced positive replies from seven of the nine DOT
Operation Units in England. No reply was obtained from the Northern
Construction Programme Division (CPD), and no schemes are known to
include surface water channels in the jurisdiction of the London CPD.
Questionnaires were later also sent to the DOE Office for Northern Ireland and
to the Scottish and Welsh Offices, and these again produced a positive
response, in particular from Wales.

A total of 39 schemes in the United Kingdom were reported to use surface

water channels for drainage of the road surface. Two other schemes also
included channels but were not considered in the present study: one made use
of small semi-circular channel blocks, and the other of triangular channels
located at the toe of the embankment which were fed by conventional kerb and
gully drainage. Both these types are outside the scope of the present study.
The questionnaire is presented in Appendix I and a summary of the replies is
shown in Tables 1 to 4.

6.2.1 Overall description of the schemes

(Questions A and D of the questionnaire)
The replies concerning the overall description of the schemes, which
correspond to Questions A and D of the questionnaire are summarized in
Table 1.

From the total number of schemes with channels, approximately half (23
schemes) had been completed at the time the questionnaires were answered
(between December 1992 and July 1993); amongst the other 16 schemes, 10
were being constructed. The great majority of surface water channels has
been built in rural roads (as opposed to urban): 20 of the schemes are dual
carriageways, 10 are single carriageways, 5 are motorways, and two schemes
correspond to a slip road and an urban road, respectively.

In all but 4 schemes the type of road pavement is flexible, the exceptions
being composite pavements. No information was obtained regarding rigid
pavements associated with surface water channels. In total, the length of the
schemes where channels have been incorporated adds to about 250km,
although not all this length corresponds to the actual length of the channels.
For instance, in dual carriageways the channel length can be twice the length
of the road if channels are used continuously. A precise value for the channel
length can not be directly obtained from the responses to the questionnaire,
but the total length of the schemes gives some indication of the present usage
of this type of surface road drainage in the UK. As can be seen in the Tables,
surface water channels appear to be more widely used in the East and South
East regions of England and in Wales: 10 schemes were identified in the
Eastern CPD, 8 in the South East CPD and 6 in Wales. The fact that the first
two schemes to be built in the UK were the A21 Pembury Bypass and the A1 1
Thetford Bypass in the South East and East Anglia, respectively, may possibly
account for the more rapid spread of surface water channels in these two
regions.

The replies from the questionnaires show that surface water channels have
been used in schemes varying from generally flat to generally steep
longitudinal gradients. The maximum gradients reported varied between 1: l 2
and 1:250, whereas the minimum gradients varied from 1:l00 to virtually flat.
Figure l a ) is a chart showing the maximum longitudinal gradients in the road
schemes. It can be seen that the majority of schemes have maximum
gradients of the order of 3-4%

Regarding the type of sub-surface drainage, it was found that the most
common systems were either fin drains or narrow filter drains, each type
accounting for approximately 40% of the schemes. A combination of these two
types was used in 5 of the schemes and two schemes incorporated narrow
filter drains and also French drains. One scheme reported no sub-surface
drainage due to the free draining nature of the subgrade (gravel).

B.2.2 Description of the channels

(Question E of the questionnaire)
The replies concerning the description of the schemes, which correspond to
Question E of the questionnaire, are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

In what regards the construction of the channels, slipforming appears to be by

far the most commonly used method, corresponding to about 80% of the
answers obtained. Combinations of slipform and in-situ concrete, and slipform
and extruded concrete were reported in two cases. Precast channels were
used in three schemes and in-situ concrete in another scheme.

Apart from two exceptions, all the channels described had a triangular cross-
section which was either asymmetrical (mainly used in channels in the verge
of the carriageway) or symmetrical (mainly used in channels in the central
reserve). The range of side-slopes adopted for these triangular channels was
quite wide: in the verge it varied from slopes as steep as 1: l (verge side) and
1:2.3 (carriageway side) to a symmetrical channel with slopes of 1:5. In the
central reserve the steepest channel recorded had cross-falls of 1:land 1:2.3,
and the flattest was symmetrical with cross-falls of 1:20. However, most of the
channels in the central reserve were designed to be symmetrical and to have
slopes not steeper than 1:4. A trapezoidal channel with side-slopes of 1: l was
also reported, as well as a dished channel but no detailed information was
given on the dimensions of this latter channel. It should be noted that the
design of some of these schemes started before the publication in 1991 of the
Amendment No.1 to the Advice Note HA 37/88 which recommended the use
of symmetrical channels with cross-falls of 1:5 both in the verge and in the
central reserve.

Another feature of the channels that varied considerably from scheme to

scheme was the design flow depth of the channel. Some of the values of the
design flow depth (and in a few cases of the channel width) given in Tables
2 and 3 were amended in order to be consistent with the values of the side-
slopes and design width given in the replies to the questionnaires. Figure 1b)
shows the channels (in the verge and in the central reserve) identified in the
survey according to their depth. It can be seen that channels of depth between
100 and 150mm appear to dominate.
6.2.3 Description of channel outfalls
(Question F of the questionnaire)
The replies concerning the description of the channel outfalls, which
corresponds to Question F of the questionnaire, are summarized in Table 4.

The replies to the questionnaire showed that in approximately two thirds of the
schemes the outlets were set in the channel invert and in one third these were
set back in the verge of the carriageway. One scheme reported both types of
positioning.

Figure 2 shows two bar charts with the minimum and maximum distances
between outlets that were adopted in the schemes. The outlets were spaced
as far apart as 1100m in one scheme, but the minimum distances reported
were as short as only 5m, presumably in sag points and at crests. The
maximum distances between outlets varied from 30 to 11OOm, whereas the
minimum distance varied between 5 and 364m. The chart for maximum
distances shows that in almost 30% of the schemes the outlets were spaced
more than 500m apart; however, in half the schemes this distance was less
than 150m.

A variety of systems has been used to convey the water from the outlets in the
schemes reported, but the majority of the schemes relied on carrier drains or
a combination of these with other systems, as shown in Figure 3. Toe ditches,
watercourses and soakaways have been used in conjunction with carrier
drains in about 20% of the schemes. Soakaways as the sole means of
discharging the flow were adopted in two schemes, and the exclusive use of
toe ditches was adopted in only one scheme.

6.3 SITE VISITS TO SELECTED SCHEMES

6.3.1 Considerations
Visits were made during the project to thirteen different road schemes with
surface water channels. The schemes are listed in Table 5 and were selected
on the basis of the information from the first-stage questionnaire so as to cover
a representative range of channel and outlet types. Ten of the schemes were
already open to traffic and three were under construction. Eight of the
schemes that were open were visited without requiring the involvement of local
highways staff. The five other schemes were visited in the company of site
staff either as part of the meetings carried out for the second-stage
questionnaire (see Section B.4) or during the field tests on outlet performance
(see Section C.2). The principal objectives of the visits were to: assess the
design and construction aspects of the surface water channels; identify any
problems with the durability or maintenance of channels already in use; and
identify and record the main types of outlet design already in use.

8.3.2 Data from visits

During the visits particular attention was focused on the following aspects: the
general state of the channels (ie concrete roughness, contraction joints,
sedimentation, debris, plant overgrowth); the general state of the gratings (ie
blockage by debris); the geometry of the channels and outfalls; the position of
the outfalls in relation to the channel invert. The size of the step between the
carriageway side of the channels and the pavement surface was also noted
as well as any signs of cracking in the channels. Photographs were taken of
each scheme visited, and the dimensions of the outfalls were recorded in order
to supplement the information gathered from the first-stage questionnaire.
Some general conclusions have been drawn from these visits and are
summarised under the following headings:

ja) Overall state of channels and outfalls

From the structural point of view the overall condition of the channels and
outfalls of all the schemes visited was generally good. Small cracks could,
however, be seen to have developed in most channels, but these should not,
in the short-term at least, affect the performance of the channels on conveying
run-off from the road. This conclusion applies even to a scheme (Reference
J in Table 5) where signs of an accident were still visible at the time of the
visit. A vehicle had apparently crossed over the central reserve channel at an
angle of about 45" to the edge and crashed against the safety barrier, but only
limited damage had been caused to the channel. By chance, the vehicle
impacted at the position of a gully grating, and the shock appeared to have
cracked the concrete around the grating and shifted it slightly.

jb) Concrete rouqhness

The roughness of the concrete varied significantly from scheme to scheme.
Whereas in some schemes the concrete was very smooth, in others a brush
finish had been carried out which increased the roughness substantially; some
channels also showed moderate undulation and striation of the concrete.

jc) Sediment and debris

In most of the schemes visited small amounts of sediment and debris could be
seen in the channel, but considerably more could be found at the outfalls. In
one of the schemes (Reference D in Table 5) the sediment had become
cemented along part of the channel. The debris often consisted of grass
cuttings from the verges, twigs and rubbish thrown by passing motorists. In
some cases siR and soil had deposited in the flatter sections of channel; this
was particularly noticeable on newly-constructed schemes where the verges
were still un-grassed. At the gratings, the debris could produce a serious
blockage of the outlet, of up to about 50% of the area of the grating.
Vegetation growing into the channels was also noted in most schemes, even
in schemes not yet open to traffic. This suggests the need for regular
maintenance of the channels, as vegetation overgrowth can produce a
blocking effect in the channels which obviously affects their capacity.

Id) Concrete ioints

The contraction joints observed were in generally good condition but some
small cracks were found to form in their vicinity, in particular on the steeper
side of asymmetric channels. In an older scheme (Reference A in Table 5) the
concrete had deteriorated considerably at the joints; in another scheme
(Reference B) there were signs of possible expansion of the concrete at the
joints which had cracked the sealant.

le) Geometry of channels

The cross-sectional shape of surface water channels has been specified in the
Highway Construction Details (HCD) published by the DOT. In the December
1987 edition of the HCD, asymmetrical triangular channels were allowed in the
verge, with maximum cross-falls of 1:5 (vertical: horizontal) on the carriageway
side of the channel and 1:1 on the verge side. Symmetrical channels with
equal cross-falls of 1:5 or flatter were required to be used in the central
reserve. Contemporary with the publication of DOT Advice Note HA 39/89on
Edge of Pavement Details and Amendment No 1 to HA 37/88,the December
1991 edition of the HCD no longer permitted use of asymmetrical channels in
the verge, but required symmetrical channels, generally with cross-falls of 1 :5
or flatter, in all locations. In exceptional cases, Amendment No 1 allows cross-
falls of up to 1:4 on one or both faces of the channels.

As a result, most of the older schemes have asymmetrical channels in the

verge with 1 :l and 1 :5cross-falls. This is also the case with some of the more
recent schemes, the designs of which were presumably carried out earlier on
the basis of the 1987 edition of the HCD and not revised in accordance with
the 1991 edition when they subsequently came to be built. It was noted that
outlets with gratings set horizontally on the invert of symmetrical triangular
channels did not conform with the requirement that cross-falls should not be
steeper than 1:4. Two examples of surface water channels are presented in
Plates 1 and 2.

It was also found that a misinterpretation of the Highway Construction Details

(both editions) has commonly occurred regarding the level of the outer edge
of channels in the central reserve. This level has been set higher than that of
the carriageway side. Exactly the opposite is recommended for safety reasons
to prevent water from encroaching on the fast lane of the carriageway. This
misinterpretation probably stems from the recommendation for channels set in
the verge where allowance for encroaching on the hardstrip is adopted in the
design to increase the channel capacity. In the recent amendment to the HCD
(August 1993) changes were introduced to clarify this issue and avoid
misinterpretations.

It was noted in a few instances that outlets had unnecessarily been

constructed at the upstream ends of drainage lengths even though no
significant amount of water would have flowed towards them. Some of the
channels were terminated at the downstream end by vertical walls at almost
90"relative to the edge of the road. Better detailing was shown by some other
schemes which had inclined or rounded end walls; these features would make
it safer and easier for vehicles that are accidentally driven into the channels
to come out of them and back on to the road.

One of the schemes visited (Reference B in Table 5) presented an unusual

feature which is worthy of mention. In a symmetrical channel in the central
reserve, a hump was built across the channel about 0.5m downstream of an
outlet with the possible purpose of causing a ponding effect. This would
increase the head over the grating and therefore the discharge capacity of the
outlet. This feature, which may be hydraulically effective, presents in principle
a safety hazard for motorists.

(f) Geometry of outfalls

The geometry of the outfalls varied considerably from scheme to scheme;
features such as the dimensions of the outfall, the position of the gratings (in-
line or off-line), the number of gratings, the local slope of the channel floor and
the space allowed between gratings are normally scheme-specific.

The transition from the channel to the outlet was in a few cases quite abrupt.
In one particular scheme (Reference D in Table 5) the outlet, which consisted
of a single grating set back in the verge, was positioned without any sort of
transition to assist turning of the flow from the channel. This solution is likely
to be inefficient at collecting flow from the channel and preventing it bypassing
the outlet. However, in most schemes, transitions have been built to direct the
flow more smoothly from the channel towards the gratings. Transitions with
slopes from 1:lto 1:3 in plan were recorded during the visits and some of the
designs had curved walls. From the hydraulic viewpoint, some of these slopes
may still be too sharp to give a satisfactory performance.

In some outfalls the gratings were set at a level lower than that of the channel
invert (depressed gratings) in order to increase the head over the grating;
some outfalls included more than one grating and the longitudinal spacing
between them was found to vary from about 1m to 2.5m. The variety of
geometries observed highlighted the need for guidelines on an efficient design
for outfalls.

( g ) Step between channel and top layer of road

Difficulties in complying with the tolerances for the level of the channel edge
in relation to the level of the road surface were very apparent in most
schemes. There were visible signs of remedial work carried out to bring the
levels within the specification: the bituminous wearing course had, in places,
been planed down along the edge of the channels to reach the correct level.
In some schemes this appeared to have been taken too far and the wearing
course was lower than the lip of the channel (eg Scheme J in Table 5). In
sections of road where the levels did not meet the specification along a
reasonable distance, the existing channels were removed and new sections
were built.

One of the schemes (Scheme A in Table 5) showed a step of up to 90mm

between the black top and the channel edge along the section inspected. It
appears that an overlay was placed without regard for the specification that
requires the step to be smaller than 10mm.

B.4 MEETINGS AND SECOND-STAGE QUESTIONNAIRE

B.4.1 General considerations

As mentioned in Section B.1, a second-stage questionnaire was prepared (and
approved by DOT) covering more general qualitative information about the use
of surface water channels and the design of outfalls. It was concluded that it
would not be appropriate to circulate it in the same way as the first-stage
quesionnaire because the questions were less specific and would have
required much more effort to answer. It was therefore decided to select a
number of representative schemes on the basis of the informaiton from the
first-stage questionnaire and then carry out visits to discuss the schemes with
the engineer's responsible for their design, construction and maintenance. The
second-stage questionnaire was used as check list during the meetings, with
the answers being recorded by members of the HRKRL project team. A copy
of the questionnaire is included in Appendix II.

A number of meetings was held with designers, resident engineers and

channel contractors in the period between the end of July and the end of
October 1993. Two major road schemes were selected from the list of
projects identified by the first-stage questionnaire: the A20 between Folkestone
and Dover and the A47 IVorwich Southern Bypass. All the relevant parties
involved in the construction of these two schemes were contacted and
meetings were arranged to gather more detailed information. Meetings were
also held with the Resident Engineers of two other schemes: the A1 l Red
Lodge Bypass and the A19 Easingwold Bypass (still under construction). A
timetable of the meetings is presented in Table 6.

Although the discussions revolved around the four specific schemes, general
comments based on the experience of using this type of road drainage were
also recorded. This applied particularly to the meetings with the two channel
contractors (SIAC and Extrudaketb). During the first of these meetings it
became evident that the list of schemes obtained through the first-stage
questionnaire was incomplete. Since most channels have been slipformed it
was thought useful to ask slipforming companies for lists of the schemes that
they had built. The umbrella organisation BRITPAVE was contacted for this
purpose and provided the names of a number of other channel contractors.
These were in turn contacted and led to 49 more schemes being added to the
ones identified from the first-stage questionnaire.

Although there were differences of opinion amongst the engineers regarding

the advantages and disadvantages of surface water channels and the
difficulties (or not) of their design and construction, some conclusions could be
drawn. These conclusions, which are believed to be representative of the
general view on each matter, were grouped in the categories described in the
following sections.

8.4.2 Hydraulic design of channels

la) Choice of surface water channels:
Other drainage options such as kerbs and gullies were considered in the early
stages of design by most of the designers contacted. In one scheme
(Reference E in Table 5) the Department of Transport specifically asked
Suffolk County Council to compare traditional drainage with surface water
channels. Surface water channels were chosen in some schemes because
they were considered to be DOT'S preferred option. The general view is that,
where channels can discharge into soakaways or directly into watercourses
they are a good alternative to traditional kerbs and gullies. Kerbs and gullies
may prove more economical if the number of discharge points is limited and
flow from the channel outlets needs to be conveyed to them by long lengths
of carrier pipe. If the NRA imposes restrictions on the discharge of road runoff
into watercourses, filter drains may be more suitable since pollutants will travel
more slowly and some of them will be retained in the drain. However,
expensive remedial work may later be necessary to remove the pollutantsfrom
the filter material and the associated collecting pipes.

(b) HA37188 design method

The method described in HA 37/88 was seen by one designer as too complex,
but another had produced tables for use in worksheets which simplified the
design. The designers of Scheme E (see Table 5) decided upon two different
geometries (one for the verge and the other for the central reserve) and
checked their capacities using HA 37/88. In this way they reduced the number
of variables involved. The designers of Scheme B developed their own
method which followed the Wallingford Procedure and Road Note 35 for the
design of the channels. The design of Scheme G was based on previous
experience in Hong Kong where the consultants had designed channels with
similar characteristics.
The main criticism of the HA 37/88 method was that it did not include any
guidance for the outlet design. Also, with the present need for carrier pipes
to convey the flow from the outlets to a suitable site, the designer is faced with
two different systems of design: one for the channels and another for the
pipes. A single package would be welcomed by most designers. It should be
noted that, with computer spreadsheets being widely used, graphical methods
are not generally favoured.

8.4.3 Pavement drainage

Rodding eyes for inspection purposes are commonly used with fin drains. The
need for sub-surface drainage was questioned by one respondent for highly
permeable soils. However, the DOT always requires the inclusion of pavement
drainage. It may be noted that the first-stage questionnaire showed that a
scheme was built in Northern Ireland, without sub-surface drainage because
the road was constructed on a free-draining gravel embankment; the design
standard for the scheme was a DOE (NI) Roads Service document. In
Scheme B the fin drain did not connect to carrier pipes serving the surface
drainage but drained directly into catchpits.

B.4.4 Hydraulic design of outfalls

At present there are no guidelines for the design of the outfalls. Therefore
designers use their engineering judgement bearing in mind that the outfalls
may easily be blocked by debris. This may lead to a conscious decision to
overdesign in terms of the size or number of gratings required.

If a system needs to incorporate carrier pipes, as seems to be the case in

many schemes, there are no guidelines for how they should be designed;
uncertainties arise concerning the time of entry into the drains due to the
considerable length of the channels.

Some outfalls have been designed with the grating(s) set back in the verge
andfor with a depressed sole to increase the head over the grating (eg
Schemes E and G in Table 5). In some cases two or three gratings were
installed so that, if blockage of one grating were to happen, there would still
be sufficient capacity available to drain the flow. Some bypass flow (25%) has
been allowed in the design of the outfalls of Schemes E and G.

B.4.5 Constructional aspects

fa} Channels:
General aspects
Resident engineers of the schemes visited expressed contradictory views
regarding the constructional aspects of surface water channels. Some feel
that they hinder the work programme because they add another major stage
to the construction process. Channels involve specialised contractors who are
separate from the pavement drainage contractors; this can create additional
difficulties in the managing of the project. On the other hand, the channels
were said to "tidy" up the edges of the road: because they are normally built
on the road sub-base, the channels form a longitudinal edge against which the
road layers can be neatly built.

The amount of concrete used to form the channels can be quite considerable
since the channels are generally founded on the road sub-base. The overall
depth of the channels could be reduced if structural tests showed that their
strength would still be satisfactory. A concrete thickness below the invert of
approximately lOOmm has been suggested as suitable from the channel
contractors viewpoint. Assuming a 150mm depth channel profile it would
result in an overall concrete depth of about 250mm. At present it is common
to find overall depths (measured from the carriageway edge) of the order of
450mm. However, channel construction represents only part of the total
construction costs. If thinner channels are laid on a bound pavement material,
little economy would be achieved. Construction on a locally thicker layer of
unbound sub-base would result in savings in material costs but would
complicate pavement construction.

Shape
From the constructional viewpoint the shape of the channels does not appear
to be a critical factor. Very wide channels (2m or more) can be built with no
special difficulties by the major slipforming contractors. Flatter cross-falls (as
opposed to 1:l cross-falls), rounded edges and sloping outer sides (which are
now recommended by DOT) are generally preferred.

It was noted during the site visits that in some channels the sides are locally
convex in cross-section and so do not have the required triangular shape.
This probably results from differential slump of the concrete. The bowing out
of the sides will tend to reduce the capacity of the channel.

Constructional tolerances
Matching the tolerances on level for the carriageway edge of the channels and
for the bituminous wearing course appears to have been difficult in many
schemes. The slipform contractors normally aim to construct the channel so
that the top edge on the carriageway side is 5mm below the level specified for
the finished road surface. Allowing for a working tolerance of +5mm (which
experienced contractors consider to be reasonable) should result in a final
concrete level of 0 to -10mm relative to the specified level; this variation is
equal to the HCD limit on the allowable size of step at the edge of the channel.
However, this does not take account of the permitted tolerance on the level of
the bituminous wearing course which is 0 to +6mm relative to the specified
level. In combination, the separate application of the two sets of tolerances
could result in a maximum downward step of 16mm from the pavement to the
adjacent edge of the surface water channel, which is beyond the permitted
limit of 10mm. From their viewpoint, the slipform contractors feel that they are
sometimes unfairly penalised for errors in level that were not of their own
making. The level pins used to set out a surface water channel have often
been lost or replaced by the time the pavement is laid so it can then be difficult
to prove whether or not the channel was constructed to specification.

Remedial work can be carried out to bring the step between the channel and
the road surface within specification. Solutions include: planing of the
bituminous material forming the hardstrip, grinding the concrete in the channels
and introduction of epoxy-concrete patches to bring the channel to a higher
level locally. This latter approach was used in parts of Scheme B (see Table
5) but does not seem satisfactory because the joints between the epoxy patch
and the underlying concrete remain weak points which could cause premature
deterioration of the channels. A better solution, which has been adopted in
some other cases, is to remove sections of the channel and construct them
again to the right level. Grinding of the channels is also not considered
advisable over longer stretches as it exposes the aggregates, increases the
roughness of the channel and may lead to frost damage.

Tolerances should not only apply to the edge of the channel but also to the
overall shape of the channel. It is possible for the concrete in the channel to
show different slump levels depending on whether the concrete is on the edge,
or say, the invert of the channel. Since the capacity of the channel is a
function of its depth, it would be advisable to check that the invert level is
correctly set.

Overlays
It is often necessary to rehabilitate flexible roads as they wear and their
surfaces deform, crack and loose their texture. This can be readily performed
with roads with surface water channels by planing off the old pavement surface
and replacing it by a new pavement surface whilst at the same time
maintaining the surface level of the pavement and limiting the step between
the pavement and the edge of the channel to the specified limit of 1Omm.

Flexible pavements, however, often require strengthening during their life either
due to wear or to increase in the amount of traffic that can be carried in their
design life. This can involve pavement overlays with thicknesses between
40mm and 300mm. The surface water channels would also require to be built
up to this thickness to avoid a large drop into the channel. Overlay techniques
should be developed prior to the need to provide structural overlays to roads
that have been built with surface water channels.

Concrete mix
The workability of the concrete used in surface water channels is a major
constructional factor. From experience the slipforming contractors have come
up with their own specifications for the concrete which maintain workabilrty with
a lower than normal slump while producing the cube-strengths required by the
HCD. It appears that concrete grade C35 with a 6% air content has been
generally adopted by the contractors with success. Some Resident Engineers
have argued that certain mixes did not conform to the DOT requirements, but
this problem has since been resolved by changes adopted in the August 1993
amendment to the HCD and Specification for Highway Works (SHW); this
question is discussed again i~Section B.5.

The contractors consider they need to be able to add some water on site to
improve workability when the concrete mixture is too dry, and some Resident
Engineers permit this to be done. The contractors argue that if the amount of
water added were sufficient to reduce the concrete strength below
specification, the mix would be too wet to be used successfully for slipforming.
The counter argument is that the unquantified addition of water can lead to
inconsistent batches of concrete and an increased risk of sub-standard
sections of channel. There is some confusion over whether there is an
applicable DOT specification for the workability of the concrete. Clause 1005
of the Specification for Highway Works (1991) states that the optimum
workability required "shall be determined by the Contractor and approved by
the Engineer". The slipform contractors consider that slumps in the range
15mm to 35m are generally satisfactory.

The current sampling of the concrete ever 30 linear metres (which is suitable
for pavements) may be excessive for surface water channels. The criterion
should preferably take account of volume of concrete laid as well as the
length. The distance between samples should be chosen so that
unsatisfactory sections of channel are identified and satisfactory concrete is
not removed unnecessarily.

Joints
There appears to be some confusion regarding the depth at which the joints
should be formed. The recommended depth is 25mm below invert level but
it is not clear whether, on the sides of the channel, the joint should be cut
25mm below the surface or to a horizontal level corresponding to 25mm below
the invert. Clarification on this point by the DOT seems necessary.

Although there is no universal agreement on the best joint forming method

(wet or dry), it appears that in most schemes the joints are wet formed. It was
observed, however, that local distortion of the concrete may occur with this
method. From the hydraulic viewpoint this may result in localized
accumulation of sediment or debris and reduced capacity of the channels.

Ib) Outfalls
The outfalls are normally moulded by hand. In some schemes, it appears that
the slipforming machine was stopped just before the outlet position, moved
forward a few metres and started again on the other side, the outlet was later
formed in situ in the gap left between the two sections of channel. This
method has the disadvantage that the machine tends to settle slightly when it
is stopped so that the channel has a low point either side of the outlet. An
alternative method (used, for example, in Scheme L in Table 5) is not to
interrupt the slip-forming process but remove whole sections of channel at the
outlet positions while the concrete is still green. This produces a better
longitudinal profile but can waste a significant quantity of concrete when outlets
are closely spaced. From the slipforming point of view it is better to design the
outfall so that the gratings are positioned with their carriageway edges on the
invert of the channel or set back into the verge. With this layout the channel
can be slipformed continuously and only the verge side of the channel needs
to be cut out to build the outfall.

(C) Sub-surface drainage

In schemes where fin drains are used for pavement drainage, difficulties have
been found in bending the geotextile in the under channel drainage layer to a
90" angle around the verge edge of the channel, as indicated in the HCD. A
normal procedure is to cut and overlap the geotextile at this position.

Sub-surface drainage would be improved if geotextiles used under surface

water channels were to extend about 150mm horizontally towards the road
side and not just 50mm, as is currently recommended. This recommendation
stems from the fact that membranes can be shifted quite easily by the passage
of a slipforming machine.

Jd) Alternative shapes of channel

From the constructional (slipforming) viewpoint there seem to be no
reasonable limitations to the slopes of channel that can be formed. Channels
of trapezoidal cross-section, or novel designs such as slotted channels or
channels incorporating carrier pipes, can be built without major adjustments
to the slipforming machines already in operation.
B.4.6 Maintenance
Surface water channels require frequent maintenance if their discharge
capacity is to be safeguarded. Particular attention should be taken when
cutting the grass along the verges of the channels, as grass cuttings can easily
block the gratings at the outfalls or obstruct the channels causing local flooding
upstream.

The frequency of cleaning of the channels adopted in Scheme G (see Table

5) appears to be satisfactory: regular cleaning is done on a monthly basis, but
maintenance is carried out ad hoc when there are visible signs of debris
accumulating in the channels.

B.4.7 Safety
Safety questions were raised during the meetings but no incident was reported
where a surface water channel had been considered to have caused an
accident or made one worse. Signs of an accident were observed at one site
(Reference J in Table 5). Although the vehicle had crossed the central reserve
channel at an angle of about 45", the adjacent safety barrier appeared to have
successfully absorbed the energy of the vehicle by means of plastic
deformation. The presence of the channel did not therefore appear to have
altered the level or pitch angle of the vehicle beyond the limits within which the
safety barrier was able to perform as intended.

B.5 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this Section is to discuss the implications of some of the
information obtained from the second-stage questionnaire (see Section B.4)
and to include additional comments on the use of surface water channels
based on the experience of the HFUTRL project team

Ja) Size and shape of channels

Current usage of surface water channels is strongly constrained by safety
considerations which limit the allowable depth to a maximum of 150mm and
cross-falls to values no steeper than 1:5 (or 1:4 in exceptional cases).
Constructional factors and the limitation on maximum depth make it difficult to
set the channel at a different longitudinal gradient from that of the road, and
this can result in relatively short spacings being required between outlets on
level or nearly level roads. Also, the shallow triangular channels used are not
very efficient from the hydraulic point-of-view because the ratio of wetted
perimeter to cross-sectional area is relatively large. Many of these limitations
are unavoidable as long as the channels need to be contiguous with the road
surface and there is a possibility of vehicles driving into them. Despite the
limitations, the existing types of surface water channel still allow considerably
larger spacings between outlets than equivalent kerb-and-gullydesigns, as well
as offering some of the other practical advantages discussed in Section A.1.
However, the relative lack of capacity of the channels has made it necessary
for parallel carrier pipes to be used in most schemes to collect flow from the
outlets and convey it to suitable discharge points. The extra cost of the carrier
pipes will have removed some of the economic benefits of using surface water
channels. Also it has not always been possible to keep the pavement
drainage separate from the surface water drainage, as surface water and sub-
surface water have sometimes been collected in the same carrier drain.
Much greater flexibility in design becomes possible in situations where safety
barriers are necessary and vehicles are thereby prevented from entering the
channels. The longitudinal gradient of the channel need no longer be tied so
closely to that of the road, and deeper, narrower channel shapes with better
hydraulic performance can be used. As a result, it would be relatively easy to
achieve much greater distances between outlets than are possible with the
current types of triangular channel. Consideration should therefore be given
to developing standard construction details for channels that are protected by
safety barriers so that designers are made aware of the wider range of options
that then become available.

Some developments are also possible in the geometry of the existing type of
surface water channel. The limitations on maximum depth and cross-fall do
not prevent the use of trapezoidal cross-sections, and these will usually give
a higher flow capacity than equivalent triangular profiles. Sediment may
deposit on the flat invert of a trapezoidal channel but such deposition is also
observed to occur in triangular channels when flow velocities are low. The
width of deposition in a trapezoidal channel may be reduced if the invert is not
truly horizontal but given a small transverse cross-fall (eg 1/40 as in
conventional kerb-and-gully designs).

Another method of increasing flow capacity could be to form a carrier pipe

within the mass concrete below the invert of the surface water channel. The
slipform contractors say that this can be done using an inflatable plastic lining
that is held in position as the concrete is poured; it is understood that this
technique has already been used on a road in Scotland. One possibility would
be to let the water from the surface channel drain directly into the internal
carrier pipe by means of regularly-spaced slots. However, maintenance
problems might be caused by sediment blocking the slots or depositing in the
pipe. An alternative possibility would be to discharge water from the surface
channel into the carrier pipe only at the normal outlet locations. Possible
drawbacks to the use of an internal carrier pipe include: the limited size and
capacity of pipe that can be fitted within the channel block; the effects of
possible leakage due to cracks and construction joints; and the inability to vary
the longitudinal gradient of the pipe from that of the surface channel. Further
study is therefore needed to determine the feasibility of this possible
development.

(b) Hydraulic design method

Experience in the use of HA 37/88 has shown that many lengths of surface
water channel have design storm durations of less than 8 minutes, which is the
recommended lower limit for application of the design curves. Short durations
occur in the design procedure if the outlet need to be closely spaced due to
high rates of run-off from wide carriageways andlor insufficient flow capacity
in the surface water channels. The principal reason for the 8 minute limit was
that the rainfall equation built into the design curves was optimised for
durations of about 15-40 minutes and significantly overestimates rainfall
intensities in short storms. HA 37/88 therefore recommends use of an
alternative design procedure in Contractor Report 2 (1984), which deals with
the spacing of British Standard gully gratings. However, in retrospect, it might
have been better to allow use of HA 37/88 for shorter durations and accept an
element of over-design. This is because Contractor Report 2 also contains
approximations and uses a fixed storm duration of 5 minutes irrespective of
channel length. It is considered that the best solution would be to revise the
design curves in HA 37/88 so that the they are optimised for storm durations
of about 2-20 minutes and can then be used for all channel designs without
restriction.

A linked problem concerns the time taken for rain falling on a carriageway to
reach the adjacent surface water channel. This time is typically 1-2 minutes
and is not taken into account by the design procedure in HA 37/88. It was
originally expected that design storm durations would be much longer than two
minutes so that any errors would be negligible. However, the time of entry to
the channel will need to be included if the method in HA 37/88 is revised to
allow durations of less than 8 minutes.

(c) Constructional aspects

The information on tolerances obtained during the site meetings (see Section
8.4) indicates that the current specification of 0-1Omm for the downward step
between the pavement surface and the edge of the concrete channel can be
difficult to achieve. Part of the problem is that the actual step height is the
result of two separate operations (the slipforming of the channel and the laying
of the pavement) which are usually carried out by different contractors and at
different stages in the project. The performance of the slipforming machines
has been improved since the first schemes were constnrcted and a tolerance
of f5mm relative to the specified level is considered quite practicable. Often
the slipforming contractors will aim to form the channel edge 5mm below the
pavement surface to reduce the possibility of the channel being built higher
than the pavement. When combined with the allowable variation of 0 to +6mm
in the pavement surface a step height of 16mm, instead of the limit of 10mm
can be produced. If the pavement tolerance is not altered, the slipform
contractors would have to achieve an accuracy of f2mm to satisfy the
specification, and this is probably not achievable with present equipment and
methods. One possibility would be for the pavement contractor to use the
edge of the channel as the level reference so that a step height of more than
6mm should not occur. This might require some changes to the levelling
system of the pavement-laying machine and could result in a slightly
undulating road surface; an effect that may be considered more undesirable
than an out of tolerance step height at the pavement edge. Other possibilities
include allowing a somewhat greater maximum step height, or making minor
and infrequent adjustments to required pavement levels (on the basis of a
detailed survey of the channel) so that any discrepancies are minimised.
Some of the remedial measures that have been adopted when tolerances were
exceeded appear to have created more problems than they solved. Some
latitude is needed so that potentially harmful grinding or patching does not
automatically have to be carried out to correct small localised errors.

Some of the comments received on concrete mixes referred to the 1991

editions of the Specification for Highway Works (SHW) and the Highway
Construction Details (HCD). Amended editions in 1993 dealt with some of
these points and now permit the use of concrete C35 in slipformed channels.
In BS 5931, 1980 "Machine laid in-situ edge details for paved areas" it is
stated that the optimimum workability for the mix to suit the paving plant being
used shall be determined by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer.
Slipform contractors consider Grade C35 concrete with 6% air content to be
satisfactory for the purpose. It can be deduced from BS 5328 Part 1 that
concrete with a 16mm maximum aggregate size could be used with a 6% air
content.
Surface water channels normally have either a brushed finish or a float finish.
The brushed finish used in some channels seems excessively rough, both
visually and from a hydraulic viewpoint, and could reduce the flow capacity.
However, the float finish may offer a somewhat lower skidding resistance if
vehicles or cyclists enter the channel.

(d) Maintenance
Surface water channels need regular cleaning because sediment and debris
washed from fairly large areas of road tend to become concentrated at low
points and outlets. Little cleaning appeared to have been carried out on some
schemes that were visited. Blocked gratings can cause more serious
problems in surface channels than in kerb-and-gullysystems where the outlets
are more closely spaced and flows are smaller.

It is not known whether surface water channels in the central reserve are
proving difficult to clean. Use of cleaning vehicles in the fast-lane of a dual
carriageway would seem to present safety problems, but the site inspections
did not suggest that the level of maintenance was any worse than for channels
in the verge. The adoption of symmetrical 1:5 triangular channels in most of
the new schemes suggest that the development of a lorry-mounted cleaning
system using appropriately shaped brushes would be justified.

B.6 CONCLUSIONS
(1) The general questionnaire had a very positive response which led to the
identification of 39 schemes where surface water channels have been (or
are going to be) used as the major surface drainage system. The
regions which appear to have a higher density of this type of road
drainage are the East and South East of England, and Wales.
Approximately 50% of the schemes had not been completed at the time
of the survey (between December 1992 and July 1993), which appears
to indicate a rapid adoption of surface water channels in recent years.

(2) Most channels identified were triangular in cross-section with cross-falls

which varied considerably from scheme to scheme. Some channels
showed very steep slopes on the carriageway side: the steepest cross-
falls found in the survey were 1:2.3 in channels positioned both in the
verge and in the central reserve. The dominant design flow depth of the
channels was found to be in the range of 100mm to 150mm.

(3) The replies to the general questionnaire highlighted some important

points regarding the channel outlets. The first one is the positioning of
the gratings in relation to the channel invert: in two thirds of the schemes
the gratings were set on the invert of the channel. Many of the outlets
in the invert of symmetrical triangular channels use cross-falls that are
locally steeper than the allowable limit of 1:4. The second was that in the
majority of schemes (65% approximately) carrier drains had to be used,
in some cases in conjunction with other systems, to convey the flow from
the outlets. Only two schemes mentioned the exclusive use of
soakaways and toe ditches for the direct discharge of the flow. The need
for carrier drains imposes an extra cost on the construction of a scheme;
it also tends to weaken the case for using surface water channels in road
schemes since the carrier drains represent, in a sense, a duplication of
the drainage system.
(4) Outlets in surface water channels have been positioned with spacings as
great as 1100m but minimum spacings of the order of 10m were also
reported.

(5) Visits to several road schemes showed that a misinterpretation of the

HCD has commonty occurred regarding the level of the outer edge of
channels in the central reserve. It is suggested that a stronger
recommendation is included in the HCD so that designers do not make
the error of adopting a higher level for the verge side of the channel than
for the carriageway side which leads to water encroaching on the fast
lane of the road.

(6) It is suggested that standard construction details are developed for

channels protected by safety barriers so that designers are made aware
of the wider range of options that then become available.

(7) Consideration should be given to increasing the flow capacity of channels

by adopting trapezoidal cross-sections or, for example, by forming a
carrier pipe within the mass concrete below the invert of the surface
water channel.

(8) It is recommended that rodding eyes are installed for inspection and
cleaning of fin drains. Sub-surface drainage should be kept separate
from the surface water drainage in order to retain one of the advantages
of surface water channels.

(9) Constructional tolerances on level for the carriageway edge of the

channels and for the bituminous wearing course need to be reviewed so
that the required overall tolerance can be achieved. Tolerances should
also be specified for the level of the channel invert.

(10) Suitable techniques for adding overlays to roads with surface water
channels need to be developed at this stage in time before structural
overlays are required in the existing schemes.

(11) Some earlier discrepancies regarding the grade of concrete were

resolved in the 1993 editions of SHW and HCD. The question of the
workability of the concrete mix has generated some confusion amongst
the different parties involved in the construction of surface water
channels. However, the SHW states that the channels should comply
with the Code of Practice BS 5931, 1980 "Machine laid in-situ edge
details for paved areas" which recommends that the slump of concrete
+
for slipforming should be within the range 25-65mm 10mm. Within this
range, the value of slump that is acceptable should be first agreed
between the slipforming contractor and the concrete supplier. Provided
the concrete workability is within the recommended range, the
acceptability of the channel should be judged on the basis of the actual
tolerances on level achieved and concrete strength.

(12) The depth at which joints are formed in surface water channels needs
clarification. The present DOT recommendation is not clear about
whether the recommended depth of 25mm corresponds to a horizontal
level below the invert or below the surface.
 .papuaururoaa~
Aliua.t~nase 'ururog Aluo 40 peaisu! ap!s peoA aql spJeMoi Alleluozuoq
ururogl inoqe 01 papuawa slauueqa JaleM aaeyns aqi Japun sal!waloa6
aqi pa~o.tdur!aq p(noM a6eu!e~paz~eyns-qnsaqijo uo!iz~ruisuoz~ a q l (€1)
PARTC EXPERIMENTALSTUDYOFOUTFALLS

C.l INTRODUCTION
A detailed experimental study was necessary to complement the information
gathered from the questionnaires and enable the development of suitable
methods for the design of channel outfalls. This involved both field
measurements and laboratory tests, but the methods for the hydraulic design
of outfalls were mainly developed from the laboratory tests because these
allowed a more systematic way of varying the geometric features of the outfalls
and the flow conditions.

In this study the outfall is defined as the drainage system that collects and
removes water from the surface water channels and conveys it to a
downstream point of discharge. The outfall is formed by the outlet (which
collects the flow and removes it from the surface) and the outfall structures
(which consist of the chamber below the outlet and of the arrangements for
conveying the water to a collector pipe, a soakaway or a watercourse).

As mentioned before (see Section A.1), an in-line outlet is defined as an outlet

where the water is essentially collected symmetrically either side of the
channel invert; in an off-line outlet the channel is widened away from the
carriageway and the outlet is off-set from the centreline of the channel.

C.2 FIELD TESTS

C.2.1 Objectives
The purpose of the field tests was to measure the performance of existing
outlets in two selected road schemes. The performance of an outlet can be
assessed both qualitatively (by visual observation) and quantitatively (by
measurements of the approach flow and the bypass flow).

Features of surface water channels such as shape and surface texture, as well
as contraction and expansion joints, affect the total roughness of the channels
and the velocities approaching the outlet. Measurements allow an estimate of
the Manning's roughness value for the channel "as built". Visual observation
of the flow patterns at the gratings of the outlets can help identify causes of
possibly inadequate capacity of an outfall. Improvements in the performance
can then be obtained by changes to the outfall layout.

C.2.2 Description of the sites

The choice of the two sites for field tests was based on the following criteria:

1 The road scheme should be completed or nearly completed but not yet
open to traffic to avoid traffic disruption caused by the need to cone off
part of the road;

2 The scheme should preferably have a wide range of slopes so that

different flow conditions can be produced in the channels;

3 The channels in the two road schemes should preferably have different
geometries (ie. different surface width and side-slopes); the outfalls
 should have different layouts and different positions in relation to the
channel invert (ie. in-line and off-line outlets).

The two sites chosen for the tests were selected from the road schemes
visited earlier in this study. They were the A20 Folkestone to Dover - Contract
1, in Kent, and the A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass, in Gwynedd, Wales. The tests
in the first scheme were carried out on 26 and 27 October 1993, and in the
second scheme on 29 and 30 November 1993. Both schemes were due to
open soon after the field tests were carried out.

C.2.2.1 A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1)

-
The A20 Folkestone to Dover Contract 1 has surface water channels both in
the verges and in the central reserve but of different characteristics. The
channels in the verge are asymmetrical with side-slopes of 1:lon the verge
side and 1:5 on the carriageway side. The design depth of the channels is
150mm and the corresponding surface width is 900mm. The channels in the
central reserve are symmetrical with side-slopes of 15, a design depth of
120mm and a surface width of 1.2m.

The outlets are formed by a triple grating set on the invert of the channel.
These gratings, Brickhouse Dudley, Triple Waterway 450mm x1350mm, were
set horizontally on the channel invert. A smooth transition was formed between
the channel invert and the outlets. The same geometry was used for the
terminal and intermediate outlets.

In most of the scheme the channel outlets are set in relatively mild longitudinal
slopes which vary between 1:2000 and 1:400. It was initially thought that the
water necessary for the tests might be obtained from a nearby watercourse.
However, there were no streams in the vicinity of the scheme from where
water could be easily pumped to supply the flow for the tests. For this reason
it was necessary to use a road tanker which had to return to a depot in
Folkestone to refill before each test.

C.2.2.2 A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass

In the A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass, surface water channels are only present in
the verges (the scheme has only one carriageway in each direction and no
central reserve). The channels are symmetrical with side-slopes of 15, a
design depth of 78mm and a surface width of 780mm.

The outlets are formed by double triangular gratings, Glynwed Niagara 200
type, 650mmx650mm in size. In the terminal outlets two gratings are used with
a horizontal distance of 1570mm between them. The terminal outlets end with
a kerb at right angles to the carriageway. Intermediate outlets consist of a
single grating. In both types of outlets the gratings are set back into the verge
with the side of the grating closest to the carriageway coinciding with the
channel invert.

This scheme includes some very steep longitudinal slopes of the order of
1:16.7 (or 6%) in places, which is the normal maximum value permitted for
high-speed roads. It was found most convenient to use a tractor-drawntanker
for the tests and to re-fill it from a nearby watercourse.
C.2.3 Measurements
C.2.3.1 Equipment and test procedure
The equipment used in the tests consisted of three point gauges to measure
the water level, and current meters to measure the flow velocity in the channel
and in the vicinity of the outlets. Two types of current meter were used: two
miniature current meters which can measure flow velocities up to l d s , and
two miniature impeller meters (Valeport BFM004) designed to measure flow
velocities up to 2 d s . The two types of current meter were connected to
counter units which gave readings of the rate of rotation of the propellers.
These readings were later converted into values of flow velocity by using the
calibration curves of the instruments.

The procedure adopted in the field tests was first to identify suitable outlets to
test. As mentioned before, it was considered important to cover a wide range
of channel and outlet geometries, slopes and flow conditions. Once the
outlets were selected, a careful survey was carried out of the channel
upstream and downstream of the outlets. The survey of the invert level
extended from about 30m upstream of the outlets to 4m downstream of
intermediate outlets. In terminal outlets the survey was carried out to the
downstream end of the outlet. The longitudinal slope of the channel was
thereby determined. Detailed surveys were carried out at particular sections
where the measurements were to be taken with the point gauges and the
current meters. This was used to determine the channel cross-section as
built, in particular the side-slopes and depth of the channels. The location of
these sections relative to the outlets varied from test to test and will be
described later.

One tanker load was required to carry out each test. After some trial runs the
tankers proved to be adequate in supplying water to the channels. However,
the tankers could not supply enough water to fill the channels in the steeper
slopes of the Port Dinorwic scheme.

The water was introduced into the channel about 40m upstream of the outfalls
by means of flexible hoses. The hose used at Folkestonewas nominally 75mm
in diameter, whereas two different sizes of hose, of 25 and 100mm nominal
diameter, were used at Port Dinorwic. In this scheme it was possible to vary
the flow rate by either pumping the water or allowing it to flow by gravity.
Readings of water levels and flow velocities in the channel were taken when
the levels were considered stable after the initial surge caused by the
introduction of the water by the tanker hose. The tests in the two sites were
carried out with various water depths in the channels ranging from almost
channel-full to about one third full.

In each cross-sectionthe velocity measurements were taken at approximately

mid-depth at transverse spacings of 50 or 100mm. Readings at mid-depth are
close to the mean velocity which occurs at approximately 0.6 of the water
depth measured from the surface.

C.2.3.2 Tests at A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1)

The tests were carried out at three outfalls: two in the central reserve (Plates
3 and 4) and one in the verge (Plate 5). All of these were terminal outfalls.
Point gauges were installed on the channel centreline at 2m and 0.2m
upstream of the front edge of the gratings, and at 0.1 m downstream of the end
of the gratings. A detailed survey of these sections had been carried out
previous to the measurements to determine the channel geometry accurately.
Readings of flow velocity were also taken at these sections. The flow was
pumped from the tanker by a 75mm diameter hose.

No bypass flow of any significance was recorded during the tests, ie all the
flow was collected by the gratings. In most tests the water was all intercepted
by the first and second sections of the triple grating; only in one test of the
outfall in the verge was the flow also collected by the last section of the triple
grating.

C.2.3.3 Tests at A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass

The tests were carried out at three outfalls: one terminal on a steep slope
(Plates 6 and 7), one intermediate on a steep slope (Plate 8) and one
intermediate on a milder slope (Plate 9). The measuring sections for the
terminal outfall were located 3m upstream of the front edge of the first grating
and at mid-distance between the two gratings. The measuring sections for the
intermediate outfalls were positioned 3m upstream and 4.5m downstream of
the front edge of the grating. A detailed survey of these sections had been
carried out previous to the tests. Readings of velocities were taken at these
sections.

Flow bypassing the gratings occurred only during two tests of the intermediate
outfall set in the steeper slope of 6%. In all the other tests the outfalls had
enough capacity to collect the flow introduced into the channel.

C.2.4 Analysis of results

The longitudinal slopes of the channels and the side-slopes at the chosen
sections were determined from the survey readings. The survey showed that
one of the channels in the central reserve of the Folkestone scheme had an
irregular longitudinal slope. The outlets tested in the central reserve were
terminal outlets, ie each was located at the end of a channel.These two
channels run in the West-East direction; for identification purposes, they were
called the Central Reserve West channel (CRW) and the Central Reserve East
channel (CRE), respectively. Close to the outlet the CRW channel exhibited
a series of alternating positive and negative gradients but the overall slope was
practically flat. The irregularity of the channel slope made it impossible to
relate the flow measurements to the Manning resistance equation, which
assumes flow conditions to be uniform. Therefore, no reliable roughness value
could be obtained for this channel. It was also found that the side-slopes of the
channels were slightly flatter than the nominal ones; the surveyed side-slopes
were used in the determination of the flow cross-sectional area.

In sections where the water depth was sufficiently high to allow several
readings of the flow velocity, the mid-section method was applied to calculate
the flow discharge. In this method the channel cross-section is subdivided into
several vertical sections; the mean velocity and depth at a subdivision point
are multiplied by the section width measured between the mid points of
neighbouring sections. In tests where only a single value of velocity was
possible to record, this was done at the centreline of the channel, at about
mid-depth. A correction was necessary in these cases in order to obtain a
value representativeof the mean flow velocity of the whole cross-section. From
published data on velocity patterns in triangular channels, it was found that the
measured values should be multiplied by a factor approximately equal to 0.8.
This was carried out before proceeding with the analysis of the field data.
During the tests some difficulties were encountered in measuring the flow
velocity with the Valeport impeller meters. These were therefore replaced by
the miniature current meters in tests where the flow velocity did not
significantly exceed the range of the current meters (Imls). In tests with
higher flow velocities, which occurred mainly in the steeper channels of the
A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass, the flow discharge had to be estimated by an
alternative means. The procedure adopted was to calculate the Manning's
roughness value corresponding to the tests where a high number of velocity
readings was available, ie the tests carried out on the milder slope. The
Manning's roughness value, n, can be obtained as follows:

where A is the flow area, R is the hydraulic radius, S is the longitudinal

gradient of the channel and Q is flow in the channel. The hydraulic radius is
defined as the ratio of the flow area and the wetted perimeter, ie the perimeter
of the channel in contact with the water flow.

The average value obtained, n=0.009, was then used to estimate the velocity
and flow discharge in the steeper channels.

The results of the tests are shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9. In the tables, h is the
water depth and V is the mean flow velocity at the measuring sections which
were a few metres upstream of the outlets; Q is the flow rate in the channel
approaching the outlet, and hp is the water depth of the flow Qp that bypasses
the outlet. In Table 9, q represents the efficiency of the outlet which was
calculated as the ratio (Q-Qp)/Q.

As mentioned before, the values of Q were determined with the flow area
based on the side-slopes obtained in the survey of the channels' cross-
sections. The values of velocity between brackets in Table 8 were obtained by
dividing the estimated flows by the measured flow area.

As can be seen from Tables 7 and 8, the values of Manning's n varied

between 0.007 and 0.01 1 for the tests where the measurements of the flow
velocity were more reliable. This occurred both at Folkestone and in the milder
slope at Port Dinorwic. In the steeper slopes of Port Dinorwic considerably
higher values of Manning's n were obtained. It should also be noted that the
value of velocity measured in Test no.7 appears to be unrealistically small and
therefore gives an extremely high value of Manning's n.

Further analysis was carried out on the results of the field tests following the
laboratory tests and the preparation of the Advice Note on Outfalls (see
Section C.4.6).

C.2.5 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the field tests:

1. Roughness values were determined for the surface water channels in the
two sites selected for field tests. The tests carried out in the first site, the
A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1) showed values of Manning's n of
 0.007 to 0.008 whereas the second site, the A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass,
indicated values of n of about 0.009.

In general, the roughness values of these channels appear to be smaller

than the value of n=0.013 recommended in HA37188 for surface water
channels in an average condition. Assuming that the design was based
on n=0.013, this may imply that the channels tested can actually convey
somewhat bigger flows than the design flow. It should be noted,
however, that the channels tested were relatively free of sediment, and
that the effect of runoff entering along the length of the channel was not
reproduced. These two factors tend to increase the channel roughness
value and therefore have to be taken into account in the design of
surface water channels.

Although the tests were not carried out at the full channel capacity, they
showed that the outlets used in the milder slopes are adequate for
channel-full conditions on these slopes. In the A487 Port Dinorwic
Bypass, excessive bypass flow was registered in an intermediate outlet
set on a slope of 6%. With channel-full conditions it is likely also that the
terminal outfalls would not be able to cope with the very high velocities
generated by slopes of this order of magnitude. An increase in the length
of the outlet, and possibly the introduction of additional gratings, would
be required for an adequate design.

C.3 LABORATORY TESTS

C.3.1 lr~troduction
The purpose of the laboratory tests was to develop suitable designs of outlet
for surface water channels and to obtain in a systematic way quantitative
information on their hydraulic performance for use in a new Advice Note. As
explained in Section A.2, the Contract allowed for testing two different channel
geometries and three outfall designs for each of the channel geometries.

The laboratory testing of the outlets was carried out following the survey of
existing channels and the field tests described in Part B and Section C.2.
These earlier stages of the study helped identify the sizes and slopes of
channel that are representative of existing schemes and also highlighted the
need to develop more efficient designs of outlet. When selecting the channel
shapes to be tested, account was also taken of conclusions arising from a
concurrent study of safety aspects that was being carried out by Mr B
Robinson at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). Following discussions
with DOT and TRL, it was decided to test outfalls in symmetrical triangular
channels with cross-falls of 1:5 and in a higher capacity channel of trapezoidal
cross-section, with a design depth of 0.150m and cross-falls of 1:4.5. The first
channel shape correspondsto the standard profile recommended in the current
Highway Construction Details and HA 39189. The second shape is being
considered by DOT as a means of providing higher flow capacity for wider or
flat roads while not exceeding existing limitations on depth and cross-fall. The
capacity of this trapezoidal channel is 45% higher than that of a 0.150m deep
trangular channel with cross-falls of 1:5. The sole width of the trapezoidal
channel was chosen so that the cross-falls would not exceed 1:4 at the outlet
if gratings of 450mm X 450mm were to be installed on the sole of the channel.
This meant that the sole width would be equal to 0.300m and therefore the
design surface width would correspond to 1.65m. As will be explained later,
DOT is also considering an atternative trapezoidal shape having the same
values of depth and sole width but with cross-falls of 1:5 and a design surface
width of 1.8m. Only the first trapezoidal shape (1:4.5 cross-falls and 1.65m
surface width) was studied experimentally, but the results were used to make
approximate estimates of outlet performance for the alternative trapezoidal
shape.

Two types of outlet were studied, defined according to their position along the
channel as 'intermediate' and 'terminal' outlets. Intermediate outlets are
located at points part-way along a length of channel where the flow rate of
water from the road reaches the canying capacity of the channel. Terminal
outlets are located at low points along a length of channel and need to be able
to collect practically all the flow carried by the channel.

The design of outlets for surface water channels must be based on the flow
conditions at the approach to the outlet, namely the velocity, depth and
direction of the flow, since these are the fundamental independent factors that
determine the performance of an outlet. It is therefore important to reproduce
correctly in the laboratory test rig the flow depth and velocity approaching the
outlet but it is not necessary to reproduce a particular roughness for the
channel, defined usually by the Manning's roughness value, n.

C.3.2 Description of test rig

An existing tilting flume was adapted to carry out the testing of outfalls for
surface water channels (see Figure 4). 'The flume is 2.4m wide by 25m long
by 0.6m deep and can be tilted from horizontal to a maximum slope of 1:40.
The water is circulated by means of two pumps with a combined capacity of
248 11s; the water is drawn from a tank at the downstream end of the flume
and returned by pipework to an upstream tank. The total flow is measured by
a British Standard rectangular weir installed in the upstream tank.

The channels tested were built in a 12.5m long section which started 7.125m
downstream from the upstream end of the flume. For the testing of both types
of channel it was decided to adopt a length of at least 6m of uniform channel
upstream of the test section to produce uniform flow conditions approaching
the outlets.

A tank was built at the end of the channel to collect and allow measurement
of the flow that bypassed the gratings. This tank measured 1.5m X 1.9m and
discharged into the tank downstream of the flume by means of a 200mm
diameter pipe. The outlet from the tank was protected by an anti-vortex device
which is formed by a horizontal plate fixed 0.1 0m above the orifice. The
measurement of the bypass flow could be carried out in two different ways
depending on the amount of flow. For very low flows (flows smaller than 3.0
Vs ) it was found to be more accurate to use the tank as a volumetric device
and to measure the depth of water accumulated during a given period of time.
To achieve this the flow was retained in the tank by closing a valve at the
downstream end of the discharging pipe (see Figure 4). The time was
recorded with a stop-watch and the depth of water was measured with the aid
of a ruler stick fixed to one wall of the tank. The flow rate was calculated by
dividing the volume of water by the time. For higher flows, direct values of
flow rate were obtained by means of a 200mm diameter electromagnetic flow
meter installed in the pipework.
Water levels in the channel were measured using electronic point gauges
mounted on horizontal bars set transversely to the channel. The location of
the measuring sections varied with the type of outlet studied, but generally
values of the water depth were recorded in the channel at a distance
upstream of the outlets between 0.5 and Im, and also at points between
gratings and downstream of the outlets to measure the depth of the bypass
flow. The distance upstream of the outlets was chosen so that the water levels
were representative of the flow conditions in the channel undisturbed by the
drawdown at the gratings.

The flume was titted by electrically-poweredjacks which allowed tests to be

carried out at any slope from practically flat to a maximum of 1:40. At the
beginning of the study the flume was surveyed at various slopes in order to
calibrate the readings of the tilting mechanism, and a calibration equation was
obtained. A calibration of the rectangular weir for measurement of the total flow
was also carried out before the start of the test programme. During the study
checks were regularly done of these two calibration equations.

Rather than testing real gratings, it was decided to use representative wooden
models to avoid linking the results to any particular commercial patterns (see
Figure 5). The gratings were designed so that the waterway areas
corresponded to the minimum values recommended in BS 497: Partl: 1976.
They were made to have a waterway area of 0.44~*,where G is the width of
the gratings. Gratings with larger waterway areas than required by BS 497 or
with relatively thinner bars should therefore provide some margin of safety
compared with the present experimental results. The depth of the bars in the
model gratings needed to be kept as small as possible because the walls of
the flume strictly limited the total depth of the collecting chamber beneath the
gratings. The model bars were therefore made 25mm deep which was judged
sufficient to reproduce any 'choking' effect caused by water hitting the sides
of the bars and flowing out again.

C.3.3 Test procedure

In general, each outlet design was tested by first measuring its performance
at mild slopes and by then increasing the slope until its capacity limit was
reached. It was decided to define the capacity limit as the point at which the
flow collected by an outlet falls to less than a certain percentage of the
approaching flow: the figures selected were 80% for intermediate outlets and
97.5% for terminal outlets, as will be justified later in Section C.4. When the
capacity limit of an outlet was reached the number of gratings was increased
in stages up to a number which was thought practicable and economical to
build. Although the way the tests were carried out varied in specific cases, the
general procedure can be summarised as follows.

The slope of the flume was adjusted at the beginning of a test and the flow
rate was set so that channel-full or surcharged conditions were achieved in the
channel. These were reached when the water depth measured with the point
gauges corresponded to the design water depth in the channel (channel-full)
and to flooding of 1m of hard-strip (surcharged). In the testing of terminal
outlets a ramp with a slope of 1:4 in the direction of the flow was positioned
downstream of the outlet to simulate the end of the channel.

Sets of electronic point gauges were positioned in the channel at a distance

large enough from the outlet so that accurate measurements of the water
depth in the channel could be recorded. In most tests, particularly those
carried out in the beginning of the study, point gauges were used to monitor
water depths not only upstream of the outlet but also between gratings and
downstream of them. However, it was found that the readings between
gratings were not very representative of the water depth because of the
irregular nature of the water surface and were therefore not used in the
analysis. The readings of water depth and flow rate were taken at the
beginning of a test and then checked at the end.

As with the other measurements, the measurement of the bypass flow was
carried out once the flow conditions had become stable, using either the
volumetric tank or the flowmeter, depending on the amount of flow.

C.3.4 Triangular channels

The laws of hydraulic similarity allow the results of tests of a particular size of
channel to be used for the design of channels of other sizes provided that
ratios of relevant variables are kept constant. For open channel flow, where
the forces of gravity and inertia are the most relevant, the ratio is the Froude
number defined as QB'.'/ (g~3)0.5, where Q is the flow rate, B is the water
surface width, g is the acceleration due to gravity and A is the flow area. The
tests were carried out with a 0.100m deep channel and cross-falls of 1:5 but
the results are therefore also applicable to other sizes of channel and outlet
that are geometrically similar.

The triangular channel was reproduced in the flume in two different parts: the
upstream reach was built in wood and the 6.5m long outfall section was made
of wood for the in-line outlet and moulded in smooth concrete over a wooden
base for the off-line outlet. In the test rig the width of the flume was made up
of a small section of verge, the surface water channel (with the verge side at
a higher level than the road side to allow surcharging of the carriageway), and
a width representing the hard-strip (or hard-shoulder). This latter width was
built to a slope of 1:40. Plate 10 shows a general view of the flume with the
in-line outlet formed by two pairs of gratings.

For the testing of both types of channel it was decided to adopt a length of at
least 6m of uniform channel upstream of the test section to ensure uniform
flow conditions before the approach to the outlets.

C.3.4.1 In-line outlet

The in-line outlet tested for triangular channels is shown in Figures 6 and 7
and Plate 11 and is similar to a layout developed by Cambridgeshire County
Council. Although the outlet illustrated in Figure 6 consists of two pairs of
gratings, tests were first carried out with a single pair. In order to maximise
flow interception, the lower edges of the gratings were positioned very close
to the channel invert. The distance between the two edges was 0.022m in the
test rig which was thought to be representative of what is feasible in practice.

As can be seen in Figure 6, the distance between the two pairs of gratings
was chosen to be equal to 0.750m to allow space for debris to deposit in the
channel rather than on the gratings. The same reasoning was followed in
choosing the location of the terminal ramp in the tests of the terminal outlet.
These were carried out at first with the ramp 0.250m downstream of the
gratings but it was observed that a longer distance was beneficial in reducing
blockage of the gratings by debris.
The size of the gratings adopted in the tests was chosen to maximise flow
collection in the channel tested and to conform with commercially available
sizes. Gratings of size 450mm X 450mm were adopted with a waterway area
which corresponded to the minimum area recommended in BS
497:Partl:1976.Tests were carried out with two different bar patterns: a
diagonal pattern and a straight pattern (see Figure 5). The gratings with
straight pattern could be positioned in the channel either transversely or
longitudinally to the flow direction.

The results of the tests of the intermediate outlet are summarised in Table 10,
and those of the terminal outlet are presented in Table 11, where Q is the flow
rate, Qp is the flow that bypassed the outlet and h is the upstream water depth
in the channel. The effect of the bar pattern was also investigated by carrying
out tests with similar flow conditions but with gratings having bars set
diagonally, transversely or longitudinally relative to the direction of flow. The
results of these tests are shown in Table 12 where the data for tests with the
gratings completely removed are also given for comparison purposes.

C.3.4.2 Off-line outlet

The off-line outlet tested is shown in Figures 8 and 9 and Plate 12. Although
Figure 8 shows three gratings, tests were also carried out with one and two
gratings. As with the in-line outlet, the gratings were 450mm x450mm and had
a diagonal bar pattern but were positioned horizontally on the invert of the
channel. The side-slope on the road side was extended below the invert level
of the channel to produce a ponding effect over the gratings which increased
the amount of flow collected by the outlet. Gradual transitions at 1:3 were
formed between the channel and the outlet (and vice versa) to promote a
smooth expansion of the flow (see Figure 8).

The results of the tests of the intermediate outlet are summarised in Table 13
for channel-full and surcharged conditions. Plate 13 shows a test carried out
with surcharged conditions at a slope of 1:100.

Additional tests were carried out to try to improve the efficiency of the outlet.
The previous tests had highlighted the fact that in high velocity conditions the
water tended to hit the bars of the gratings nearly horizontally, which reduced
the efficiency. It was therefore decided to try methods of deflecting the flow
vertically so that it entered the gratings at a more downward angle. After some
attempts, an increase in performance was observed with the introduction of
small ramps between the gratings (see Plate 14). The results of the tests
carried out with these ramps are presented in Table 14. Plate 15 illustrates
one of these tests with channel-full conditions, at a longitudinal slope of 1:60.

C.3.5 Trapezoidal channel

As mentioned before, the channel tested had 1:4.5 cross-falls, a sole width of
300mm and a design surface width of 1.65m. Both the trapezoidal channel and
the outfalls tested were moulded in smooth cement mortar over a wooden
base.

C.3.5.1 Scale of the model

Due to the size of the flume and limitations in the flow rate achievable, it was
not possible to test the trapezoidal channel at full scale. An adequate scale
had therefore to be selected. It had to be large enough to ensure that similar
turbulent flow conditions would occur in the scaled channel as in the full-sized
one for channel-full conditions. The other criterion that determined the scale
was a practical one related to the size of gratings to be adopted for the
trapezoidal channel. In view of its high capacity, gratings of dimensions
610mm X 610mm are likely to be required to collect the flow from the channel
efficiently in off-line outlets. Gratings of dimensions 450mm X 450mm had been
made for the study of outfalls in triangular channels and it was convenient to
use them again. This meant that the linear scale adopted for the trapezoidal
channel needed to be 610/450=1.36 (prototype to model). As mentioned
before, the Froudian similarity laws also apply in this case and the following
ratios are used to convert model values into prototype ones:

Quantity Multiplying factor

length, width, depth 1.36

velocity 1.36°.5 = 1. l 66

discharge 1.36*.= = 2.157

The large scale of the model means that any scaling errors associated with the
turbulence and the local channel roughness are likely to be small and much
less than in most studies carried out with Froudian models.

C.3.5.2 In-line outlet

The in-line outlet tested in the trapezoidal channel is shown in Figures 10 and
11 and Plate 16. Unlike the case of triangular channels, the available width of
the sole made it possible to accommodate the gratings on the base of the
channel. Transitions 0.740m long were built between the channel and the
outlet (and vice versa) and cross-falls of 1:4 were adopted at the outfall. The
tests for the intermediate outlet were carried out with two and three gratings,
and those for the terminal outlet were only performed with three gratings.

The test results (in model values) corresponding to the intermediate outlet are
shown in Table 15 whereas those corresponding to the terminal outlet are
shown in Table 16. Plate 17 illustrates a test with channel-full conditions at a
longitudinal slope of 1:400.

C.3.5.3 Off-line outlet

The off-line outlet tested in the trapezoidal channel is shown in Figures 12 and
13 and Plate 18. This layout was tested with one, two and three gratings for
the intermediate outlet and with two and three gratings for the terminal outlet.
The cross-falls at the outlet were kept, as along the channel, at 1:4.5.

The test results (in model values) corresponding to the intermediate outlet are
presented in Table 17 whereas those corresponding to the terminal outlet are
presented in Table 18. Plate 19 illustrates a test with channel-full conditions
at a longitudinal slope of 1:400.

C.3.6 Weir outlet

Although the outlets tested were adequate for a wide range of flow conditions,
it was apparent from the results that they would not be able to cope efficiently
with very high velocity flows such as those occurring in steep roads. Due to
the velocity of the flow, the water tended to jump over the grating slots and
little was collected. The option of forming ramps upstream of each grating to
direct the flow into the slots was not favoured by DOT on safety grounds (see
Section C.3.4.2). For the same reason, the option of using gratings with
longitudinal slots was also discarded. An altogether different geometry of outlet
was therefore devised for these situations. After some trials, it became clear
that a better solution would be to direct the water gently away from the
carriageway onto the verge side and then over a side weir into a lower
collecting chamber.

The options available for this type of outlet are very limited by safety
considerations which do not allow any deepening of the channel below 150mm
or side-slopes locally steeper than 1:4. A weir outlet was first buitt in the flume
with a layout similar to that shown in Figure 14 but with a straight transition on
the carriageway side. This geometry was later changed in order to produce a
more gradual turning of the flow towards the weir. In the proposed geometry,
the side transition is initially curved in plan and a safety fence will normally be
necessary along the side weir to prevent the possibility of vehicle wheels
dropping into the lower side channel. Although the weir outlet was tested only
with the trapezoidal channel shape, it is also applicable with modifications to
triangular channels.

When a high-velocity flow is turned laterally, the water level on the outside of
the bend can increase significantly. Thus, with the weir outlet design, it is very
difficult to prevent water spilling out on to the hardstrip if the channel is flowing
full at the entrance to the transition section. It is therefore necessary to lower
the water level entering the transition so that some freeboard is available when
the flow is turned towards the side weir; the smaller the amount of freeboard,
the more gradual and longer the transition needs to be to prevent water
flowing back on to the road.

Tests were initially carried out with a 610mm X 610mm grating (prototype size)
installed on the invert at the upstream end of the outlet (see Plate 20). At
lower channel slopes and flow velocities, the grating removed enough water
to create the necessary freeboard in the transition section. However, the
grating became progressively less effective at higher velocities so that very
long lengths of transition and side weir would have been needed to prevent
overtopping. Results from these tests, which were carried out with channel-full
conditions upstream of the grating, are given in model terms in Table 19. The
table contains measured values of water depth in the channel as well as the
water depths at the downstream end of the grating, y,, and the water depths
yb, which will be explained later.

The use of a gully grating in combination with the weir outlet does not provide
a complete solution for all cases and the extra complication and cost may not
be justified. It was therefore decided that a more practical alternative would
be to limit the design flow depth in the surface water channel to less than the
channel depth upstream of the weir outlet; this would therefore provide the
freeboard needed in the transition section of the weir outlet. If a triangular
surface water channel is relatively small, it would be possible to locally
increase its size just upstream of the weir outlet so that it is flowing part-full
under design conditions. This option is not possible in the case of the
trapezoidal channel or large triangular channels because the depth cannot be
increased beyond the allowable limit of 150mm. In these cases, it will be
necessary to determine the spacing between the outlets so that the channel
flows only part-full under design conditions. Although this means that the
channel has effectively to be over-sized, it will normally only be necessary at
a few locations where steep longitudinal gradients occur. Although the
channel cannot be used to its full capacity, long spacings will still be possible
because the steep gradients will still produce high flow rates under part-full
conditions.

Tests with the weir outlet shown in Figure 14 were therefore carried out with
the trapezoidal channel upstream flowing 83% full and 68% full. In the test rig
the angle 0 was equal to 22O, the total length of the weir,,,,,l was 4.5m and
the lengths L, and L, were 1.3m and 3.2m, respectively. The results of the
tests (in model terms) are given in Table 19.

C.4 PREPARATION OF ADVICE NOTE ON OUTFALL DESIGN

C.4.1 Analysis of laboratory tests

Although the field tests described in Section C.2 provided information for the
preparation of the Advice Note on Outfall Design, the range of conditions
achievable on site was not sufficiently wide to be used for the recommendation
of suitable designs. The great variety of channel and outlet geometries that
can be found in existing schemes is such that it does not allow a systematic
study of a particular geometry at different slopes. For this reason the results
of the laboratory tests were used as the basis for the preparation of the Advice
Note on Outfall Design, which is presented in Appendix Ill.

Different approaches were adopted in the analysis of the grated outlets in the
triangular channel and in the trapezoidal channel, and in the analysis of the
weir outlet. As mentioned before, the study of outfalls in triangular channels
was carried out in the laboratory using a particular size of channel. If the
results are analysed in non-dimensional form, the triangular shape allows
correct transposition of results between channels of different dimensions: for
channels with the same cross-falls there is direct proportionality of the water
depths and hydraulic radii in different sizes of channels. The study of the
trapezoidal channel was carried out as a Froudian model at a scale of 1: l .36
(see Section C.3.5.1). Due to the limited number of test results with the weir
outlet and the need to extrapolate results to very steep slopes, a theoretical
approach was adopted for the analysis. This was based on the oblique wave
theory as described later in Section C.4.4.

For the analysis of the test data it was necessary to assess the performance
of the outlets under various flow conditions. For this purpose, the efficiency of
an outlet was defined as the ratio of the flow intercepted by the outlet, Qi, to
the total flow approachirlg it:
where subscripts o and S refer to channel-full and surcharged conditions.
Based on previous studies of road drainage, it was decided to adopt a
minimum efficiency of 80% for intermediateoutlets operating under channel-full
conditions. When an outlet does not achieve this minimum a different geometry
is assumed to be required for the outlet. For terminal outlets a minimum
efficiency of 97.5% was adopted: terminal outlets need to be designed for
efficiencies close to 100% because any substantial bypass may cause flooding
of the verges or the carriageway. It should also be added that terminal outlets
have generally higher efficienciesthan intermediate outlets due to the ponding
effect caused by the terminal ramp.

As mentioned before (see Section C.3.4.1), the present study also assessed
the effect of bar patterns of gratings different from diagonal. In cases where
surface water channels are buitt behind safety fences it is possible to adopt
gratings with a longitudinal bar pattern. The tests showed that these have a
higher efficiency when compared with gratings of the same overall size and
waterway area but diagonal bars. From tests carried out with similar flow
conditions it was possible to establish the following approximate relationship
between the efficiency of equivalent gratings with diagonal and longitudinal
bars:

where subscripts L and D correspond to longitudinal and diagonal bar

patterns, respectively.

It was also observed in the tests that the efficiencies of gratings with bars
transverse to the flow were significantly smaller than those with diagonal bars.
This is more noticeable in higher velocity flows where the water tends to hit the
bars of the grating; the bigger the horizontal angle between the bars and the
direction of the flow, the more the water will jet over the grating (compare, for
the same total flow, the values of the bypass flow Clp for diagonal and
transverse bars in Table 12).

C.4.2 Triangular channels

The Froude number was used as the basis for the analysis of the data for
triangular channels and is defined as follows:

where Q is the approach flow to the outfall, B is the water surface width just
upstream of the outfall, A is the corresponding flow area and g is the
acceleration due to gravity.

For triangular channels with side-slopes of 1:5 and channel-full conditions the
Froude number is given by:
where Q, is the approach flow (in m3/s) and B, is the surface width of flow (in
m) for channel-full conditions. The numerical constant was determined so that
F, is equal to 1 when the flow in the channel is at critical depth for channel-full
situations.

The flow conditions occurring under surcharged conditions are more complex
because the velocity of the water in the main channel is considerably greater
than in the shallow flow along the hard strip or hard shoulder. Since the
allowable depth of surcharging in surface water channels is fixed at 25mm
above the normal design depth, the resulting increase in flow capacity is
relatively larger in small channels than in large ones. To assist users of the
Advice Note, a design chart was produced showing the relationship between
the surcharged capacity, Q, and the design capacity, Q, for different sizes
of channel (as defined by the design flow width B,). The curve, which is
shown in Appendix Ill (Figure 3 of the Advice Note) was obtained from the
equations for surcharged channels given in Section 15 of HA 37/88; the values
assumed were y3 - y, = 25mm, y3 - y2 = 20mm, n = 0.013 for the channel and
n = 0.017 for the hard strip. The values of QJQ, obtained from the tests with
the laboratory channel (B, = 1.00m) were found to be in reasonable
agreement with the corresponding value given by Figure 3 of Appendix Ill.

As explained above, the test data can be applied to other sizes of triangular
channel if the results are expressed in terms of interception efficiency, v,
versus a non-dimensional Froude number. Geometric similarity between
different sizes of channel is not exactly achieved under surcharged conditions
because the depth of surcharging is fixed at 25mm. However, the differences
are relatively small and the laboratory results will err on the safe side for
channels larger than the one tested (B, = 1.00m). Since the flow on the hard
strip has very little influence on the performance of an outlet, it is appropriate
to define the Froude number in terms of the surcharged width, B,, in the main
channel (see Figure 1 of Advice IVote in Appendix Ill). The definition adopted
was therefore:

where Q, is in m3/s and B, is in m.

As in the case of F, in Equation (6), it is convenient to choose the value of the

numerical coefficient so that F, = 1 when critical flow conditions occur in a
surcharged channel. Several alternative methods of calculating critical flow in
channels with compound cross-sections have been proposed, and the value
of 24.6 was determined for the test channel using an approach due to
Konemann (1982). The coefficient will vary somewhat for other sizes of
channel, but the choice is purely a matter of convenience provided the same
definition of F, is used in the analysis of the test data and in design.
The Froude numbers F, and F, were calculated for all the tests carried out
with triangular channels and were plotted against the efficiency of the outlet,
as shown in Figures 15 to 18. Design curves for various numbers of gratings
were drawn through the experimental points.

In a few cases the test results were extrapolated to cover conditions not
reproduced in the laboratory tests. Two different situations were considered:
extrapolation to a larger or smaller number of gratings; and extrapolation to
flow conditions which could not be achieved in the test rig (eg flows at slopes
steeper than 1:40). The first type of extrapolation was carried out for the in-line
outlet with three pairs of gratings and for one and two gratings in the
surcharged off-line outlet, as can be seen in Figures 15, 16 and 18 (dashed
lines). A conservative approach was adopted when extrapolating results from
the tests so that the recommended curves would lead to safe designs. It was
assumed that, for the same flow conditions, the individual efficiency of any
additional gratings that were not tested would be the same as that of gratings
further upstream. This is a conservative approach because the efficiency tends
to increase as more of the flow is intercepted by gratings positioned upstream.
The shapes of the curves for which considerable amounts of data existed were
also taken into account in the extrapolations. The second type of extrapolation
was carried out in order to extend the range of the design curves to steeper
slopes. The intercepted flow corresponding to the most severe conditions
tested was assumed to remain constant for steeper slopes; the efficiencies
were calculated by dividing the intercepted flow by the total flow calculated
using Manning's equation with a mean roughness coefficient of 0.013.

The gratings recommended in the Advice Note for the in-line outlet are
specified to have sizes within certain limits (see Appendix Ill). The limits are
given in terms of the channel design depth so that they are applicable to
channels of various dimensions. The lower limit was directly obtained from the
tests and corresponds to the minimum width of grating that can achieve the
necessary performance; the upper limit correspondsto the maximumwidth that
can physically be installed in the channel. For the off-line outlet only the lower
limit is applicable.

C.4.3 Trapezoidal channel

The design curves shown in Figures 19 to 22 give the efficiency of the outlets
in terms of the total flow approaching the outlet (Q, or Q, for channel-full and
surcharged channel, respectively). Assuming the Manning resistance equation
for the trapezoidal channel tested there is a fixed relationship between Q, and
Q, ie. Q, = 1.21 Q.,

The experimental points are plotted in these figures; in the case of the off-line
outlet, data points corresponding to one single grating can be seen plotted in
Figures 21 and 22. However, it was decided not to present a design curve in
the Advice Note for an outlet with one grating only because of the risk of
blockage in such a high capacity channel. Extrapolations from the test data
were carried out using the same procedures as those described in Section
C.4.2 for triangular channels.

After the tests were completed, DOT requested that the Advice Note should
also include curves for the design of trapezoidal channels with the same base
width of 0.3m but side-slopes of 1:5 (see Appendix Ill). The curves obtained
for the efficiency of outlets in the 1:4.5 channel were therefore revised in order
to produce conservative recommendations for the 1 :5 trapezoidal channel.
The concept of channel conveyance was used to estimate the relative
difference in flow capacity between the 1:4.5 and 1:5 trapezoidal channels for
equal values of longitudinal slope and roughness. The ratio of the
conveyances of the two channels was calculated assuming the Manning
resistance equation and is given by:

where A4.5and A5 are the cross-sectional areas of the channels and R4.5and
R5 are the two hydraulic radii. It was assumed that the flow rate collected by
an outlet in the 1 :5 channel would be equal to that measured under the same
conditions of slope and roughness in the 1:4.5 channel. This means that the
efficiency of the outlet in the 1 :S channel is assumed to be about 6% smaller
than in the tested channel because of the higher corresponding flow rate in the
1 : s channel. The design curves are therefore likely to produce slightly
conservative designs.

Another modification to the Advice Note was requested by DOT after

completion of the laboratory tests. In order to promote self-cleansing
conditions, the 300mm wide soles of the trapezoidal channels are likely to be
required to have a slope of 1:40 towards the verge or central reserve (see
Figure 2 of Advice Note in Appendix Ill). Although the tests were carried out
with horizontal soles, it is considered that the results for outlet efficiency should
not be significantly affected by a bottom slope as small as 1:40. The values
of the design flow capacity of the channels presented in the Advice Note were
re-calculated taking the sloping sole into account.

C.4.4 Design of weir outlet

The experimental data that were available for the design of the weir outlet was
limited to longitudinal slopes up to 1:40 since this was the maximum slope
achievable in the tilting flume. However, as mentioned in Section C.3.6, an
outlet such as the weir outlet where the water is diverted away from the
carriageway, is recommended for steep road schemes. It was therefore
necessary to extrapolate the test results in order to calculate the dimensions
of the weir outlet that would guarantee a suitable performance of the outlet for
flow conditions outside those tested. Due to the limited amount of data
available, a theoretical approach was adopted for the calculations. The oblique
wave theory, which can be found in standard hydraulics text books such as
Henderson(l966), provided the basis for the analysis. In supercritical flow (ie.
Froude number greater than l ) , any disturbance to the flow creates a surface
wave which propagates across the flow and also downstream, producing an
oblique standing wave or jump. A change in direction of a channel wall as in
the proposed weir outlet (see Figure 14) will generate such a disturbance; if
the wall is angled towards the flow, the water level downstream of the wave
front will be higher than on the upstream side.

The equations that describe the formation of oblique waves caused by such
disturbances are:
and

where Fa and ya are, respectively, the Froude number of the flow and the
water depth upstream of the disturbance, and yb is the depth of water
downstream of the wave; the angle P is the angle of the oblique wave in
relation to the direction of the flow and 0 is the angle of deflection of the wall
of the channel (see Figure 23).

The applicability of the oblique wave theory was investigated by comparing its
predictions with the results of the tests carried out on the weir outlet (see
Table 19). Some of the tests were made WI+ the upstream trapezoidal
channel flowing full but with a gully grating installed (see Plate 20) which had
the effect of removing some of the water a ~ ~ lowering
d the flow depth
approaching the transition on the carriageway sidt of the channel. Other tests
were made without the grating in operation but with the upstream channel
flowing either 83% or 68% full. In the tests the discharge and the slope of the
channel were varied, and measurements were made of the water depth
upstream of the transition and of the corresponding maximum downstream
depth produced by the oblique wave. For a particular upstream condition, the
limiting flow capacity of the outlet was obtained when the downstream water
level just reached the top of the channel. The efficiency of the outlet in this
limiting state was 100%; any increase in discharge would have caused some
water to spill out onto the carriageway and bypass the outlet.

Calculations were first made using the measured values of water depth ya and
yb just upstream and downstream of the oblique wave (see Table 19). On this
basis, the predicted values of wall angle, 0, given by Equations (9) and (10)
varied from 14.0" to 26.5", with an average value for seven tests of 20.0".
These results compared satisfactorily with the actual weir angle of 0 = 22"
used in the model, and suggested that the oblique wave theory was a
reasonable basis for design. However, study of the data in Table 19 showed
that the relationship between the upstream water depth, h, in the channel and
the local depth, y, at the start of the transition was complex and difficult to
predict. It was therefore decided to re-analyse the data for the channel flowing
83% and 68% full using the measured values of h in place of ya in Equations
(9) and (10), since the upstream depth, h, is the parameter that is specified in
the design situation. The predicted values of 0 given by the equations varied
from 9" - 11" for the channel flowing 68% full to 5" for the channel 83% full.
As explained, the differences relative to the actual weir angle of 0 = 22" were
due to the local reduction in water depth that occurs as the flow approaches
the side transition. Also, in some cases, the oblique wave formed on the
curved portion of the transition where the effective value of 0 was less than
along the straight portion.
Based on these results, it was decided to use the oblique wave theory to
produce general design curves for the Advice Note relating the wall angle, 0,
and the total weir length, ,L, to the upstream flow conditions in the channel.
The required values of 0 were assumed to be greater than the predicted
values, Op, given by Equations (9) and (10) according to the ratio: tan 0 =
2 tan O,,; this assumption is on the safe side compared with all the test data.
After considering alternative options, it was decided to base the curves on a
specified proportional flow depth of 67% in the channel upstream of the outlet.
This gave a reasonable balance between the required length of the outlet
structure and the loss of potential flow capacity in the channel due to the need
to design for part-full conditions. Although the full capacity cannot be utilised,
high flow rates can still be achieved because of the steep channel gradients
that apply when weir outlets are necessary.

In the case of trapezoidal channels, the design curves are based on the flow
rate approaching the outlet (see Figures 29 and 31 of Advice Note in Appendix
Ill). Although tests were not carried out with triangular channels, the oblique
wave theory is still applicable because the angle of the side transitions is the
principal factor determining the limiting capacity of the outlet. The design
curves (see Figure 27 of Advice Note in Appendix Ill) are defined in terms of
the upstream Froude number, F, corresponding to the proportionalflow depth
of 67%; this enables the curves to be applied to different sizes of triangular
channel.

The total length, ,L, of the weir (see Figure 14) is made up of two
components. L, corresponds to the upstream section of the outlet which has
a straight side wall. Based on the laboratory tests, L, is related to the overall
width of the upstream channel by:

where K is a constant which is equal to 1.0 for the trapezoidal channel tested
and is equal to 1.2 for triangular channels. Since the tests of the weir outlet
were only carried out with a trapezoidal channel, it was decided to adopt a
higher value of K for triangular channels. This higher value was chosen in
order to give the required initial distance for the flow to expand. The second
component, L, depends on the angle, 0, of the side transition and is given by:

L, = B1
-
tan 0

C.4.5 Design of outfall structures

The chambers beneath the outlet gratings and the structures that convey the
water to suitable discharge points (eg watercourses, soakaways or surface
water sewers) can take a variety of forms, and designers need to be able to
develop solutions to suit the requirements of particular sites. However, the
Advice Note does give some general guidance on possible layouts of
chambers and on methods of sizing the outfall structures.

Standard circular gully pots can be used for outlets that consist of a single
grating or of two gratings installed in the in-line arrangement shown in Figure
A.2 of the Advice Note (see Appendix Ill). For larger outlets, it may be more
convenient to construct a single brick or concrete chamber beneath the
gratings. In this case, the invert level of the outgoing pipe from the chamber
should be above the floor so as to enable sediment to deposit and not be
discharged into the downstream pipe system or watercourse. As a rough
guide, the depth allowed for storage of sediment should not be less than that
provided by standard circular gully pots. The high flow rates that will occur
through outlets from surface water channels may cause the sediment-collecting
efficiency of the chambers to be less than is achieved with gully pots in normal
kerb-and-gully situations. Standard circular gully pots also have a limited flow
capacity and designs with an outlet pipe of 150mm diameter may not be able
to pass more than about 2511s without the water level reaching close to the
underside of the gratings.

The dimensions of a collecting chamber should therefore be chosen so that

there is sufficient depth for collection of sediment and sufficient head to allow
the outgoing pipe to discharge the design flow without causing backing up to
road level. The head, Z, required above the invert of the outgoing pipe can
be estimated by assuming that the entrance to the pipe acts as an orifice with
an area contraction ratio of 0.6; this leads to the following design equation:

where Z is in m, D is the pipe diameter in m and Q is the flow rate in m3/s.

It is recommended that the water level in the chamber should be at least
150mm below the underside of the gratings when the flow rate is equal to that
in the surface water channel under surcharged conditions (ie Q,). The size of
the outgoing pipe and the gradient at which it is laid should be determined
from standard flow tables or resistance equations (eg Colebrook-white) so that
the pipe is just flowing full at the flow rate of Q,. In fact, this will usually be the
first step in the design procedure. Once the pipe diameter, D, has been
determined, the required level of the pipe in the chamber can be calculated
using Equation (13); the floor level of the chamber is then set so as to provide
a sufficient volume for collection of sediment.

If a weir outlet is required, it is necessary to determine the depth of the

collecting channel into which the flow from the side weir discharges. The
collecting channel receives inflow along its length and is hydraulically
equivalent to a roof gutter for which design information is given in British
Standard BS 6367 (1983). Using this information it can be shown that the
required channel depths, J, below the level of the weir is given by:

where J is in m, Q is in m3/s and E is the width of the rectangular channel in

m. The 0.15m freeboard figure is included to ensure that the weir is able to
discharge freely into the collecting channel. As before, it is recommended that
the value of J should be determined at a flow rate of Q, corresponding to
surcharged conditions in the surface water channel. The collecting channel
should discharge into a chamber in order to collect any sediment and still the
flow before it enters the piped drainage system. The chamber should be
designed as described above and with the design water level at least 0.5m
below the level of the weir.

C.4.6 Analysis of field tests

It was mentioned at the beginning of Section C.4.1 that, due to the difficulty in
obtaining systematic results from field tests, the Advice Note was mainly based
on the results of the tests carried out in the laboratory. The field tests were
later analysed according to the recommendationsof the Advice Note. This was
not possible for the tests of the verge channels at the A20 Folkestone to Dover
(Contract 1) because one of the channel cross-falls was 1:l and the Advice
Note only covers symmetrical channels with cross-falls of 1:5.

The outlets tested in the central reserve of the A20 Folkestone to Dover
(Contract 1) were terminal outlets formed by triple gratings, measuring 450mm
X 1350mm overall, set flat on the line of the channel invert. This particular
layout does not fall into any of the types of outfall recommended in the Advice
Note, but it was nevertheless decided to check its design against the
recommendations for terminal in-line and off-line outlets. The values of the
Froude number were calculated for the three tests and are presented in Table
20. It can be seen in Table 1 of Appendix Ill that one pair of gratings on the
side-slopes or a single grating of dimensions 450mm X 450mm positioned on
the invert would be adequate for all the tests. It appears that these outlets are
slightly over designed but their extra capacity of the outlets may be put to use
if the maintenance of the channels is relaxed for some reason. The over
design of the outlets also reflects the adoption of a 'safe design' procedure by
engineers in view of the lack of design guidelines available until now.

The same analysis was carried out on the test results obtained at the A 487
Port Dinorwic Bypass. The fact that the sizes of the gratings adopted in this
scheme were, as at the Folkestone scheme, different from the sizes
considered in the Advice Note means that only an approximate comparison
can be made. The Froude numbers were calculated for all the tests from the
measurements of water depth and flow rate and are presented in Table 20.
It is important to note that the tests were carried out with the channels flowing
part-full whereas the Advice Note was developed to apply specifically to
channel-full conditions. In part-full flows the ratio of grating width, G, to water
depth can be significantly different from the ratio present in laboratory tests
which were carried out with channel-full conditions. This may affect the
present comparison, and an additional difference is that at Port Dinorwic the
gratings are positioned horizontally on the invert of the channel and are of a
bigger size than considered in the Advice Note (note that the Advice Note is
based on the minimum waterway areas of gratings currently recommended by
the British Standard). It can be seen in Table 20 that for outlets in the 1:19
slope the Advice Note would recommend a weir outlet in most cases if the
channel was flowing full. The fact that no bypass flow was observed is
probably due to the channel being only part-full, which allowed the gratings to
collect the flow more efficiently. Another factor is related to the uncertainty in
some values of flow (and therefore velocity) measured on site. The tests on
the lengths of channel at slopes of 1:16.5 and 1:204 slopes show a better
agreement with the recommendations of the Advice Note. It is interesting to
note in particular test no.7 where an efficiency of 97% was measured on site
due to some flow bypassing. The Advice Note shows that a similar value is
obtained with a grating of dimensions 450mm X 450mm. Overall it appears that
the outlets in the steeper channels at Port Dinorwic may be underdesigned for
the very high velocity flows that are generated in these locations.

C.5 CONCLUSIONS
(1) Although the field tests provided information for the preparation of the
Advice Note on Outfall Design, the range of conditions achievable on site
was not sufficiently wide to be used for the recommendations of suitable
designs. Therefore, the Advice Note was mainly based on the results of
the laboratory tests.

(2) The laboratory tests showed that grated outlets are not able to cope
efficiently with very high velocity flows such as those occurring in steep
roads (typically steeper than 1:50). In these situations it is recommended
to direct the water gently away from the carriageway onto the verge side
and then over a side weir into a lower collecting chamber.
PART D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

D.l MAlN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

PART B

(1) Extensive information on the use of surface water channels for road
drainage was obtained through questionnaires, meetings and site visits.
The adoption of this type of surface water drainage has rapidly spread in
the UK in recent years but most of the schemes identified are in the East
and South East of England, and in Wales.

(2) It is suggested that DOT produces a stronger recommendation in the

HCD regarding the level of the outer edge of channels in the central
reserve, this level has sometimes been incorrectly built higher than the
carriageway level which can potentially cause flooding of the fast lane of
the road with associated safety hazards.

(3) Standard construction details should be developed for channels protected

by safety barriers to increase the range of options available to designers.

(4) The current specification of 0-1Omm for the downward step between the
pavement surface and the edge of the concrete channel can be difficutt
to achieve and make consistent with the tolerances allowed for the
bituminous wearing course. These two different tolerances need to be
reviewed in parallel.

(5) Tolerances on level for surface water channels should not only apply to
the edge of the channel but also to the invert since it isthe difference of
the two levels that determines the capacity of the channel.

(6) It is recommended that work should be carried out on the development

of suitable techniques for adding overlays to roads with surface water
channels. This work should be given high priority so that adequate
techniques are available when structural overlays become necessary in
existing schemes.

(7) The workability of the concrete mix should be primarily agreed between
the slipforming contractor and the concrete supplier within the
recommendations of BS 5931, 1980.

D.2 MAlN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

PART C

(1) An Advice Note on Outfall Design was prepared using the results
obtained from the laboratory and field tests, and from the information
gathered from the questionnaires and site visits carried out in the first
part of the study.

(2) The laboratory and field tests showed that grated outlets are not efficient
in collecting very high velocity flows which typically occur in roads steeper
 than 1:50. A new design which directs the water away from the
carriageway over a side weir was developed from experimental data and
theoretical calculations.

(3) The work carried out to develop methods for the design of outfalls in
surface water channels has some implication on the existing Advice Note
HA 37/88 and on Amendment No 1 which deal with the hydraulic design
of surface water channels. These need to be revised so that consistency
is achieved with the newly prepared Advice Note on Outfall Design. The
topics that require development work are the following:

(a) Design curves for determination of the spacing between outlets in

the trapezoidal channels considered in the present study;

(b) The effect that flow bypassing intermediate outlets has on the
spacing of outlets;

(c) Revision of HA 37/88 to cover storm durations of 2 to 20 minutes.

The need for revision of this topic had been identified some time
ago, but it was made clear during the meetings with designers as
described in Part B of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance provided by those who responded to the general questionnaire

and by the resident engineers of the schemes visited is gratefully
acknowledged.

The authors of this report are also thankful for the contributions provided by
Dr B J Chaddock, Mr B Robinson, Mr J Chandler and Mr M McDonald of TRL.

During the experimental part of the study, assistance was given by Mr P J

Hollinrake and MS M Johnstone from HR Wallingford and by MS G Lundstrdm
from Chalmers University of Technology, Gdteborg, Sweden.
 REFERENCES

Advice Note HA 37/88 (1988). Hydraulic Design of Road-Edge Surface Water

Channels. Department of Transport.

Amendment No 1 to HA 37/88 (199 1). Department of Transport.

BS 497: Part 1: 1976. Specification for Manhole covers, road gully gratings
and frames for drainage purposes. Part 1. Cast iron and cast steel. British
Standards Institute.

BS 5931: 1980. British Standard Code of Practice for Machine laid in-situ edge
details for paved areas. British Standards Institute.

BS 6367: 1993. British Standard Code of practice for Drainage of roofs and
paved areas. British Standards Institute.

Contractor Report 2 (1984). The drainage capacity of BS road gullies and a

procedure for estimating their spacing. Hydraulics Research Station, Report
EX 1118.

Henderson F M (1986). Open channel flow. Macmillan Publishing CO, Inc,

New York.

Highway Construction Details (1987). Department of Transport.

Highway Construction Details (1991). Vol 3 Manual of Contract Documents

for Highway Works. Department of Transport.

Highway Construction Details - Amendment (1993). Department of Transport.

Konernann N (1982) in French R H (1986). Open-channel hydraulics.

McGraw-Hill Book Company. Singapore. ISBN 0-07-Y66342-4.

Road Note 35 (1 976). A guide for engineers to the design of storm sewer
systems. Department of the Environment. Transport and Road Research
Laboratory.

Specification for Highway Works (1991 and 1993). Department of Transport.

LEGEND FOR TABLES 1 TO 4

NOTATION: SCHEMES:
- ENGLAND -
C - Construction (1) LONDON:
D - Design (2) EASTERN:
M - Maintenance 2.1 - A47 Norwich Southern BP (Contract 1)
MP - Maintenance Period 2.2 - A47 Norwich Southern BP (Contract 2)
-
T Tender 2.3 - A47 Norwich Southern BP (Contract 3)
2.4 - A47 Norwich Southern BP (Contract 4)
R - Rural 2.5 - A1 1 Thetford BP
U - Urban 2.6 - A1 1 Red Lodge BP
2.7 - Al-M1 Link (Contract 8)
COMP - Composite 2.8 - M40 Widening
FLEX - Flexible 2.9 - A1 l Besthorpe - Wymondham Improvement
-
2.10 A5 Little Brickhill BP
-
FD Fin Drain (3) EAST MIDLANDS:
NFD - Narrow Filter Drain 3.1 - A16 Louth BP
3.2 - A16 Boston BP
F - Flat 3.3 - A6 Quorn-Mountsorrel BP
3.4 - A6 Market Haborough BP
EX - Extruded (4) NORTHERN:
IS - In Situ (5) NORTH WEST:
-
PC Precast 5.1 - A500 Nantwich BP
SF - Slip Form 5.2 - A523 Macclesfield Relief Road
-
5.3 A49 Weaverham Diversion
GC - Grating in Channel Invert (6) SOUTH EAST:
-
GV Grating Back in Verge -
6.1 A21 Pembury BP
6.2 - M20 J5-J8 Maidstone BP
CD - Carrier Drain 6.3 - A23 Muddleswood-Patcham
-
SO Soakaway 6.4 - A20 Folkestone-Court Wood (Contract 1)
TD - Toe Ditch 6.5 - A20 Court Wood-Dover (Contract 3)
WC - Water Course 6.6 - M3 Bar End-Compton
6.7 - A27 Westhampnett BP
NOTATION: SCHEMES:
0 - Other -
6.8 A3 Milford BP
(7) SOUTH WEST:
ND - Not Decided 7.1 - A36 Beckington BP
7.2 - A30 Okehampton-Launceston Improvement
CA - Carriageway (8) WEST MIDLANDS:
8.1 - A49 Dorrington BP
CR - Central Reserve (9) YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE:
9.1 - A15 Bonby Lodge BP
-
CH Channel 9.2 - A19 Easingwold BP
9.3- A1 Motorway Walshford to Dishford
- NORTHERN IRELAND -
10.1 - Strabane BP
- SCOTLAND -
11.l- A7 Moss Peeble to Bush
- WALES -
12.1 - A4042 Llantarnam BP
12.2 - A472 Maesycurmmer/Newbridge
-
12.3 M4 Renewal
12.4 - A494 Mold BP
12.5 - A487 Port Dinorwic BP
12.6 - A465 Neath-Abergavenny Trunk Road
Table I Summaryofresultsofquestionnaire
Overall description of scheme

Scheme Stage Carriageway Type of Length of Width of Longitudinal gradients Type of Drainage
cross-section Pavement Road (km) carriageway (m)
Max Min
(1) London CPD No schemes
(2) Eastern NMD
2.1 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 5.2 7.3 +2X 1 1:29 F FD, T6, F19
2.2 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 4.3 7.3 + 2 X l 1:25 F FD, T6
2.3 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 7.1 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:25 F FD, T6
2.4 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 5.8 7.3 + 2 X l 1:36 F FD, T6
2.5 M R-AP / A2 COMP 7.6 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:25 1:285 FD, T6 mod
2.6 MP & M R-D2 AP / A 2 COMP -
2.75 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:l
66 1:222 FD, T6
2.7 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 6.2 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:50 1:3000 FD, T6
2.8 MP R-M / A1 FLEX 11.95 - 13.55 11 + 3.3 1:28 F NFD, T8
2.9 T R-AP / A2 -- 8.6 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:24 F
2.1 0 C R-AP / A2 FLEX 3.6 7.3 + 2 X l* 1:25 F NFD, T8
(3) East midlands CPD
3.1 M R-AP / A2 FLEX 6.0 7.3 to 10 + 2 x 1' 1:12.5 1: l 40 NFD, T9
$100 mm
3.2 M R-AP / A2 FLEX 9.1 7.3 + 2 X 1.65 1:175 1:2300 FD, T6
3.3 M R-AP / A2 FLEX 8.8 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:200 F NFD, T8
3.4 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 8.4 (1.48 CH) 7.3 + 1 1:56 1:500 NFD, T8
Table I Continued

Scheme Stage Carriageway Type of Length of Width of Longitudinal gradients Type of

cross-section Pavement Road (km) carriageway Drainage
Max Min
(m)
(4) Northern CPD No reply
(5) North West CPD
5.1 M R-AP / A2 FLEX 3.4 7.3 + 2 X 1' 1:33 F NFD, T8
5.2 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 4.1 5 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:26 F NFD, T8
5.3 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 3.3 7 . 3 + 2 x 1' 1:43 1:200 FD, T6
(6) South East CPD
6.1 M R-AP / A2 FLEX 5 .O 7.3 +2X 1 1: l 8 F NFD, T8
6.2 C R-MIA1, AP/A2 FLEX 11.O 14.6 + 5.3' 1:27 1:200 FD, T5, T6
and MUA3 ll.O + 5.3' NFD, T8
6.3 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 5.6 9.3 - 11.O 1:20 1:4500 NFD, T8
6.4 a) C R-AP / A2 FLEX 6.0 (2.0 CH) 7.3 + 2 X 1' 1:93 F FD, T6
6.4 b) C R-MS / A5 FLEX -- 6.0 + 2 X 1' 7
1:l 1:625 FD, T6
6.5 C R-AP / A2 FLEX 7.0 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:15 F FD, T6
6.6 C R-M / A1 FLEX 6.0 11.O + 5.3' 1:25 F FD, T5, T6, T7
6.7 C R-AP / A2 FLEX 3.05 7.3 + 2 X 1 1:250 F FD, T5
6.8 MP R-AP / A2 FLEX 3.4 7.3 + 2 x 1. 1:25 F NFD, T9
Table I Continued

Scheme Stage Carriageway Type of Length of Width of Longitudinal gradients Type of

cross-section Pavement Road (km) carriageway Drainage
(m) Max Min

(7) South West CPD

7.1 M R-AP lA2 FLEX 3.4 7.3 + 2 X 1' 1:25 1:284 NFD, T8

7.2 C R-AP lA2 FLEX 20.0 7.3 +2X 1 1:12 1:200 NFD, T8

(8) West Midlands CPD

8.1 D R-AP lA2 FLEX 7.2 7.3 +2X 1 1:25 I 1:200 ND

(9) Yorkshire and Humberside CPD

9.1 M R-APS lA6 FLEX 1.5 6.0 + 2 X I* 1:23 F NFD, T8
m-
9.2 C R-AP lA2 FLEX 4.6 7.3 + 2 X 1 F NFD
9.3 T R-M / A1 FLEX 20.0 11.O + 3.3 1:32 F NFD, T9
(10) Northern Ireland
10.1 M U-AP lA9 FLEX 1.306 (CH) 7.3 +2X 1 1:50 1:lOOO FREE
(1 1) Scotland

11.l D R-WS I 2 FLEX 1.5 10.0 1:22 1:200 FD, T5, COMB
Table l Continued

Scheme Stage Carriageway Type of Length of Width of Longitudinal gradients Type of

cross-section Pavement Road (km) carriageway Drainage
Max Min
(m)
(12) Wales
12.1 D R-AP l A2 FLEX 3.2 7.3 + 2 X 1' 1:29 1: l 00 FD, T5, NFD,
T8

12.2 C R-AP l A2 6.2 7.3 + 2 X l* 1:16 F FD. T6. NFD,

T9, 0
12.3 MP R-M l A1 COMP 5.5 (2.0 CH) VAR 1:100 F NFD T8
12.4 MP R-AP l A2 FLEX 5.8 7.3 +2X 1 1:l
6.7 1:148 NFD, T8
12.5 C R-AP l A2 FLEX;COMP 5.3 10.0 1:16.6 1:2000 NFD, T8
12.6 D R-AP l A2 FLEX 15.0 14.6 + 3.3* 1:85 F FD, T5, T7

Width of hard-strip or hard-shoulder was estimated

Table 2 Summary of results of questionnaire
Surface water channels in verge

Scheme Pavement Edge Detail Method of Geometry of channel

Construction
Verges in cutting Verges in Design Flow Width Overall Depth Side slopes
Embankment (mm) (mm)
(1) London CPD No schemes
(2) Eastern NMD
2.1 03, F21 012, F21 SF 920 175 1:4.43 1:0.83
2.2 03, F21 012, F21 SF 945 175 1:4.43 1:0.83
2.3 03, F21 012, F21 SF 945 175 1:4.43 1:0.83
2.4 03, F21 012, F21 SF 920 175 1:4.43 1:0.83

2.5 0 0 SF 950 175 1:1 1:4

1075 150 1:l 1:6

2.6 B3 B12 SF 1000 150 1:5 1:l

-- -- -- -- -- *- -m
2.7

2.8 0 B12 SF 600 88 1:1.25 1:5

2.9 02, B3 011, B12 -- 750 125* 1: l 1:5
2.10 B3 B12 SF 840 140 1:1 1:5
Table 2 Continued

Scheme Pavement Edge Detail Method of Geometry of channel

Construction
Verges in cutting Verges in Design Flow Width Overall Depth Side slopes
Embankment (mm) (mm)
(3) East Midlands CPD
3.1 B3 B12 SF 600 800
- 120 - 160 1:l 1:4
-m
3.2 B12 SF 500. 58. 1:2.67 1:6
3.3 B3 B12 SF 380 40. 1:l 1:8.714
3.4 -- B12 SF 460 80 1:l 1:5
(4) Northern CPD No reply
(5) North West CPD
5.1 B3 B12 SF 750 125 1:1 1:5
5.2 B3 B12 SF 800 120 1:l 1:5
5.3 B3 B12 SF 600 75 1:4 1:4
440 55
Table 2 Continued

Scheme Pavement Edge Detail Method of Geometry of channel

Construction
Verges in cutting Verges in Design Flow Width Overall Depth Side slopes
Embankment (mm) (mm)
(6) South East CPD

6.1 B3 B12 SF 780. 120 1:1.5 1:5

m- -m m- -- --
6.2 Extruded kerb B9

6.3 B3 B12 SF 500 150 1: l 1:2.3

6.4 a) B3 SF 900 150. 1: l 1:5

6.4 b) B3 B12 SF 850 150. 1:1 1:5

6.5 B3 B3 SF 875 150 1: l 1:5

m- -- m- -- -- -- --
6.6
6.7 B3 -- SF 1000 125 1:4 1:4

6.8 B3 B12 SF 900 150 1:l 1:5

(7) South West CPD

7.1 B3 B12 SF 875 159 1: l 1:4.5

7.2 B3 B12 SF 1000 100 1:5 1:5

(8) West Midlands CPD

8.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND
 anlm papuaur
-- -- -- m- -- -- -- 9'Z L
S: L S: L 8L 006 -- P18 P L8 S'Z L
P: L L: L OS L SZL AS VEZ~
'Z 18 VEI '€8 P-zL
S: 1 L: L OS L SL8 AS Z L8 E'Z L
-- a3~s1a OS OS L 3d -- ~a z-zL
P: L P:L SL'OOL'SZL 009 '008 '001 3d 0 0 L'Z l
SalEM (ZL)
OE L 006 L
S: l S: L 8E L SLE L AS Z 18 0 1'11
PU9lWS ( l l )
1: L P: L OS L SEL AS Us0018 -- 1'01
PuElaJl UlallVoN (0 L)
9: L S: L S'L6 SL6 AS Z L8 E8 C6
9: l S: L OS 919 Z L8 E8 1'6
9: l L: L 001 009 3d E8 1'6
a d 3 ap!slaqunH pue a + ~ s y l o ~
(6)
(MM) (UN luauryuequq
sadols a p ! ~ rlldaa II~JW WP!M MOIA uB!saa U! s a 6 ~ a ~ 6u!lwa U! sa6.1a~
uo~pru~suo3
lauueqa p hlauroag 10 POlw"i ~!elaaa6p3 luaura~ad auraqas
Table 3 Summary of results of questionnaire
Surface channels in central reserve

Scheme Payment Edge Detail Method of Construction Geometry of Channel

Design Flow Width (mm) Overall Depth (mm) Side Slopes
(1)London CPD No schemes
(2)Eastern NMD
2.1 B7 & ** SF 1120 1 40 1 :4 1 :4
2.2 B7 & *' SF 1125 140 1 :4 1 :4
2.3 B7 & ** SF 1125 140 1 :4 1 :4
2.4 B7 & " SF 1120 1 40 1 :4 1 :4
2.5 0 SF 2470 1 75 1 :l 1 :4
1200 150 1 :4 1 :4
2.6 B7 SF 1200 1 50 1 :4 1 :4
2.7 0 SF, IS 2500 150 1 :8 1 :6
2.8 SPECIAL IS 900 22.5 1 :20 1 :20
2.9 B6,B7 -- 1150 115' 1 :5 1 :5
2.10 B7 SF 1125 125 1 :4 1 :5
(3)East Midlands CPD
m- m- -m -- --
3.1
3.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
-- m- -m -- --
3.3
3.4 -- -- -- -- --
Table 3 Continued

Scheme Payment Edge Detail Method of Construction Geometry of Channel

Design Flow Width (mm) Overall Depth (mm) Side Slopes
(4) Northern CPD No reply
(5) North West CPD
-- -- -- m- -- --
5.1

5.2 B7 SF 950 120 1:4 1:4

m- -- m- -- -- --
5.3

(6) South East CPD

-- -- -- -- -- *-
6.1

6.2 SCHEME SPECIFIC IS 700 150 1:l 1: l

Trapezoidal
6.3 B7 SF 500 125. 1:l 1:2.9
500 150. 1:l 1:2.3

6.4 a) B7 SF 1200 120 1:5 1:5

a- -m -- -- -- --
6.4 b)

6.5 B7 SF 1150 120 1:5 1:5

6.6 B6, 87, B8 SF 1400 140. 1:5 1:5

6.7 B7 SF 1000 125 1:4 1:4

6.8 B7 SF 1000 125 1:4 1:4

Table 3 Continued

Scheme Payment Edge Detail Method of Construction Geometry of Channel

Design Flow Width Overall Depth (mm) Side Slopes
(mm)
(7) South West CPD
7.1 B7 EX 1125 125 1:4.5 1:4.5

7.2 B7 SF 1300 120 1:5.5 1:5.5

(8) West Midlands CPD

8.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND
(9) Yorkshire and Humberside CPD
-- -- -m -- -- m-
9.1
-- m- -- -- --
9.2

9.3 B7 SF 975 97.5 1:5 1:5

(10) Northern Ireland

m- -m -- -- -m --
10.1

(1 1) Scotland
m- -- -- -- -- m-
11.1
Table 3 Continued

Scheme Payment Edge Detail Method of Construction Geometry of Channel

Design Flow Width Overall Depth (mm) Side Slopes
(mm)
(1 2) Wales
12.1 0 PC 1000 125 1:4 1:4
800 100
m- m- -- -m
12.2 B8
12.3 B5 -- -- -- --
-m -m -- -- -- --
12.4
-- -- -m -- -- --
12.5
-- -- -- -m --- -m
12.6

Amended value
.. Stone filled trench over fin drain
Table 4 Summary of results of questionnaire
Description of channel outfalls

l Scheme I Total No of Outlets I Type of Distance between Outlets Outlets I Edition of I

Outlet discharge into
Verge A Central Reserve Verge B Max (m) Min (m)
I I HCD I
(1) London CPD No schemes
(2) Eastern NMD

I I I

1000 140 I WC, TD, 0 I 1987 1

580 Verge 70 CD 1987
240 Carriageway
100 40 CD 1987
50 5 CD
1100 30 WC, CD lggl
1987 1
(((3) East Midlands CPD 11
 L86 L a3 ZZ OSZ /\D 8 LZ SL 8'9
06
L86 L a3 09 OP L A0 Z € S L'9
L86 L a3 SL L €0€ 30 LZ 9'9
L86 L 0s 06 00E 30 L S 9 S.9
L86 L OS P9E 009 30 L -- L (4 P'9
-
L86 L OS PS L PLS 30 P S S P'9
L86 L a3 SZ 001 -- SP 69 9E E'9
L86 L a1 'a3 ' 3 ~ OS SLZ 30 -- O€ 1'9
OS
166 L PZ ' a 3 ~' ~ M L oL OOP 30 oL -- LZ 1.9
a d 3 lsE3 qlnoS (9)
L86 L 0 'a3 SE P8 30 PL -- ZZ €.S
L86 L a3 OS OS 30 PZ LZ 9Z 2.S
L86 L a3 0L OS L 30 -- -- LL 1%
a d 3 lsaM WON (S)
hlda~ON a d 3 UJaqlJoN (P)
(U) U!W (4 XEW 0 a 6 ~ a ~a h l a s a ~I E J ~ U ~V
~ a 6 ~ a ~
a3H olu! a 6 ~ ~ q ~ s ! p
40 UO!l!P3 SlallnO slallno uaaMlaq a ~ u ~ l s ! a lallno 40 adhl SlallnO 40 ON I W l auraq3~
Table 4 Continued

Scheme Total No of Outlets Type of Distance between Outlets Outlets Edition of HCD
Outlet discharge
Verge A Central Reserve Verge B Max (m) Min (m) into
(7) South West CPD
7.1 5 3 11 GC 350 80 CD 1987
7.2 118 49 136 GC 300 90 CD 1987
(8) West Midlands CPD
8.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1992
(9)Yorkshire and Humberside CPD
m- -a --
9.1 GC 90 30 CD 1987
-m
9.2 59 87 GC 50 50 CD 1987
9.3 >200 >l 00 >200 GC 100 10 CD 1991
(1 0) Northern Ireland
10.1 5 -- 6 GV 240 100 CD DOE (NI)
ROADS SERVICE
(11) Scotland
11.1 4 -- -- GC 500 20 WC, CD & 1991
CHANNEL
Table 4 Continued

Scheme Total No of Outlets Type of Outlet Distance between Outlets Outlets Edition of
discharge into HCD
Verge A Central Verge B Max (m) Min (m)
Reserve
(12) Wales

12.1 8 8 5 GV 750 40 CD 1987

12.2 150 30 -- GV 100 20 CD 1987

m- -- m-
12.3 GC, GV 150 75 CD 1987
12.4 42 -- 46 GC 145 35 CD 1987

12.5 28 -- 39 GC 107 35 CD, TD 1987

-- -- -- m- -- -m -- m-
12.6
Table 5 Schemes visited

Scheme Date of Visit Ref

A21 Pembury Bypass 28/7/93 A
A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contracts 1 and 3) 28/7/93 and 26/10193 B
and 27110/93
M20 Maidstone J5-J8 Bypass 28/7/93 C
A23 Muddleswood to Patcham (Contract 3) 2/8/93 D
A1 l Red Lodge Bypass 10/8/93 E
A1 l Thetford Bypass 10/8/93 F
A47 Norwich Southern Bypass (Contracts 2 and 4) 11/W93 G
A30 Okehampton-Launceston Improvement 13/8/93 H
A39 Wadebridge Bypass 15/8/93 I
A5 Little Brickhill Bypass 6/9/93 J
A40 M40 to B4027 30/9/93 K
A19 Easingwold Bypass 22110193 L
A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass 2911 1193 and M
3011 1/93
Table 6 List of meetings with resident engineers of schemes visited

A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contracts 1 and 3) Date of meeting

Designers: Mott MacDonald (Winchester Office) 27/7/93
Mr N Paisley
Mr C Rice
Resident Engineers: Mott MacDonald (Site Office-Capel-le-ferm) 28/7/93
Mr P Knight (RE for Contract 3)
Mr I Jones (RE for Contract 1)
Channel Contractors: Extrudakerb (Maltby Engineering Ltd) - part of Contract 3 20110193
Mr J Charlesworth
A47 Norwich Southern Bypass
Designers: G Maunsell & Partners (Witham Office) 10/8/93
Mr B Bartlett
Resident Engineer: G Maunsell & Partners (Site Office-Contract4) 11/8/93
Mr M Vine
Channel Contractors: SlAC Construction Ltd (Hitchin Office) 6/9/93
Mr J Donegan
Maintenance Norfolk County Council 2/8/93
Organisation: Mr K Townly (telephone
conversation)

A1 l Red Lodge Bypass

Resident Engineer: Suffolk County Council 11/8/93
Mr A Bilby
A19 Easingwold Bypass
Resident Engineer: North Yorkshire County Council 22110193
Mr R Christiansen
Table 7 Results of field tests at A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract I )

Outlet Channel Test No h V Q Manning's

location slope (m) (m3/s) n
t
CRW 0.0016 1 0.102 0.256 0.0152
t
CRW 0.0016 2 0.100 0.277 0.0159
(1:622)
C RE 0.0019 3 0.086 0.628 0.0254 0.008
(1:526)
V 0.0019 4 0.092 0.818 0.0239 0.007
V 0.0019 5 0.101 0.789 0.0275 0.007
(1526)

C R W and C R E - Central reserve (West and East)

Symmetrical 1 :5channel.

V - Verge
Asymmetrical channel with side slopes 1:1 and 1 :5

- Uncertain
Table 8 Results of field tests at A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass

Outlet Channel Test h V Q Q Manning's

tYPe slope No (m) (m's) measured estimated n
(m3/s) (m3/s)

Terminal 0.053 1 0.055 (2.30) -- 0.0378 0.009

0.053 2 0.062 (2.50) -- 0.0526 0.009

0.053 3 0.040 0.790 0.0069 -- 0.021

0.053 4 0.026 0.727 0.0026 -- 0.01 7

0.053 5 0.035 0.556 0.0037 -- 0.027

(1:l9)

Intermediate 0.0606 6 0.027 0.731 0.0029 -- 0.01 9

0.0606 7 0.035 0.352. 0.0024 -- 0.046

0.0606 8 0.059 (2.59) -- 0.0494 0.009

( l :l
6.5)

Intermediate 0.0049 9 0.037 0.599 0.0044 -- 0.008

0.0049 10 0.055 0.677 0.01 11 -- 0.009

0.0049 ll a 0.057 0.595 0.0105 -- 0.01 1

0.0049 ll b 0.053 0.784 0.01 22 -- 0.008

0.0049 ll c 0.053 0.71 3 0.01 08 -- 0.009

0.0049 12 0.058 (0.729) -- 0.01 36 0.009

(1:204)

Note: The values of velocity in brackets were obtained from estimated flows.

Doubtful data
2'69 29 10'0 9960'0 P6PO'O 8
8'96 9L0000'0 0900'0 PZOO'O L
(%) d
('-4 (s/p)
h '"d."'
0 4 0 Fa1
Table 10 Triangular channel
In-line outlet, intermediate

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(rn3/s) (rn3k) (m)
1 pair of gratings
0.0597 0.02123 0.094 1 :60
0.0516 0.0133 0.096 1:lOO
0.0412 0.00476 0.094 1 :250
0.0288 0.00230 0.094 1500
0.0323 0.00197 0.100 1 :2000

2 pairs of gratings
0.0655 0.01122 0.094 1 :50
0.0592 0.00658 0.094 1 :60
0.0572 0.00257 0.098 1:lOO
0.0418 0.00376 0.093 1 :200

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(rn3/s) (rn'k) (m)
1 pair of gratings
0.0830 0.02598 0.116 1 :l00
0.0615 0.01034 0.103 1 :250
0.0515 0.00616 0.121 1 500
0.0489 0.00456 0.119 1 :2000

2 pairs of gratings
0.0902 0.02171 0.11 1 1 :50
0.0901 0.01643 0.112 1 :60
0.0831 0.00854 0.116 1:lOO
0.0722 0.00196 0.123 1 :200
Table I I Triangular channel
In-line outlet, terminal

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
1 pair of gratings
0.0597 overtopping 0.093 1 :60
0.0528 overtopping 0.096 1 :l 00
0.0410 0 0.096 1 :250
0.0288 0 0.094 1 :500
0.0288 0 0.097 1 :2000

2 pairs of gratings

0.0902 overtopping 0.111 1 :50

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3P,) (m)
1 pair of gratings
0.0830 overtopping 0.115 1:lOO
0.0650 overtopping 0.121 1 :250
0.0515 0 0.115 1 :500
0.0489 0 0.124 1 :2000
2 pairs of gratings
0.0902 overtopping 0.111 1 :50
Table 12 Effect of different bar patterns

Triangular channel
-
In-line intermediate outlet 1 pair of gratings

Bar pattern Q Q h Slope

(m3/s) (m)
Diagonal 0.0597 0.02123 0.094 1 :60
0.0516 0.0133 0.096 1:lOO
0.0412 0.00476 0.094 1 :250
Transverse 0.0572 0.0236 0.093 1 :60
0.0516 0.01576 0.095 1 :l00
0.0414 0.00186 0.094 1 :250
Longitudinal 0.0572 0.0103 0.093 1 :60
0.0516 0.00531 0.095 1 :l 00
0.0414 0.00186 0.094 1 :250
Open area 0.0597 0.000123 0.094 1 :60
0.0516 0.000091 0.095 1 :l00
0.0412 0.00742 0.094 1 :250
Table 13 Triangular Channel
Off-line outlet, intermediate

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
1 grating
0.0538 0.02653 0.098 1 :80
0.0492 0.01941 0.097 1:lOO
0.0413 0.00682 0.106 1 :250
0.0357 0.00177 0.105 1 :500
2 gratings
0.0540 0.01584 0.097 1 :60
0.0500 0.01142 0.097 1 :70
0.0502 0.00982 0.098 1 :80
3 gratings
0.0627 0.00748 0.101 1 :50
0.0540 0.00443 0.097 1 :60
0.0560 0.00270 0.103 1 :70
0.0467 0 0.098 1 :l 00
0.0463 0 0.109 1:150
0.0352 0 0.11 1 1 :500

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
3 gratings
0.0873 0.02144 0.121 1 :50
0.0755 0.00541 0.126 1:lOO
0.0706 0.00152 0.134 1:150
0.0460 0 0.123 1:500
Table 14 Triangular channel
Off-line outlet, intermediate
Ramps between gratings

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m%) (m)
3 gratings and 2 ramps
0.0493 0.094 1 :l 00
0.0540 negligible 0.099 1 :80
0.0522 0.00082 0.098 1 :60
0.0585 0.00464 0.099 1 :50
2 gratings and 1 ramp
0.0492 0.00582 0.096 1:lOO
0.0525 0.00158 0.096 1 :70
0.0550 0.01346 0.096 1 :60

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m") (m)
3 gratings and 2 ramps
0.0738 0.00170 0.118 1:lOO
0.0800 0.00636 0.121 1 :80
Table 15 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, intermediate
Model values

A) Channel full -

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3b (m)
2 gratings
0.0515 0.0152 0.096 1 :250
0.0463 0.0096 0.093 1 :400
0.0423 0.0063 0.105 1 :667
3 gratings
0.0703 0.0231 0.097 1 :l00
0.0603 0.0129 0.099 1 :200
0.0510 0.0067 0.098 1 :250
0.0470 0.0024 0.094 1 :400

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
3 gratings
0.0740 0.0175 0.122 1 :300
0.0649 0.0127 0.120 1 :400
0.0598 0.011 1 0.120 1 :667
-
Table 16 Trapezoidal channel
In-line outlet, terminal
Model values

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3P,) (m)
3 gratings
0.0649 0.0095 0.096 1 :l 00
0.0515 negligible 0.099 1 :250
0.0418 -- 0.104 1 :667

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3P,, (m)
3 gratings
0.0598 negligible 0.123 1 :667
Table 17 Trapezoidal channel
Off-line outlet, intermediate
Model values

A) -
Channel full

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
1 grating
0.0810 0.0491 0.103 1:150
0.0723 0.0393 0.103 1 :280
0.0652 0.0318 0.102 1 :300
0.0513 0.0158 0.107 1 :667
0.0524 0.0164 0.110 1 :711
2 gratings
0.1161 0.0615 0.113 1 :60
0.0849 0.0254 0.099 1:lOO
0.0797 0.0175 0.101 1:150
0.0747 0.0114 0.104 1 :200
0.0663 0.0062 0.103 1 :300
0.0568 0.0031 0.095 1 :400
0.0513 0.0017 0.10999 1 :667
3 gratings
0.1177 0.0248 0.11 1 1 :60
0.0884 0.0101 0.100 1:lOO
0.0731 0.0015 0.102 1 :200
0.0633 -- 0.099 1 :300
0.0584 -- 0.101 1 :400
Table 17 Continued

B) Surcharged

Q Q h Slope
(m3/s) (m3L) (m)
1 grating
0.0809 0.0372 0.136 1 :667
0.0821 0.0372 0.137 1 :711
2 gratings
0.1395 0.0651 0.132 1 :l00
0.1006 0.0287 0.128 1 :200
0.0947 0.0224 0.132 1 :300
0.0857 0.0152 0.127 1 :400
0.0782 0.0102 0.134 1 :667
3 gratings
0.1679 0.0455 0.134 1 :60
0.1444 0.0339 0.135 1:lOO
0.1046 0.0102 0.127 1 :200
0.0880 0.0025 0.129 1 :400
0.0903 0.0004 0.134 1 :667
OOE: C 98 1'0 alq!6!16au 8860'0
002: 1 981'0 OSOO'O OLLC'O
0OC:L 9E 1'0 9PZO'O P6P l'0
s6u!lm6
L991C 9€ 1'0 alq!6!16au LSLO'O
OOE: L SE 1'0 28 10'0 CZ60'0
OOZ: l 96 1'0 OOEOO
' 86 C 1'0
s6u!1a6 z
(4 (slcUJ)
adols '4
"d."'
0 0
OOZ: C C 11'0 alq!6!16au 18L0'0
00C:C C C 1'0 Z C 10'0 0860'0
s6u!ye.~6E
L99: C C C 1'0 -- OESO'O
OOE: C 60 1'0 C ZOO'O P690'0
OOZ: C 60 1'0 8E 10'0 €080'0
s6u!ya6 z
(UJ) (s/€UJ)
adols '4
(v) 0 0
Table 19 Weir outlet
Model values

Q h ya Slope yb Observations
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m)
-
A) Channel full, 1 grating
0.0645 0.104 0.0210 1 :250 --
0.0908 0.108 0.037 1:lOO
0.1160 0.110 0.042 1 :60 0.103
0.1267 0.111 0.042 1 :51 0.110
0.1200 0.108 0.046 1 :50 0.108
0.1330 0.110 0.052 1 :43 0.112 Capacity of outlet
exceeded

B) Channel 83% full

0.0530 0.091 0.067 1 :250 --
0.0646 0.090 0.57 1:lOO --
0.0835 0.091 0.047 1 :59 0.110 Capacity of outlet
reached

C) Channel 68% full

0.0481 0.075 0.057 1:lOO

0.0582 0.075 0.062 1 :50 0.103
0.0631 0.076 0.062 1 :43 0.110 Capacity of outlet
reached
Table 20 Analysis of field tests according to new
~ d v i c eNote

Test Slope Type of outlet Measured F, Recommended outlet in Advice Note

by-pass flow
A) A20 Folkestone to Dover (Contract 1)
1 1 :622 Terminal, in-line, triple grating 450 X 1350 No 0.41 One pair or single grating on invert 450 X 450
2 1 :622 Terminal, in-line, triple grating 450 X 1350 No 0.45 One pair or single grating on invert 450 X 450
3 1 :622 Terminal, in-line, triple grating 450 X 1350 No 1.06 One pair or single grating on invert 450 X 450
B) A487 Port Dinorwic Bypass
1 1:19 Terminal, off-line, 2 gratings 650 X 650 No 4.82' Weir outlet
2 1:19 Terminal, off-line, 2 gratings 650 X 650 No 4.97' Weir outlet
3 1:19 Terminal, off-line, 2 gratings 650 X 650 No 1.95 Weir outlet
4 1:19 Terminal, off-line, 2 gratings 650 X 650 No 2.16 Weir outlet
5 1:19 Terminal, off-line, 2 gratings 650 X 650 No 1.46 3 gratings 450 X 450
6 1 :16.5 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 2.19 Weir outlet
7 1 :l 6.5 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 Yes, q = 96.8% 0.95 1 grating 450 X 450 (q = 97%)
8 1:16.5 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 Yes, q = 69.2% 5.28' Weir outlet
9 1:204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.51 3 gratings 450 X 450
10 1 :204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.42 3 gratings 450 X 450
1 la 1 :204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.22 2 gratings 450 X 450
1lb 1 :204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.71 3 gratings 450 X 450
1 lc 1 :204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.51 3 gratings 450 X 450
12 1 :204 Intermediate, off-line, 1 grating 650 X 650 No 1.52* 3 gratings 450 X 450

Calculated from estimated flows

 (UJUJ) lllda~
lauuell3
SLL-OS1 OSl-SZL SZL-001 OOL-SL SL-OS 0S-SZ SZ-0
r-
(%l lua!PeJ9
L '-S E-P P-€ E-z Z-L L'=
 / Minimum distances between outlets l

m Total no. of channels:38

0-10 20-30 40-50 60-70 80-90 >l00

10-20 30-40 50-60 70-80 90-100
Minimum distance (m)

l ~ a x i m u mdistances between outlets l

Total no. of channels: 40

Maximum distance (m)

Figure 2 Results of general questionnaire

Minimum and maximum distances between outlets
 b h e r e outlets discharge 1

Figure 3 Results of general questionnaire

Where outlets discharge into
Figure 4 General layout of test rig
sjsaj hoje~oqelU! pasn s u ~ a ~ e
l edg a~r16!j
 -
Figure 6 Triangular channel In-line outlet
 -
Figure 10 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 In-line outlet
Side of flume Side of flume
carriageway verge side
side

Section A-A
Dimensions in metres
 -
Figure 12 Trapezoidal channel 1:4.5 Off-line outlet
Figure 14 Weir outlet
Trangular channel
In-line outlet
Surcharged channel 1 curves:
 -
Figure 18 Design curves. Triangular channel Off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
Figure 20 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5
In-line outlet. Surcharged channel
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5
Off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
slleM lauueqa jo uo!aaaljap 01 anp aneM anbilqo jo uo!leluloj a~n6!j
Appendix I
General Questionnaire
 U a suolsuaula
(U) h e ~ a 6 ~ ! ~
40~4lP!M
83 ( W ) PeoJ10 416ual
auraq3s JOJ
( S ) U O S J ~l3aUO3
~
a a
auoqdalal s s a ~ p pue
p~ a u e ~
J
slleiino pue slauueya AaieM a a e ~ ~ n
uos aA!euuo!gsany)
 D Insert information in appropriate box
J Tick appropriate box
* If channel has vertical side, enter side slope 1: 0

Description of Surface Water Channels

Verges in Cutting
Pavement edge
detail
(as defined by HCD)

( Slip-form concrete I Precast concrete I Other 1

Method of
construction

Design flow width (mm) Overall depth (mm) Side-slopes *

Geometry of D D
1: 1:
channel

If more channel types, please use extra pages

1 Central reserve
Pavement edge B6 B7 Other
detail J J D
(as defined by HCD)
E
Q)
L

Slip-form concrete Precast concrete Other

Method of
-2 Q)
L
construction
J J D

C
Design flow width (mm) Overall depth (mm) Side-slopes
Geometryof
1 channel D D
1:
I I 1 I

If more channel types, please use extra pages

Description of Channel Outfalls

In verge A In central reserve In verge B
Total number of D D D
channel outlets
Grating in Grating set
Types of channel invert back in verge Side chute
outlet J J J
I I
Maximum distance (m) Minimum distance (m)
Distance between D ID
I outlets
1 I
I
1
Watercourse Carrier drain Toe ditch Another channel Other
What do outlets J J J J D
discharge into?

Year of publication
Edition of HCD
0 referre to in
parts &and @
D
 NOTES FOR COMPLETION OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON SURFACE WATER
CHANNELS AND OUTFALLS

1. This questionnaire concerns road schemes with surface water channels that
have already been built or are at any stage between design and construction.

2. Separate forms should be completed for each scheme (the two pages of the
questionnaire should be copied as many times as necessary). If an overall
scheme consists of sectior~swith different characteristics (eg, motorway, slip
road, link road), each section should be described separately.

3. In Part F, give separately the numbers of outlets in both verges and the central
reserve (if applicable). For example, verge A might be on the northbound
carriageway and verge B on the southbound carriageway.

4. Some of the questions refer to standard designs in the DOT Highway

Construction Details (HCD). Please identify in Part G which edition of the HCD
applies to the scheme.

5. After analysis of the data, a few representative schemes will be selected for
more detailed study. Please therefore identify in Part C of the questionnaire a
contact person for each scheme who would be able to assist if such a follow-up
is required.

6. Please return all completed forms by 7 May 1993 to :

Mr R W P May
HR Wallingford
Wallingford
Oxfordshire
OX10 8BA

Tel : 0491 35381 Fax : 0491 25428

If you have any problems in completing the questionnaire or comments on the

project, please d o not hesitate to contact Richard May at the above address.
SURFACE WATER CHANNELS AND OUTFALLS : DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE

A. HYDRAULIC DESIGN

A.l Channels

(a) (1) Were other drainage options studied?

(2) If yes, why were surface channels chosen?

(b) Did HA 37/88 explain the design method satisfactorily?

(c) Were there any problems in applvinq the method?

storm dclrations too short for rnethod

estimation of run-off from cuttings
non-uniform catchment characteristics
non-uniform channel slope
long sections of low gradient
drainage of sag points
lack of suitable discharge points
need for separate carrier pipes
compatibility with design method for piped system
HA :37/88 gave different results from other methods for
outlet spacing
other : please specify

(d) How could the design method be improved?

eg (1) fewer restrictions on its use

(2) non-graphical method
(3) computerised method
(4) other cross-sectional shapes
(5) other : please specify

A.2 Pavement drainage

(a) What type of pavement drainage was chosen?

(b) Is a separate carrier pipe used for the pavement drainage?

(c) (1) Does the pavement drainage connect to a carrier pipe serving the
surface drainage?

(2) If yes, how frequent are the connections?

A.3 Outfalls

(a) What alternative designs were considered?

(b) Describe selected outfall design in detail (drawings and photos if

possible).

(c) How were the flow capacities of the outfalls estimated?

(d) Is field testing of one or more outfalls feasible?

B. CONSTRUCTION

B.l From designer's viewpoint

(a:) (1) Was the Specification for the channels satisfactory?

(2) If not, how could it be improved'?

(b) Did the channels save money compared with alternative drainage
methods?

(c) How could the overall drainage system (surface channels and pavement
drainage) be improved?

B.2 From supervisor's viewpoint

(a) (1) Was the Specification for the channels satisfactory?

(2) If not, how could it be improved?

(b) Did the channels save time compared with alternative drainage methods?

(c) Did the use of channels help or hinder the construction of the road
foundation and pavement?

(d) (1) Was it difficult to achieve the required tolerances on line, level and
shape of the channels?

(2) If yes, were the tolerances impractical or are they achievable with
experience?

(e) How could the construction of the channels be improved?

eg (1) different shape

(2) different size
(3) different construction method
(4) different concrete mix
(5) other : please specify

(f) Were there difficulties with the construction of the pavement drainage
system?
 (g) If the road were to r e q ~ ~ i an
r e overlay in the future, how best could the
surface channels be modified?

B.3 From contractor's viewpoint (eg slip-form contractor)

(a) (1) Was the Specification for the channels satisfactory?

(2) If not, how could it be improved?

(b) (1) Was it difficult to achieve the required tolerances on line, level and
shape of the channels?

(2) If yes, were the tolerances impractical or could they be achieved

with experience?

(c) How could the construction of the channels be improved?

eg (1) different shape

(2) different size
(3) different construction technique
(4) different concrete mix
(5) other : please specify

(d) If the road were to require an overlay in the future, how best could the
surface channels be modified?

C. SAFETY

(a) When was the road opened?

(b) How heavily used is the road?

(1) Number of commercial vehicles per day assumed in design

or
(2) Average daily traffic flow

(c) Are the channels outside the safety barriers?

(d) Have any accidents or near-accidents occurred as a result of the

channels or outfalls?

(e) Are the channels or outfalls considered to be a possible hazard to road

users?

D. MAINTENANCE

(a) Have the channels or outfalls been damaged by vehicles?

(b) Has surface flooding of the road been reported?

(c) Do the channels collect much grit and other debris?

(d) Are the outfalls easily clogged?

(e) How often are the channels and outfalls cleaned?

(f) Are there particular problems in cleaning the channels and outfalls?

(g) How could the use of surface channels be improved?

eg (1) different shape

(2) different size
(3) other : please specify

(h) Has the pavement drainage system caused any problems?

(i) If the road were to require an overlay in the future, how best could the
surface channels be modified?
Appendix 111

Advice Note on Design of Outfalls for Surface Water Channels

 ADVICE NOTE

DESIGN OF OUTFALLS FOR SURFACE WATER CHANNELS

Draft dated December 1994

DESIGN OF OUTFALLS FOR SURFACE 2. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
WATER CHANNELS 1:4.5
Limiting values of Q, and Q, for terminal
outlets
DRAFT DATED DECEMBER 1994
3. Trapezoidal channels with cross-falls of
1:5
Limiting values of Q, and Q, for terminal
outlets
DECEMBER 1994

FIGURES

1. Cross-sectional shape of triangular

CONTENTS channel

2. Cross-sectional shape of trapezoidal

1. INTRODUCTION channel

2. SCOPE 3. Relationship between surcharged and

channel-full flows - triangular channels
3. FLOW CONDITIONS APPROACHING
OUTLET 4. Typical bar pattern of gratings

4. TYPES OF OUTLET 5. Triangular channel

In-line outlet geometry
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF OUTLETS
6. Triangular channel
5.1 General procedure Off-line outlet geometry
5.2 Intermediate outlets
5.3 Terminal outlets 7. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
5.4 Grating design 1:4.5
In-line outlet geometry
6. WEIR OUTLET
8. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
7. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON 1:4.5
DESIGN OF OUTFALL STRUCTURES Off-line outlet geometry

8. SPACING OF OUTLETS WITH BY- 9. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of

PASSING 1:5
In-line outlet
9. OVERALL DESIGN OF SURFACE
WATER CHANNEL SYSTEMS 10. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:5
10. WORKED EXAMPLES Off-line outlet

11. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS 11. Design curves

Triangular channel - in-line outlet
12. REFERENCES Channel-full

13. ENQUIRIES 12. Design curves

Triangular channel - in-line outlet
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF FLOW- Surcharged channel
COLLECTlhlG CHAMBERS
13. Design curves
TABLES Triangular channel - off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
1. Triangular channels
Limiting values of F, and F, for terminal 14. Design curves
outlets Triangular channel - off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
Design curves 30. Flow chart for design of weir outlet in
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of trapezoidal channel 1:5
1:4.5 - in-line outlet
Channel-full 31. Geometric characteristics of weir outlet
in trapezoidal channel 1:5
Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:4.5 - in-line outlet
Surcharged channel

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
114.5 - off-line outlet
Channel-full

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:4.5 - off-line outlet
Surcharged channel

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:5 - in-line outlet
Channel-full

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:5 - in-line outlet
Surcharged channel

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:5 - off-line outlet
Channel-full

Design curves
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of
1:5 - off-line outlet
Surcharged channel

Isometric view of weir outlet indicating

possible location of safety fence

Example of triangular channel with weir

outlet

Example of trapezoidal channel with

weir outlet

Flow chart for design of weir outlet in

triangular channels

Geometric characteristics of weir outlet

in triangular channels

Flow chart for design of weir outlet in

trapezoidal channel 1:4.5

Geometric characteristics of weir outlet

in trapezoidal channel 1:4.5
INTRODUCTION trapezoidal surface water channels and
provides methods of designing each
Surface water channels for drainage of type according to the flow rate in the
runoff from highways can be a suitable channel. Some general recommend-
alternative to conventional kerbs and ations regarding the design of the outfall
gullies or filter drains. Amongst other structures are also given in this Advice
advantages, such as providing separate Note (Section 7).
systems for drainage of surface and
sub-surface water, they allow greater The design methods enable the
distances between outlets when performance of the outlets to be
compared with conventional gully assessed for channel-full conditions and
systems. for surcharging conditions when the flow
may extend to the edge of the
Advice Note HA 37/88 (and Amendment carriageway. The channel-full conditions
No 1 dated March 1991) provides a are normally specified to correspond to
method of determining the required storms with a return period of 1 year
spacing between outlets for surface whereas the surcharged situation
water channels. The channel cross-falls typically refers to storms with a return
should not normally be steeper than 1:5 period of 5 years. It should be noted
but in very exceptional cases cross-falls that surcharging is not allowed for
of 1:4 are allowed. The maximum channels built in the central reserve.
design depth of the channel is restricted
to 150mm. 2.3 The design methods apply to
symmetrical triangular channels with
Rectangular channels and triangular cross-falls of 1:5 and also to higher
channels deeper than 150mm can be capacity channels with a trapezoidal
used behind safety barriers. In these cross-section.
locations cross-falls exceeding 1:4 are
allowed. 2.4 High capacity channels are required for
drainage of wide roads and long lengths
Flow rates in surface water channels are with flat gradients. In such situations,
generally much higher than in equivalent trapezoidal cross-sections provide
kerb-and gully systems. Therefore, higher capabilities than triangular
special designs of channel outfall are channels of the same depth and surface
needed to obtain a satisfactory level of width. The base width of the
performance. In this Advice Note, the recommended channels have been
outfall is defined as the drainage system chosen to allow the use of certain
that collects and removes water from the standard sizes of gratings. Two
surface water channels and conveys it geometries of trapezoidal channel are
to a downstream point of discharge. The considered. They both have a base
transition section in the channel that width of 0.300m and channel-full depth
collects the water and the set of gully equal to 0.1 50m but are distinguished by
gratings or the overflow weir that cross-falls of 1:4.5 and 1:5. In order to
removes the water from the surface are promote self-cleansing conditions, the
collectively termed the outlet. The base of each channel has a cross-fall of
chamber below the outlet and the 1:40 towards the verge (or central
arrangements for conveying the water to reserve). The two channel shapes can
a collector pipe, a soakaway or a be modified at the outlet to
watercourse are collectively termed the accommodate a 0.450m wide grating in
"outfall structures". the invert with the sides of the channels
locally steepened to slopes not
The designs of outlets recommended in exceeding the allowable limit of 1:4 (see
this Advice Note were developed from Section 1.2).
laboratory tests. Details of the test data
are given in HR Report SR 406, 1994. 2.5 Figures 1 and 2 show the cross-
sectional shapes of the recommended
SCOPE channels. As shown in these figures, y,
is the depth of the channel from the
This Advice Note describes suitable lower edge of the carriageway, y, is the
layouts for outlets from triangular and depth of the channel from the upper
 edge of the carriageway, and y, is the
overall depth of the surcharged channel.
The allowable width of surcharging
should not exceed 1m for hard-strips or
1.5m for hard-shoulders. where P is the wetted perimeter, ie the
perimeter of the channel in contact with
2.6 Three different geometries of outlet are the water flow. Values of Manning's n
recommended for each of the two types are given in Table 2 of Advice Note HA
of channel considered. One is an in-line 37/88.
outlet, where the water is essentially
collected symmetrically either side of the 3.2 If the longitudinal gradient of the channel
channel invert. Another type is an off- is not uniform along its length, an
line outlet, where the channel is widened equivalent value of the slope, S, should
away from the carriageway and the be used in the calculation of the flow
outlet is off-set from the centreline of the rate. S, should be evaluated as
channel. A third type of outlet, a weir described in Section 8 of the Advice
outlet, is recommended for steep slopes Note HA 37/88.
(typically >1:50) where the water is
made to curve towards a side-weir. 3.3 When checking for surcharged
conditions, the flow rate, Q, to use in the
2.7 As described in Advice Note HA 37/88, design of outlets for triangular channels
Clauses 2.2 and 2.3, the longitudinal can be estimated from Figure 3. In this
gradient of the channel may be zero at figure B, and Q, are respectively the
the upstream or downstream end of the surface width of the channel and the
channel but all intermediate points must flow rate corresponding to channel-full
have a positive slope towards the outlet. conditions. Q, is equal to the value of Q
given by Equation (1) when A and R
2.8 This Advice Note does not cover the correspond to the design depth of flow,
structural design of the outlets or of the y , in the channel. The curve in Figure 3
flow-collecting chambers underneath the is based on 1m width of surcharging of
outlet gratings. However, diagrams of the carriageway at a cross-fall of 1:40.
possible configurations of the chambers The value of QJQ, can be read off the
are included for illustrative purposes curve and, with Q, calculated using
[see Appendix A]. Equation (l), the value of Q, can then be
determined.
3. FLOW CONDITIONS APPROACHING
OUTLET 3.4 For the trapezoidal channels with cross-
falls of 1:4.5 the channel-full flow is
3.1 The flow rate to use in the design of the given by ~ , = 0 . 0 2 7 1 ~ ' ~ /for
n ; trapezoidal
outlets should be calculated according channels with cross-falls of 1:5 the
to Advice Note HA 37/88 which adopts channel-full flow is given by Q,
Manning's resistance equation: =0.0290~"/n. For both trapezoidal
channels the ratio between the flow
rates corresponding to surcharged and
channel-full conditions is 1.21, ie Q, =
1.21 Q,.

4. TYPES OF OUTLET

4.1 Channel outlets can be defined as

intermediate or terminal according to
where Q is the flow rate (m3/s), A is the their position along a channel. Terminal
cross-sectional area of the flow (m2),S is outlets are located at low points along a
the longitudinal gradient of the channel length of channel and should be
(mlm) and n is the Manning roughness designed to collect practically all the flow
coefficient. The hydraulic radius R is carried by the channel. Intermediate
defined by: outlets are located at points part-way
along a length of channel where the flow
rate of water from the road reaches the
carrying capacity of the channel.
4.2 The desigq methods in this Advice Note within the following limits:
are based on a minimum value of the
waterway area (defined as the total area
of openings) in relation to the plan area
of the grating. If G is the width of the The lower limit corresponds to the
grating, this minimum waterway area is minimum width of grating necessary to
defined as 0.44G2. The efficiencies of achieve the performance specified in
outlets comprising gratings with bigger Section 5. The upper limit corresponds
waterway areas and similar bar patterns to the widest grating that can be installed
will not be less than given by these in the channel.
methods. The laboratory tests, which
are the basis of the present The length H of the gratings should be
recommendations, were carried out with equal to or bigger than G.
gratings of representative geometry (see
Figure 4). Gratings with bar patterns The lower edge of each grating should
consisting of longitudinal and transverse be set as close as possible to the invert
bars were also tested and their of the channel in order to maximise flow
application is discussed in Section 5.4. interception, ie distance e in Figure 5
should be minimised. Although they are
4.3 As mentioned in Clause 2.6, alternative not commercially available yet (1994),
designs of in-line and off-line outlets are manufacturers may consider producing
recommended for each of the two types angled gratings specifically for this
of channel. For triangular channels the purpose to simplify installation. An in-
in-line outlet recommended is generally line outlet with the grating set flat in the
more efficient than the off-line outlet but channel invert is not permissible
reasons for choosing between them will because this layout would require cross-
mainly depend on constructional falls locally steeper than 1:4 (see Clause
aspects. Wherever possible, in-line 1.2).
outlets are preferable to off-line outlets
since they require a smaller land take. 4.4.2 The recommended geometry of off-line
However, in-line and off-line outlets are outlet is shown in Figure 6. The number
not suitable for steep channels where of gratings may vary from one to three
the high kinetic energy of the flow depending on the amount of flow
renders gratings less effective. In such approaching the outlet (see Section 5).
situations the flow should be collected However, outlets formed by a single
by curving it towards an off-line weir grating may have the disadvantage of
(see Section 6). being easily blocked by debris,
particularly when the outlets are widely
4.4 Triangular channels spaced. Consequently, a second grating
would reduce the likelihood of local
4.4.1 The in-line outlet geometry flooding of the road in those situations
recommended for this type of channel when the first grating is blocked. On the
consists of pairs of gratings positioned other hand, outlets including more than
on the side slopes of the channel (see three gratings may not prove
Figure 5). economical due to the space they
require and the size of the flow collecting
The number of pairs of gratings required structure under the outlet. For these
will depend on the amount of flow in the cases a weir outlet is recommended -
channel (see Section 5). More than 3 see Section 6.
pairs of gratings are considered to be
uneconomical, and other measures In this geometry the side slope on the
should be taken to cope with higher road side is extended below the invert
flows (see Section 6). level of the channel to produce a
ponding effect over the gratings which
The spacing between pairs of gratings increases the efficiency of the outlet. A
should not be less than 1.7 G, where G gradual transition between the channel
is the width of the grating (see Figure 4). and the outlet is essential to direct the
The size of the required gratings should flow smoothly towards the gratings.
be chosen so that the ratio of the width
G over the depth of the channel y,, is Local cross-falls should not be steeper
 than 1:4 and the spacing between outlet) and the number of gratings
gratings should not be less than 1.25G needed to achieve the required
where G is the width of the gratings. performance. The geometry of each
The size of the gratings is determined type of outlet is predetermined as
by: 4.5 S Gfy,. described in Clauses 4.4 to 4.6 and
illustrated in Figures 5 to 10. For
4.5 Trapezoidal channels triangular channels the size of the
gratings is related to the size of the
4.5.1 The in-line outlet geometries channel in accordance with Equation (3)
recommended for the trapezoidal or Clause 4.4.2.
channels are shown in Figures 7 and 9.
The gratings have nominal dimensions The performance of an outlet should be
of 450mm X 450mm; the allowable width determined for channel-full conditions
G of the grating should not exceed but checks of the performance for
450mm in this size of trapezoidal surcharged flow conditions may also be
channel. The comments in Clause 4.4.2 carried out.
regarding the number of gratings, the
importance of a gradual transition and For intermediate outlets, design curves
the local side slopes apply also to this are presented which give the number of
case. gratings needed to achieve the required
performance of the outlet (Figures 11 to
4.5.2 The off-line geometries recommended 22). For terminal outlets the number of
are shown in Figure 8 and 10. The gratings is obtained from Tables 1 and
dimensions of the gratings in this design 2. For triangular channels the flow
are 610mm X 610mm. As for the in-line conditions are represented by a non-
outlet, the comments in Clause 4.4.2 are dimensional number so that the design
also applicable to this case. procedure is valid for all sizes of
channel; for the trapezoidal channels a
4.6 Terminal outlets non-dimensional number is not used
because the two channels have a fixed
The requirement that surface water size.
channels should not have any sides
steeper than 1:4 applies also to the This design procedure is suitable only
geometry of terminal outlets. When not for channels with small to moderate
protected by a safety barrier, surface slopes. In steep channels (typically
water channels must therefore terminate >1:50) the procedure to adopt is
with a smooth transition, without abrupt described in Section 6.
changes in level or width. Examples of
recommended terminal outlets are 5.2 Intermediate outlets
shown in dashed lines in Figures 5 to
10. The terminal ramps should be built 5.2.1 The hydraulic design of intermediate
at a certain minimum distance from the outlets is based on a number of curves
grating furthest downstream. This (Figures 11 to 22) developed for
reduces the probability of blockage of channel-full and surcharged conditions.
the gratings by debris since some of the These curves show the variation of the
debris will tend to accumulate in the efficiency of each outlet with the flow
area between the gratings and the conditions.
terminal ramp. For in-line and off-line
outlets in triangular channels, this In the curves for triangular channels, the
distance should equal the grating width. flow conditions are represented by a
For in-line and off-line outlets in non-dimensionalnumber: F, for channel-
trapezoidal channels the recommended full and F, for surcharged channel. The
distances are shown in Figures 7 to 10. values of F, and F, are calculated
respectively as:
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF OUTLETS

5.1 General procedure

The design procedure involves choosing

the type of outlet (in-line, off-line or weir
 designs can often be achieved by
allowing a certain amount of flow to by-
pass intermediate outlets. However, it is
recommended that intermediate outlets
operating under channel-full conditions
should not be designed for efficiencies
less than 80%.
where
5.2.4 The design charts for triangular
Q, is the approach flow channels (Figures 11 to 14) include
corresponding to channel-full curves for one, two and three gratings or
conditions (in m3/s) pairs of gratings. The design charts for
trapezoidal channels (Figures 15 to 22)
Q, is the approach flow include curves for only two and three
corresponding to surcharged gratings because it is recommended to
conditions (in m3/s) adopt a minimum of two gratings for high
capacity channels. The curves shown
B, is the surface width of the flow dashed were obtained by extrapolating
for channel-full conditions (in m) the results of the laboratory tests using
a conservative approach.
B, is the surface width of the flow
in a surcharged channel 5.2.5 For the triangular channels, the designer
neglecting the width of should use the value of Q, calculated as
surcharge on the hard strip or described in Section 3 to determine F,
hard shoulder - see Figures 1 defined by Equation (4). Having decided
and 2 - (in m). which type of outlet to adopt (in-line or
off-line outlet), the number of gratings
For the estimation of Q, and Q, refer to necessary to achieve the required
Section 3. In Equation (4) the numerical efficiency is then read off the curves.
constant is chosen so that F, is equal to Alternatively, the designer can check
1 when the flow in the channel is at whether a particular outlet geometry or
critical depth for channel-full. The value number of gratings is adequate for the
of F, is defined so that when there is approach flow. For the trapezoidal
surcharged flow it gives approximately channels, the procedure for the
critical flow in a composite channel. triangular channels is used except that
Q, is introduced directly in the design
In the curves for the trapezoidal curves so there is no need to determine
channels (Figures 15 to 22), the flow the value of F.,
rate is plotted on the x-axis, ie Q, for
channel-full and Q, for surcharged 5.2.6 It is recommended that outlets should
conditions. A non-dimensional number normally be designed for channel-full
is not used as the trapezoidal channels conditions (ie, the 1-year return period
are of fixed size. event) but the designer may wish to
check the performance for surcharged
5.2.2 Values of efficiency are plotted on the flow conditions. Figures 12, 14, 16, 18,
vertical axis of the design curves. The 20 and 22, which correspond to a width
efficiency of an outlet is defined as the of surcharging of Im, should then be
ratio of the flow intercepted by the outlet, used.
Qi, to the total flow approaching it:
5.2.7 For triangular channels, the minimum
width of grating, G, required for an outlet
is determined by Equation (3) or Clause
4.4.2; the length, H, should not be less
than G. The designer should choose a
where Q, and Q, refer to channel-full and size of commercially available grating
surcharged conditions, respectively. that is not smaller than the calculated
values of G and H and that provides a
5.2.3 Although efficiencies of 100% may be waterway area of opening between bars
desirable, the resulting outlets may be that is not less than required in Clause
large and costly; more economic 4.2. For trapezoidal channels, the
 grating dimensions are given in Section fences, gratings with longitudinal bars
4.5. may be adopted. In such a case, the
value of efficiency obtained from the
5.3 Terminal outlets relevant design curve for diagonal bars
should be increased. If q, is the
5.3.1 The efficiency of a terminal outlet is efficiency corresponding to a diagonal
generally higher than that of a similar bar pattern, the efficiency Q,
intermediate outlet because of the effect corresponding to a longitudinal bar is
of the end ramp. Also, a terminal outlet approximately given by :
needs to be designed for an efficiency
close to loo%, because any water by-
passing the outlet may flow on to the
verge or back on to the road. The positioning of gratings with bars
transverse to the direction of the flow is
5.3.2 For the design of terminal outlets, the not recommended in any situation since
first step is to calculate values of F, and it reduces the outlet efficiency
F, for triangular channels, or Q, and Q, considerably.
for the trapezoidal channels, as
described in Clauses 5.2.1 and 3.4. The 6. WEIR OUTLET
values of F, or Q, should then be
compared with the limiting values given 6.1 When the types of outlet illustrated in
in Table 1 (for triangular channels) or Figures 5 to 10 cannot guarantee the
Tables 2 and 3 (for the trapezoidal necessary level of flow-collecting
channels). The type of outlet selected efficiency (80% for intermediate and
should have a limiting value of F, or Q, 97.5% for terminal outlets), a weir outlet
that is not less than the calculated value. is required. In this situation the water
As for the case of intermediate outlets, a needs to be gently directed away from
check may be carried out for surcharged the road and discharged into a collecting
conditions using the calculated values of channel in the verge by means of a side
F, or Q,. weir. For safety reasons a safety fence
should be installed along the
The values presented in Tables 1, 2 and carriageway-side of the collecting
3 for terminal outlets correspond to channel. The recommended layout of
efficiencies of 97.5%. The small amount the weir outlet is shown in Figures 23 to
of by-passing that is permitted is 25.
considered acceptable for rare storm
events. 6.2 Triangular channels

5.4 Grating design The procedure to design a weir outlet for

triangular channels is explained in the
As mentioned in Clause 4.2, the design flow chart of Figure 26. In order to allow
curves were based on tests carried out the high-velocity flow to be turned
with gratings having a diagonal bar towards the side weir without spilling out
pattern. Comparing the performance of on to the carriageway, it is necessary for
gratings equivalent in terms of overall the channel to be flowing only part full
size and waterway area, longitudinal immediately upstream of the outlet.
bars are more efficient than diagonal Therefore, once the need for a weir
bars, which in turn are more efficient outlet is established, there are two
than transverse bars. possible options: 1) to drain the same
area (ie keep the same flow) and
However, longitudinal bar patterns are increase the depth of the channel so that
not allowed along the carriageway for it flows part-full at the outlet; and 2) to
two main safety reasons: 1) bicycle tyres keep the same channel size and drain a
may get trapped in the slots between the smaller catchment (ie reduce the flow).
bars; and 2) longitudinal bars provide a
lower skidding resistance than diagonal In option 1 the designer may choose to
bars. adopt an increased channel size for the
whole scheme, increase the channel
In the exceptional cases where surface size only in the drainage length under
water channels are built behind safety consideration, or just locally at the
 approach to the weir outlet. When the of 1:4.5 is explained in the flow chart of
depth of the channel is increased just Figure 28. Once the need for a weir
locally a gradual transition should be outlet is established, the design water
built to accommodate the change in the depth should be reduced to 2/3 of its
level of the channel invert. A minimum original value, ie 0.1 00m. The spacing of
longitudinal slope of 2.5% is the outlets therefore needs to be revised
recommended for this transition. The using the Advice Note HA 37/88 before
depth of the channel approaching the the design of the weir outlet can
weir outlet should be increased so that proceed.
the local water depth under design
conditions is 2/3 of the channel depth. The new value of flow rate, Q',
corresponding to the revised spacing is
In option 2 the design water depth in the then introduced in Chart A of Figure 29
channel is reduced to 2/3 of its original to give the total length of the weir, 1,.
value.The spacing of the outlets The value of the angle 0 (see Figure 25)
therefore needs to be revised using can then be read of Chart B of Figure
Advice Note HA 37/88 before the design 29. See last paragraph of Clause 6.2 for
of the weir outlet can proceed. A similar further definition of the geometry of the
situation can also occur if the increased weir outlet.
channel depth required in option 1
exceeds the maximum allowable depth 6.4 Trapezoidal channel with side-slopes
of the channel, as stated in Clauses 1.2 1:5
and 1.3. New values of the flow rate and
of the non-dimensional number, F, The procedure to design a weir outlet for
defined by Equation (4) need to be the trapezoidal channel with side-slopes
calculated. of 1:5 is explained in the flow chart of
Figure 30. Once the need for a weir
The value of F, is introduced in Chart A outlet is established, the design water
of Figure 27 to give the value of LJy,, depth should be reduced to 2/3 of its
where L, is the total length of the weir original value, ie 0.100m. The spacing
outlet and y, is the depth of the channel of the outlets therefore needs to be
immediately upstream of the outlet. The revised using Advice Note HA 37/88
value of the angle 0 (see Figure 24) can before the design of the weir outlet can
then be read off Chart B of Figure 27. proceed.

The total length of the weir outlet L, is The new value of flow rate, Q',
formed by a straight stretch, L,, and a corresponding to the revised spacing is
stretch, L,at an angle 0 to the line of the then introduced in Chart A of Figure 31
channel. The value of L, is determined to give the total length of the weir, L.,
by: The value of the angle 0 (see Figure 25)
can then be read off Chart B of Figure
31. See last paragraph of Clause 6.2 for
L, = - B, further definition of the geometry of the
tan 8
weir outlet.

where B, is the surface width of flow 7. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON

neglecting the width of surcharge on DESIGN OF OUTFALL STRUCTURES
hard-strip or hard-shoulder of the
channel approaching the weir. L, can be 7.1 An outfall conveys water from one or
determined by the difference between 1 , more outlets in a surface water channel
and L., The two stretches should be to a suitable discharge point. The design
joined by a circular curve in plan with its of an outfall may vary considerably
upstream end at the mid-point of L, (see depending on the general topography
Figure 24). and nature of the ground, the layout of
the road scheme and whether the water
6.3 Trapezoidal channel with side-slopes is discharged to a watercourse, a
1 :4.5 soakaway or a below-ground piped
system.
The procedure to design a weir outlet for
the trapezoidal channel with side-slopes 7.2 A chamber or gully pot should be
 located below or immediately adjacent to freely when the surface water channel is
each outlet to collect sediment carried flowing under surcharged conditions.
with the flow from the surface water The minimum depth, J (in m), of the
channel. Standard circular gully pots channel invert below the level of the weir
have a limited hydraulic capacity and it can be estimated from the equation:
is recommended that they should not be
used for flow rates exceeding 5 11s
unless their suitability has been
determined by test.

7.3 The plan shape of the chamber will be where E is the width of the rectangular
determined by the layout of the gratings channel (in m) and Q is the design rate
forming the outlet. The invert of the of flow (in m3/s).The width of the channel
outgoing pipe from the chamber should should not be less than E = 0.5m.
be set a minimum of 300mm above the
bottom of the chamber to retain an 7.7 It is recommended that the collecting
adequate volume of sediment. channel below a weir outlet should
discharge into a chamber with a
7.4 The invert level of the outgoing pipe removable cover in order to still the flow
should be chosen so that the water level and allow sediment to be collected. The
in the chamber does not rise high sizes of the chamber and the outgoing
enough to prevent flow discharging pipe should be determined in
freely from the surface water channel accordance with the general
into the outlet. For design, it is recommendations in Clauses 7.3 to 7.6.
recommended that the water level in the
chamber should be at least 150mm 8. SPACING OF OUTLETS WITH BY-
below the underside of the gratings PASSING
when the outlet is receiving flow from the
channel under surcharged conditions. When by-pass flow is allowed in the
The height Z (in m), of the water surface design of an intermediate outlet, ie when
in the chamber above the invert of the efficiencies lower than 100% are
outgoing pipe can be estimated from the adopted, the design of the channel
equation: downstream of the outlet is no longer
directly covered by Advice Note HA
37/88. In this case the spacing of the
outlets needs to be reduced in order to
allow for the additional flow by-passing
the upstream outlet. As an interim
where D is the diameter of the pipe (in measure, it is recommended that the
m) and Q is the flow rate (in m3/s) in the distance L between outlets, as
chamber corresponding to surcharged determined in HA 37/88, should be
conditions in the surface water channel. reduced to qL, where q is the adopted
The gradient and diameter of the design efficiency of the upstream outlet.
outgoing pipe should be determined
from standard flow tables or resistance
equation so that the pipe is just flowing 9. OVERALL DESIGN OF SURFACE
full under surcharged conditions. WATER CHANNEL SYSTEMS

7.5 Providedthe chamber below the outlet is In order to obtain the most cost-effective
designed to trap sediment, the outgoing solution for a drainage system using
pipe from the chamber may be surface water channels, the designer
connected directly to a collector pipe by should consider the total cost of the
means of a 45" Y junction without the channels and outlets together. In some
need for a manhole at the junction cases, a design based on the longest
position. possible spacings between outlets may
not be the optimum solution. Shorter
7.6 If a weir outlet is used (see Section 6), spacings will require more outlets but
the collecting channel into which flow these may be smaller and cheaper; also,
drops from the weir should be deep the shorter distance between outlets will
enough to allow the outlet to discharge allow use of smaller sizes of surface
 water channel. The effect on the total Calculate also F, using Equation (5). It
cost of allowing different amounts of by- is first necessary to calculate B,. For a
passing at intermediate outlets should carriageway cross-fall of 1:40, 1m of
also be considered. For each option the surcharging corresponds to 0.025m of
relationship between channel size and water depth above the channel-full
required outlet spacing should be depth, ie a total depth of 0.145m.
determined from Advice Note HA 37/88 Therefore
(plus Amendment No l ) , and the effect
of allowing by-passing at intermediate
outlets should be estimated according to
Section 8.

10. WORKED EXAMPLES

10.1 Example 1 Figures ll and 12 are appropriate for

the design of in-line intermediate outlets
Design an intermediate in-line outlet in a in triangular channels.
triangular surface water channel having
the following characteristics: The designer should begin by
considering channel-full conditions,
cross-falls 1:5 which are described by Figure 11.
design flow depth 0.1m-n Adopting an efficiency of loo%, Figure
longitudinal channel gradient 1:200 11 shows the need for two pairs of
*.m gratings installed on the sloping sides of
Manning's roughness coefficient the channel. Figure 12 shows that two
(average condition) 0.01 3 pairs of gratings are also satisfactory for
surcharged conditions.
Adopt an efficiency of 100% for the The size of the gratings (G is width and
outlets. H is length) is calculated as described in
Section 4.3.1 :
The flow in the channel is calculated
from Equation (1) but first it is necessary
to calculate the hydraulic radius R using
Equation (2): and H 2 G

Taking the smallest dimensions allowed

gives

The channel-full flow Q, is then given by:

The designer should therefore choose

from commercially available gratings,
gratings with width and length not
The flow Q, for surcharging of 1m width smaller than 540mm.
of the hard-strip or hard-shoulder is
determined from Figure 3. For B, = As shown in Figure 5, the longitudinal
1.2m, QJQ, = 1.7 and therefore distance between the two pairs of
gratings should be at least equal to 1.7
X 0.540 = 0.918~1 if a grating of width
0.540m is chosen.

Then calculate F, using Equation (4): 10.2 Example 2

Design a terminal off-line outlet in a

triangular surface water channel with the
same characteristics as in Example 1.
 The flow in the channel for channel-full
conditions Q, was calculated to be
0.0592m3/s and for surcharged
conditions Q, was found to be
0.1006m3/s. The values of F, and F,
were, respectively, 1.07 and 1.22. The flow Q, corresponding to
surcharging of l m width of the hard-strip
Table 1 should be consulted for the or hard-shoulder is given by (see Clause
design of terminal outlets in triangular 3.4):
channels. Checking first for channel-full
conditions it can be seen that for an off-
line outlet, one single grating would be
able to intercept the flow satisfactorily Figures 21 and 22 are appropriate for
(F, = 1.lin Table 1 is bigger than the the design of off-line outlets in the
calculated F, = 1.07). However, when trapezoidal channel under consideration.
checking for surcharged conditions, For channel-full conditions, Figure 21
Table 1 indicates the need for a shows that for an efficiency of 85%, a
minimum of two gratings (F, = 0.95 in the minimum of 2 gratings is required.
table is smaller than the calculated F, = Using Q, in Figure 22 to check for
1.22). The designer is, in this case surcharged conditions, it can be seen
recommended to adopt two gratings not that 2 gratings are still suitable.
only to account for floods of higher
return period but also for the possibility The gratings for this trapezoidal channel
of partial blockage of the gratings by have dimensions 610mm X 610mm and
debris. the layout of the outlet is the one shown
in Figure 10 with two gratings only. The
The size of the gratings is the same as total length of the outlet is 3.621-1-1,
in the previous example. The including two transitions 0.95m long.
longitudinal distance between the two
gratings should be at least equal to 1.25 10.4 Example 4
X 0.540 = 0.675m. 'The total length of
the outlet including one upstream Design a suitable terminal outlet for a
transition of 2.02177 should be equal to or triangular surface water channel having
bigger than 4.9m (see Figure 6 for the following characteristics :
details of the geometry).
cross-falls 1:5
10.3 Example 3 design flow depth 0.120-n
longitudinal channel gradient 1%
Design an intermediate off-line outlet in = 0.04
a trapezoidal surface water channel Manning's roughness coefficient
having the following characteristics: (average condition) 0.013

The flow in the channel is calculated

cross-falls 1:5 using equation (1) as in Example 1 :
design flow depth 0.150-n
base width 0.3a3-1
longitudinal channel gradient 11333
=0.0030
Manning's roughness coefficient
(average condition) 0.013

Adopt an efficiency for the outlets of

85%. The value of F, is calculated using
equation (4) :
Use Equation (1) to calculate the
channel-full flow Q,:
From Table 1 (and the flow chart in 11. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS
Figure 26) it can be seen that, because
F,> 2.30, neither an in-line or an off-line A Cross-sectional area of the flow
outlet is adequate and therefore a weir
outlet is required. The design should Surface width of flow for
proceed by following the flow chart in channel-full conditions
Figure 26. The depth of the present
channel cannot be increased to 1.5 of its Surface width of flow in
original depth (0.12m) because 1.5 X surcharged channel neglecting
0.12 = 0.18 > 0.150m which is the the width of surcharge on hard-
maximum allowable depth (see Clause strip or hard-shoulder
1.2). Therefore, it is decided to increase
the depth of-the channel to 0.150m so Pipe diameter
that, when flowing 213 full, the design
flow depth is 0.100m. Width of rectangular collecting
channel
The spacing of the outlets needs to be
revised using Advice Note HA 37/88 for Distance between lower edges
a design flow depth of 0.100m. If it is of pairs of in-line gratings in
deepened only locally at the approach to triangular channels
the outlet, then there should be a
transition at least 1.2m long. Non-dimensional number for
channel-full
A new value of the flow, Q, is obtained
as follows : Non-dimensional number for
flow in surcharged channel

Width of gratings

Length of gratings

Minimum depth of collecting

channel

Distance between outlets

Total length of weir outle

Angled stretch of weir outlet

Straight stretch of weir outlet

Manning roughness coefficient

For F, = 2.95, Chart A of Figure 27 gives
W,= 3.8, ie 1,= (0.75 + 0.875) X 3.8 = Wetted perimeter of channel
6.2m. From Chart B, 8 = 21 " and
Flow rate

1.625 Approach flow for channel-full

L, = -= 4.23m
tan 21" conditions

Flow intercepted by outlet

and
Approach flow for surcharged
conditions

Flow rate for revised design flow

depth

Hydraulic radius of channel

 S Longitudinal gradient

S, Value of equivalent longitudinal

slope

Yo Design flow depth

Y1 Depth of the channel from the

lower edge of the carriageway

Y2 Depth of the channel from the

upper edge of the carriageway

Y3 Overall depth of surcharged

channel

Z Head of water above pipe invert

rl Efficiency

rlo Efficiency of outlet for channel-

full conditions

rl~ Efficiency of outlet for gratings

with diagonal bar pattern

rlL Efficiency of outlet for gratings

with longitudinal bar pattern

rlS Efficiency of outlet for

surcharged conditions

0 Angle of weir outlet

12 REFERENCES

1. Advice Note HA 37/88 "Hydraulic Design

of Road-Edge Surface Water Channels",
Department of Transport, 1988.

2. Amendment No 1 to HA 37/88,
Department of Transport, 1991.

3. Highway Construction Details,

Department of Transport, 1987.

4. HR Report SR 406 "Surface Water

Channels and Outfalls:
Recommendations on Design", HR
Wallingford, 1994.
 ('j) pa6Je~pJns
('A) Ilnl lauue'43
: 1311fl0 3 N I l - 3 3 0
8'1
O'Z
slallno ieu!wlal l04 '
j pue '
j 40 sanlelz 6u!l!w!7
l 31gv1
slauueya ~ e l n 6 u e ! -~ 1
TABLE 2 - Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5
Limiting values of Q, and Q, for terminal outlets

No OF GRATINGS
TYPE OF OU1-LET 2 3
IIV-LINE OUTLET :

Channel full (Q,) m3/s 0.088 0.13

Surcharged (Q,) m3/s 0.028 0.046

OFF-LINE OUTLET :

Channel full (Q,) m3/s 0.13 0.22

L L'O LLO'O
slallno It?u!LuJalJ O '~0 pue ' 0 40 sanleA 6u!l!~u!7
~
s : 40~ sllej-sso~3q 1 ! lauueq3 l e p ! o z a d e ~- ~c 3 1 ~ 1 ~ 1
lauueya ~eln6ue!.q40 adeys leuo!)oas-sso.13 C a ~ n 6j!
p--- --
Figure 2 Cross-sectional shape of trapezoidal channels
 lauueya .1eln6ue!.~l
SMO~J11n~-lauueya
pue pa6reya~nsuaannaaq d!ysuo!aelau 8 a.tn6lj
 Flow

Figure 4 Typical bar pattern of gratings

Figure 6 Triangular channel
Off-line outlet
L- - - . - p _ . _ _ _ p p - - _ p 1

Figure 8 Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1 :4.5 - Off-line outlet

 Verge or i
central reserve I

l
1 l :5 1:5
l
I Carriageway, hard-strip l I
or hard shoulder Terminal
L A
ramp

Section A-A
Dimensions in metres
 I I I I I I l I I I I l I I I I I I l I I
Trangular channel
In-line outlet
Surcharged channel
100- 1 Pair of gratings
2 Pairs of gratings
---- 3 Pairs of gratings
90 - -

80
h

8
V

F"
70 - -

60 - -

\
\
\
50 I I I I I I l I I l I l l I I I l I I I I
 -
Figure 14 Design curves. Triangular channel Off-line outlet
Surcharged channel
Figure 16 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5
In-line outlet. Surcharged channel
Figure 18 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:4.5
Off-line outlet. Surcharged channel
Figure 20 Design curves. Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:5
In-line outlet. Surcharged channel
 r - I I I I I
Trapezoidal channel with cross-falls of 1:5
Off-line outlet
Surcharged channel 1 Curves:
Figure 24 Example of triangular channel with weir outlet
 Yes
.Trapezoidal channel

Calculate Q, and Q,
(Clauses 3.1 and 3.4)

,
IS Yes Yes

Weir outlet is
necessary

Reduce design depth of

of grated outlet from water to 0.100m.
Table 2 and Re-calculate spacing
Figs 7 and 8 of outlets using
HA 37/88

Determine geometry
of weir outlet from
Figs 25 and 29 and
Clauses 6.1 and 6.3

Figure 28 Flow chart for design of weir outlet in trapezoidal

channel 1 :4.5
 Trapezoidal channel

Determine geometry
Yes
N~ + of grated outlet from
Design curves in
Figs 19 to 22
and Figs 9 and 10
Yes Yes

y
Weir outlet is
necessary

r
- . f
Determine geometry Reduce design depth of
of grated outlet from water to 0.1 00m.
Table 3 and Re-calculate spacing
Figs 9 and 10 of outlets using
HA 37/88

Calculate new value

L, of flow, Q'

Determine geometry
of weir outlet from
Figs 25 and 31 and
Clauses 6.1 and 6.4

Figure 30 Flow chart for design of weir outlet in trapezoidal channel 1:5
OZZ'O 002'0 08 1'0 09 1'0 Ob 1'0 OZ 1'0 00 1'0 080'0 090'0 1
 APPENDIX A

Examples of flow-collecting chambers

 Section A-A

Plan view

Figure A2 Example of collecting chamber for in-line outlet in triangular

channel