×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Modified Rational VS. SCS

Modified Rational VS. SCS

Modified Rational VS. SCS

(OP)
I'm designing infiltration beds for a new parking lot and two new buildings - the site is barely 2.5 acres. The Township has asked that we try to fully infiltrate a 10YR, 24 hr event.

 The time of concentration is miniscule--depending on which calc I use, it ranges from <1 minute to 3 minutes.

I tried computing the storage volume, using the Modified Rational Method, but the volumes seem really small--they're about half of what I get when I use Hydraflow to compute the runoff with the SCS method (with a Type III storm distribution).

Can anyone offer advice on what I may be doing wrong?
Am I making the situation far too  complicated?
Would it be terrible overconservative if I simply took the 10 yr, 24 hr rainfall (in) from the contour maps in the back of the TR-55 and calculate the total volume for that depth over my drainage area?  I know that would neglect the losses due to abstraction, etc, but would that matter since my area is so small and impervious?

By the way, I realize that there are lots of threads covering the whole modified rational issue, but none of them seemed to directly address my problem--so I'm starting a new one!

Thanks!

RE: Modified Rational VS. SCS

First, you're probably not doing anything "wrong" except trying to use the modified Rational Method.  Some consider this method bogus while others have derived variations of it ( Los Angeles County for example ) which are less bogus but yield results comparble to the NRCS 484 method or the Santa Barbara Urban hydrograph method.

If you don't live in southern California, your NRCS ( formerly SCS ) method should be acceptable to the reviewing agency. Using it with reasonable soils and antecedent moisture condition assumptions should give you decent results and will take in to account the other losses.

Your next problem will be what to use for estimating infiltration.  This is difficult without onsite testing and even then is simply a best guess.

For this small site such rigamarole seems hardly justified but then there are those who think local detention is cost effective.

good luck

RE: Modified Rational VS. SCS

(OP)
Thanks!  Glad to hear that  it may not be due to a huge mistake in my calcss, yet to be discovered.  I'll sleep better tonight.

RE: Modified Rational VS. SCS

are you designing a "retention basin"?  If so, why are you calculating peak discharges? you need to calculate volume for a 24-hour storm rainfall event.  V = C*A*P/12 (P=precip in inches)

RE: Modified Rational VS. SCS

cvg,

I would suspect that proud2banerd is also designing the conveyance system.  Even for this tiny site there is probably some piping, catch basins, etc. Also, the basin must have an overflow of some type in case the infiltration doesn't work. For those reasons, he/she need to estimate probable peak flows.

If nothing else, this exercise helps to illustrate the near uselessness of the Rational Method.  Modifying it to produce an unrealistic hydrograph doesn't seem to help it very much. It is also likely that peak flows calculated using regional regression equations would result in higher values. So, the Rational Method appears not to be as conservative as conventional wisdom would have us believe.

It seems also, very unlikely that small, local detention or retention basins are effective at all. They are therefor unlikely to be cost effective.

The NRCS methods aren't very much more "scientific" but they do have the advantage of being capable of being calibrated based on rainfall and stream flow gages.  This has been done in some areas of the US but, not as many as we might like.

These are only my views, of course, so please feel free to tell us yours and those of your colleagues.

good luck

RE: Modified Rational VS. SCS

I have been trying to pursuade local engineers from using the modified rational, though its been allowed here in the past.

On a few small sites recently both methods were used for comparison and the required storage was around double (sometimes more) when using the NRCS analysis.

Based on what I've seen and read, I too think the Modified Rational is bogus.  You are using only a couple of variables to extrapolate a lot of important information.

Using the modified rational method to design a detention pond would be analagous to a geotechnical engineer assigning an allowable bearing pressure based on the color of the soil.  In a few situations/geologies it may give you a ballpark idea... but overall, its basically dumbing down an engineering analysis to a series of steps that a 9th grader could perform.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources