Original source · versioned page text
Stormwater Treatment & Water Quality Management Plan_April2014
Attached to the e-mail REC13/0146 - Response to Information Request - Email 2.
Plans and drawings
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawnTable 11 URBS / Rational Method Peak Flow Calibration (m3/sec) For Post-Development Scenario
(Refer Figure 5 For Subarea Locations)
Subareas 1year 2 year 5 Year 10 Year 20 year 50 year 100 Year
7 0.30 / 0.30 0.37 / 0.36 0.56 / 0.54 0.68 / 0.67 0.81 / 0.79 1.00 / 1.00 1.14 / 1.15
8 0.05 / 0.05 0.06 / 0.06 0.10 / 0.09 0.12 / 0.11 0.14 / 0.13 0.17/ 0.17 0.19 / 0.19
9 0.13 /0.14 0.17 /0.16 0.27 / 0.25 0.33 / 0.30 0.39 / 0.36 0.47 / 0.46 0.53 / 0.53
10-18 0.19 / 0.20 0.24 / 0.24 0.37 / 0.37 ---- /----- ---- / ---- ---- / ---- ---- / ----
19 0.06 / 0.06 0.08 / 0.08 0.12 / 0.11 0.14 / 0.14 0.17 / 0.17 0.20 / 0.21 0.23 / 0.24
20 0.19 / 0.20 0.23 / 0.22 0.39 / 0.34 0.47 / 0.42 0.55 / 0.50 0.66 / 0.64 0.74 / 0.74
25-35 0.37 / 0.39 0.47 / 0.46 0.71 / 0.68 ---- / ---- ---- / ---- ---- / ---- ---- / ----
36 0.21 / 0.21 0.26 / 0.25 0.39 / 0.38 0.48 / 0.43 0.56 / 0.56 0.68 / 0.70 0.77 / 0.80
37 0.10 / 0.11 0.13 / 0.13 0.20 / 0.19 0.24 / 0.24 0.29 / 0.28 0.36 / 0.35 0.41 / 0.41
38 0.06 / 0.06 0.07 / 0.07 0.11 / 0.11 0.14 / 0.13 0.16 / 0.16 0.19 / 0.20 0.22 / 0.23
The calibrated parameters compare favourably with those inferred from other morphologically similar
catchments having more highly rated streamgauge data. In this instance, data have been inferred from
previous model calibrations to streamgauge records in Moggill Creek and Bulimba Creek in the outer
suburbs of Brisbane, with a comparison as in Table 12 below:
Table 12 Comparison Of Adopted Operating Parameters With Other Calibrations
Operating Parameter Adopted Values Moggill, Bulimba Creeks
Alpha 0.85 0.80 – 0.83
m 0.80 0.75 – 0.80
IL (mm) 16 15 – 20
CL (mm/hr) 2 2-3
The predicted peak inflow rates to the upstream end of the floodway model also compare favourably to
the peak flow rates in L&T’s Mike 11 floodway model, as in Table 13, below:
Table 13 : Comparison of BSM / CLT Peak Flows (m3/sec) At Upstream Boundaries Of Site
BSM Subareas CLT Mike XS 10 Year 20 Year 50 Year 100 Year
1–5 T3-789 14.4 / 12.1 17.3 / 16.1 21.3 / 21.8 24.8 / 25.7
12 – 16 T2-457 11.2 / 11.0 13.5 / 13.2 16.5 / 16.5 18.8 / 18.7
5.4 Linkage From Catchment Model To Floodway Model
BSM’s in-house ‘UrbsInt’ and “AsciXP” subroutines were used to convert flow outputs from particular
subareas or groups of subareas within the Urbs model to inflow hydrographs at particular nodes within
the floodway model, as in Table 14, hereafter:
Brisbane Stormwater Management Pty Ltd Document File: ValkevSDF.Doc Page 11
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.