Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Original source · versioned page text

1714 IWMP_Report_Carramar_Version2 Oct 2018

Attached to the e-mail Revised Integrated Water Management Plan (Representations) MCU18/0009.

of 50

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Original PDF page 29, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.

0.1 increments for ARI’s from 100 year down to 1 year. Rainfall intensities and temporal patterns were
ARR87 standard, and infiltration rates in both models were specified as zero initial loss and 2 mm/hour
continuing loss, as accepted by a Noosa Council representative in a telephone conversation of 12th
December 2017.


4.2     Comparison To Rational Method Calculations

The peak outflow rates from the Urbs models are compared to the Rational Method calculations in
Table 1, below. The Urbs outflow rates are mostly higher than the Rational Method calculations, by as
much as 17 percent at the 1 year level, reducing to +1/-2 percent at the 100 year level. Overall this is
suggested to be an acceptable comparison.

Table 1:     Comparison Of Urbs Outflow Rates To Rational Method Outflow Rates
  ARI             Pre-Development Model         Post-Development Model (No Basin)
 (years)      Rational Method   Urbs    Diff      Rational Method  Urbs Diff
   100              0.366       0.37    1%             0.488        0.48   -2 %
    10              0.210       0.22    5%             0.280        0.31 11 %
     1              0.099       0.10 1%                0.128        0.15 17 %


4.3     Detention Volumes

With the models deemed to be performing acceptably well, coding for a conceptual detention basin was
added to the post-development model, as can be seen in the catchment file in Appendix C. The coding
was adjusted so as to achieve a reasonably smooth storage-discharge curve while at the same time
ensuring that the outflows from the post-development scenario with the basin in place were reasonably
matched to the outflows from the pre-development scenario, regardless of any difference in the critical
storm durations between the pre- and post-development scenarios. The required 100 year detention
volume was found to be 92 cubic metres, with results across the range of ARI as in Table 2, below. The
required attenuation is exactly achieved, apart from a fractional shortfall in attenuation at the 2 year
level. Overall, this volume is considered to provide an acceptable outcome, notwithstanding that the
critical storm durations were not necessarily the same, between the pre-development and post-
development models.

Table 2: Urbs Design Of Detention Volume, Regardless Of Critical Durations
  ARI (years)   Required Attenuation (m3/sec)    Achieved Attenuation (m3/sec)
       100           0.48    →        0.37            0.48     →       0.37
        50           0.42    →        0.32            0.42     →       0.32
        20           0.36    →        0.26            0.36     →       0.26
        10           0.31    →        0.22            0.31     →       0.22
         5           0.26    →        0.19            0.26     →       0.19
         2           0.20    →        0.14            0.20     →       0.15
         1           0.15    →        0.10            0.15     →       0.10

The models were then run for 100 year storm durations up to 3 hours, maintaining the same storm
durations in the pre-development and post-development models for each run. The 100 year 2 hour storm
was found to be the critical duration, resulting in a 100 year detention volume of 124 cubic metres.




                                                                                                 Page 7
      Brisbane Stormwater Management Pty Ltd Document File: Carramar.Doc
Log in to download the original file

1714 IWMP_Report_Carramar_Version2 Oct 2018.pdf · 6.6 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.