8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

1/16

1

Historical Perspectives of Urban Drainage

Steven J. Burian* and Findlay G. Edwards*

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Arkansas, 4190 Bell Engineering Center,

Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA, Phone: (479) 575-4182; sburian@engr.uark.edu / edwards@engr.uark.edu

Abstract

Historically, urban drainage systems have been viewed with various perspectives. Duringdifferent time periods and in different locations, urban drainage has been considered a vital

natural resource, a convenient cleansing mechanism, an efficient waste transport medium, a

flooding concern, a nuisance wastewater, and a transmitter of disease. In general, climate,topography, geology, scientific knowledge, engineering and construction capabilities, societal

values, religious beliefs, and other factors have influenced the local perspective of urban

drainage. For as long as humans have been constructing cities these factors have guided andconstrained the development of urban drainage solutions. Historical accounts provide glimpses

of many interesting and unique urban drainage techniques. This paper will highlight several of

these techniques dating from as early as 3000 BC to as recently as the twentieth century. Foreach example discussed, the overriding perspective of urban drainage for that particular time and

place is identified. The presentation will follow a chronological path with the examples

categorized into the following four time periods: (1) ancient civilizations, (2) Roman Empire, (3)Post-Roman era to the nineteenth century, and (4) modern day. The paper culminates with a

brief summary of the present day perspective of urban drainage.

Introduction

The relation of modern engineering to ancient engineering is difficult to comprehend considering

that modern engineering is so highly specialized and technologically advanced. Design rules-of-thumb, empirical equations, physics, numerical methods, computer simulators, and other

engineering tools taken for granted today were not available to ancient engineers. Despite the

supreme technological advantage todays engineer has over the ancient engineer, fantasticengineering feats rivaling those of today were achieved throughout history. For example, several

ancient civilizations built magnificent cities of stone, brick, and wood and equipped the cities

with sophisticated infrastructure systems including roads, water supply and distribution systems,wastewater collection, and stormwater drainage. Further, in some instances infrastructure

systems were integrated, as was often the case with wastewater collection and stormwater

drainage.

Urban drainage is defined to include two types of fluids: wastewater and stormwater (Butler and

Davies 2000). Wastewater is water that after use for life support, industrial processes, or life

enhancement must be collected and disposed of appropriately to prevent nuisances and pollutedconditions from developing in urban areas. Stormwater is runoff produced by precipitation.

Both wastewater and stormwater must be considered during urban drainage system planning.

Historically the two waters have either been combined into a single conduit (i.e., combined

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

2/16

2

sewers), or have been kept separate during collection and disposal (i.e., separate sewers). Both

combined and separate urban drainage systems will be discussed in this paper.

This paper will explore the perspectives of urban drainage that have prevailed throughout

history. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, perspective is defined as the

interrelation in which a subject or its parts are mentally viewed. Using this definition wereviewed historical accounts of urban drainage systems and formed an opinion of the prevailing

perspective of urban drainage for that time period and location. We found that urban drainage

has been viewed as a vital natural resource, a convenient cleansing mechanism, an efficientwaste transport medium, a flooding concern, a nuisance wastewater, and a transmitter of disease.

Urban drainage systems were planned, designed, built, and retrofitted in response to the

prevailing view of urban runoff.

Ancient Urban Drainage Systems

Historical accounts of ancient civilizations (e.g., Indus and Minoan) suggest urban drainage

systems were constructed with great care and that the objectives of the systems were to collect

rainwater, prevent nuisance flooding, and convey wastes. The systems that eventually met theirobjectives likely did so after trial-and-error modifications. In general, planning and design were

limited. Few numerical standards existed for urban drainage and engineering calculations were

not used during design. Despite the lack of optimization and the use of trial-and-errorconstruction methods, numerous ancient urban drainage systems can be rated very successful.

Lewis Mumford summarized the state of ancient urban infrastructure when he stated that ancient

sewer systems were an uneconomic combination of refined technical devices and primitivesocial planning (Mumford 1961).

The Indus civilization flourished in the Indus River Valley during the beginning of the third

millennium BC. Webster (1962) and Kirby et al. (1956) described the technologically advancedurban drainage systems that the Indus civilization constructed for several of their more important

cities. Ruins from two cities in particular provided a detailed glimpse of the Indus urban

drainage systems. The ruins from Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, two Indus cities separated byabout 350 miles, suggest that they were arranged according to a plan and that the urban drainage

system was coordinated with the layout of the town sites. Connections were built from most

residences to open channels constructed in the center of the streets. The channels were eitherexcavated into the ground or constructed above ground of burnt brick (see Figures 1 and 2).

Although houses were connected to the drainage channels, wastewater was not permitted to flow

directly to the street sewers. First, the wastewater was passed through tapered terra-cotta pipesinto a small sump. Solids settled and accumulated in the sump, while the liquids overflowed into

the drainage channels in the street when the sump was about three-fourths full. The drainage

channels could be covered by bricks and cut stones, which likely were removed duringmaintenance and cleaning activities. Another interesting feature of the channel was the inclusion

of a cunnette (Webster 1962). The cunnette was probably constructed to convey the smaller

"The history of man is reflected in the history of sewers"

-Victor Hugo,Les Misrables

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

3/16

3

flows associated with daily wastewater discharges, while the entire channel would only be used

during wet weather events. Overall, the Indus civilization viewed urban drainage systems as

providing the dual purposes of waste and stormwater conveyance.

The Persians were another ancient civilization that constructed urban drainage systems.

Niemczynowicz (1997) explained that ancient Persians considered urban runoff sacred and

enacted laws to protect it from pollution. Polluting water in Persia was considered a sin.Moreover, rainwater and urban runoff were collected in cisterns for potable uses. Deep wells

injected urban runoff into the underlying aquifer. The Persian perspective of urban runoff was

clearly as a vital natural resource. Unfortunately, as time passed changes in the Persian attitudes

and behavior contributed to water pollution problems and the eventual downfall of thecivilization (Niemczynowicz 1997).

The Mesopotamian Empire states of Assyria and Babylonia marked great advances incivilization during the second millennium BC. The ruins from Mesopotamian cities contain

well-constructed storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems. For example, the ancient cities of

Ur and Babylon, located in present day Iraq, had effective drainage systems for stormwatercontrol (Jones 1967). The systems contained vaulted sewers and drains for household waste and

gutters and drains specifically for surface runoff (Maner 1966). The material of choice was

baked brick with an asphalt sealant. Rainwater was also collected for household and irrigationuses. The Babylonians were partially motivated to construct urban drainage systems by their

desire to remain clean. The Babylonians, like other ancient civilizations, viewed uncleanliness

as a taboo, not because of the physical uncleanness but the moral evil it suggested (Reynolds1946, pp. 198-204). In retrospect, the Mesopotamians viewed urban runoff as a nuisance

flooding concern, waste conveyor, and a vital natural resource.

Figure 1. Picture of Mohenjo-Daroexcavated sewer channel (Hodge,1992)

Figure 2. Picture of Harappan above ground sewerchannel constructed of burnt brick (Kirby et al.,1956)

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

4/16

4

The Minoan civilization flourished on the Island of Crete from about 2800 BC to 1100 BC. The

ruins from this civilization located on the Aegean Sea revealed elaborate systems of well-builtstone drains (see Figure 3), which carried sanitary sewage, roof runoff, and general surface

drainage (Gray 1940). The drains emptied into a main sewer that disposed of the sewage a

considerable distance from the origin of the wastes. The frequent and torrential rains in Creteresulted in excellent flushing of the system. Ruins from the palace-city of Knossos indicate that

a two-conduit system was installed, where one conduit collected sewage and the other rainwater.

The efficient separate urban drainage system integrated with rainwater collection devicessuggests that the Minoans viewed urban runoff as a nuisance flooding concern, a waste

conveyance mechanism, as well as a vital natural resource.

The Etruscan civilization built some of the first organized cities in central Italy around 600 BC(Scullard 1967). Marzobotto, one of the more important Etruscan cities, had a skillfully

designed drainage system making use of the natural slope to keep the city dry and clean. In

addition, paved streets and stepping-stones in the roadways acted as protection for pedestriansagainst stormwater runoff (Strong 1968). The Etruscans, similar to other ancient civilizations,

formed the perspective of urban runoff as a nuisance flooding concern, a waste conveyor, and a

vital resource.

We do not have enough space to thoroughly review every example of ancient urban drainage

systems. Other civilizations, most notably the Egyptians, Hittites, Greeks, and Chinese alsoconstructed well-planned urban drainage systems. Although we will not review them we can

state that their perspectives of urban drainage were similar to the perspectives exhibited by the

other civilizations that we did review in that they viewed urban drainage as a nuisance floodingand pollution concern, a waste conveyance mechanism, and a vital natural resource.

Figure 3. Minoan storm drain at Knossos dating to 1500 BC(Daedalus 2002, used with permission).

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

5/16

5

Urban Drainage Systems in the Roman Empire

Preceding, during, and shortly after the Roman Empire significant urban drainage technologicaladvances were introduced. Noteworthy examples include the development of uniform roadway

drainage practices and the construction of large underground conduits linked to form an intricate

network of sewers. The following discussion will illustrate the overriding Roman perspective ofurban drainage to be flood mitigation and drainage of lowlands, but the collection of rainwater

for household and public use was also considered important.

The Romans were the only civilization in all of western Asia and Europe from antiquity to the

1800s to build a carefully planned road system with properly drained surfaces (Hill 1984).

Adequate roadways were constructed during the period of Etruscan domination in Italy (800-350BC), but these roads were not as intricate as the Roman roads, nor were the drainage systems as

carefully planned. When the Romans came to power they rebuilt and expanded many of the

Etruscan sewers and paved streets. Along some roadways they implemented curb and gutters to

direct surface runoff to rock-lined open drainage channels (Hill 1984). Many of the roadbeds

were graded to direct the surface runoff from the streets toward the drainage channels.

In addition to the urban drainage component incorporated into roadway design and construction,the Romans used rainwater collection extensively in their drainage system. Typically rainwater

falling onto an urban area would be stored for local use. Rainfall on rooftops was often collected

into a cistern located in the interior of the house (Hodge 1992). Figure 4 shows a picture of oneof the massive underground structures built to store water draining from a large area.

The construction of an efficient urban drainage system was motivated by the need to drain the

low-lying districts, to dispose of urban stormwater runoff, and to remove the excess water

Figure 4. Picture of a Roman cistern in Fermo, Italy.

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

6/16

6

imported into the cities via the aqueducts. Shortly after construction of an aqueduct water would

overflow from street fountains and public baths because all of the water being imported was not

being consumed (Hodge 1992). To meet the urban drainage needs an intricate network of openchannels and underground sewers, orcloacae, was constructed. The largest of the cloacae was

called the Cloaca Maxima, which drained the lowest parts of Rome about the Forum into the

Tiber River (Gest 1963). The Cloaca Maxima usually contained a significant flow of water fromthe low-lying swamplands, which provided a convenient medium by which to transport wastes.

Residents in populace areas of the Roman Empire took advantage of the constant flow in the

open channels and underground sewers to transport their wastes away from their living areas.

Although not by design, the Romans produced a linkage of urban water supply and urban

drainage by way of the aqueduct overflow into the sewers. The Roman linkage of the urbanwater supply and drainage systems marks one of the earliest examples of establishing an urban

water cycle. Previously, other civilizations (e.g., the Minoans) had constructed water

distribution and urban drainage systems in the same city, but not to the scale of the Romans. The

urban water cycle became common during the late nineteenth century in Europe and the United

States with the widespread construction of piped-in water supplies and water-carriage sewersystems (Burian 2001).

Urban Drainage Practices from the Post-Roman Era to the 1800s

Following the fall of the Roman Empire, cities in most of Europe and parts of Asia began to

shrink considerably as residents migrated away from the urban centers (Bishop 1968). Thepopulation reduction of the cities resulted in the abandonment of municipal services, e.g., sewer

systems, running water. The neglect of these systems contributed to their deterioration. Another

factor that contributed to the demise of urban drainage systems during this time period was the

general apathy and indifference of urban residents during the Dark Ages time period. If peopleneglected their own cleanliness how could they be expected to be concerned with the cleanliness

of the community? During the Dark Ages few technological advances were made, let alone

implemented, in Europe. Consequently, urban infrastructure elements including urban drainagesystems were not being improved. The prevailing public perspective of urban drainage during

this time period was an unneeded service.

In Medieval Europe, urban drainage practices were limited because most people lived close to

streams, rivers, or other bodies of water. Residence close to waterways was required because

water was not commonly brought into the urban area via aqueducts or pipes as had been done inantiquity. Urban stormwater runoff and industrial (e.g., tanners and dyers) wastewater were the

primary waste discharges into local streams and rivers. Human feces were collected and used in

backyard gardens. Other garbage and household trash were typically stockpiled near the city orfed to pigs.

"The sewer is the conscience of the city."

-Victor Hugo,Les Misrables

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

7/16

7

The sewers implemented in Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire were simply open

ditches, essentially reverting to the practices used before the Romans advanced urban drainage to

the point of constructing underground sewers. The open sewers followed existing drainagepathways and often were directed along the center of roadways (Kirby and Laurson 1932). The

sewers were primarily meant to convey urban stormwater runoff, but the inviting open channels

also became receptacles of trash and kitchen wastes. If flows in the sewers were sufficient thewastes and accumulated garbage would be flushed through the system to the disposal location,

otherwise the waste accumulated. To combat the nuisance conditions that were developing the

open channels were covered. In Paris, the first covered sewer dates to 1370 when HuguesAubriot constructed the Fosse de St. Opportune (Reid 1991). This sewer, known as the beltway

sewer, discharged into the Seine River and acted as a collector for the sewers on one side of the

Seine. The outfall of the sewer, near the Louvre, produced terrible odors that even offendedLouis XII.

The disposal of human feces gradually became an issue in Paris and London during the Middle

Ages as populations expanded in the two cities. Waste disposal in Paris was unregulated for the

most part until a decree in 1530 required property owners to construct cesspools in each newdwelling (Reid 1991, pg. 10). In general, each community and neighborhood had a selfish

attitude toward urban drainage and municipal services. Citizens were willing to pay for sewersto drain only their neighborhood into the next. The negligent attitude perpetuated the urban

drainage perspective of an unneeded community service held shortly after the fall of the Roman

Empire.

There were consistent maintenance problems in European covered sewers during the Middle

Ages. A survey of covered sewers in Paris conducted during 1636 found all 24 clogged and inserious disrepair (Krupa 1991). These findings, however, led to little improvement since the

nobility and ruling class did not concern themselves with the sewerage of the masses. An

ordinance passed in 1721 stated that property owners must pay for the cleaning of the coveredsewers beneath their building. This action only exacerbated the urban drainage problem because

property owners interpreted the ordinance to mean they had the right to dump all their refuse and

garbage into the sewer system if they were paying for it. In 1736 and 1755 additional Acts were

passed to deter illegal dumping into the covered sewers, but these were relatively unheeded.

In England one of the first public Acts that addressed the sewerage issue was passed in 1427

(Sidwick 1977). This Act, which was appointed by the Commissioners of Sewers, addressed thecontrol of surface water sewers and channels. The Act was redrafted in 1531 and remained

essentially in force until the passage of the Public Health Act in 1848. However, the passage of

local Acts during this time frame usually superseded the national legislation. The Act of 1427displayed the improving interest of the ruling class regarding sanitation issues, but unfortunately

the enforcement of the Acts was difficult.

Similar to the Parisian ordinance, King Henry VIII wrote an edict that made each household

responsible for clearing the sewer passing by their dwelling (Gayman 1997). The King was also

responsible for empowering the Commission of Sewers, originally made possible by the passageof previous Acts. However, no money was provided to pay its members until 1622 when it was

decided that fines for non-compliance could be used to fund its activities. Therefore, although

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

8/16

8

both the ruling class attitude and societal opinion of urban drainage issues improved slightly, the

systems remained a neglected afterthought throughout the medieval period.

Switching our focus to the American continents we see the perspective of urban drainage change

to public works systems requiring careful planning, construction, and maintenance. In South

America the Incas understood the value of urban drainage practices. One prime example is thedrainage system constructed in Machu Picchu, the royal estate of the Inca ruler Pachacuti.

Wright and Valencia Zegarra (2000) studied the ruins of the estate in detail and reported the

characteristics of the drainage system from an engineering perspective. The drainage system ofMachu Picchu capitalized on years of trial-and-error experience the Incas had with constructing

drainage infrastructure in other cities. The care used during planning and constructing the

drainage system as an integrated part of the city suggests the Incas placed a high value on urbandrainage from a practical viewpoint.

The first large-scale urban drainage systems in North America were constructed in New England

cities during the colonial era (APWA 1976). Roadway drainage was vital to make the roads

passable by horse-drawn carriages. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York constructed stoneroadways with surface and subsurface drainage systems in the early eighteenth century. The

roads in Boston were especially carefully constructed with a crown in the center and guttersalong the sides. The first sewers were built of primarily wood, brick, and stone during the

colonial era in commercial areas of the major New England cities (APWA 1976). Private

wooden sewers were constructed in the late seventeenth century to drain cellars. In 1704,Bostonian Francis Thrasher was given permission to construct a sewer that would be beneficial

to the common citizen (APWA 1976), marking one of the first common sewers legally

constructed in New England. The city selectman subsequently ordered those who connected tothe sewer to help pay for the project.

The first underground sewer constructed in Boston during the early eighteenth century turned outto be extremely popular. Soon after the success of the project was known, numerous other sewer

projects were initiated. From 1708 to 1736 a total of 654 sewer construction permits were issued

in Boston for projects that required careful street replacement after completion (APWA 1976).

The construction of sewers in Boston contributed to it being labeled as one of the most dry andclean cities in the world.

Philadelphia was another major New England city that experienced significant sewerconstruction activities. Most sewers constructed in Philadelphia during the seventeenth century

were made of wood. But, in 1700 Pennsylvania passed a law that required all subsurface sewers

to be constructed of brick or stone, instead of wood (APWA 1976). Despite the efforts in sewerconstruction the city of Philadelphia continued to experience urban drainage problems because of

the poor maintenance of the sewers. New sewers were quickly filled in with solid material and

gradually became dilapidated.

In general, the purpose of the sewers in colonial New England was primarily urban stormwater

drainage, although waste removal was a consistent unplanned function. Urban drainagephilosophy in colonial New England cities was very similar to European practices. Human feces

were managed on-site in cesspools or privy vaults, while common sewers were constructed to

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

9/16

9

drain urban stormwater runoff. Moreover, individuals were only willing to pay for common

sewers to drain their own neighborhood if flooding and nuisance conditions were frequent.

Development of Modern Urban Drainage Practices

The beginning of modern urban drainage practices was initiated in European cities during the

nineteenth century. The Paris sewer system was improved by the initial efforts of the engineer

Pierre-Emmanuel Bruneseau (Reid 1991). Bruneseau documented the deterioration of thesewers by leading expeditions into the underground labyrinth. Bruneseaus reports to the

Emperor described the disastrous effects that the political upheaval had on the condition of the

sewers. He argued for efforts to clean the sewers to demonstrate the superiority of the Empire

compared to the preceding monarchy and revolutionary governments (Reid 1991). In addition,

Bruneseau suggested that unhealthiness was among the major causes of depopulation. DespiteBruneseaus efforts, his mission of reforming the Paris sewers was far from complete when he

died in 1819. H.C. Emmery, head of the Paris sewer system from 1832 to 1839, furthered thedevelopment of the Paris sewers by replacing the open channels running along the center of

streets with gutters constructed under sidewalks (Reid 1991). Inlets were provided from the

gutters to the sewer system. During this time period and well into the nineteenth century theParis sewers were all constructed large enough to allow a man to move about standing up.

The Paris sewer system gained the reputation of being a refuge for criminals and undesirablesduring the first half of the nineteenth century. Hugo wrote of the Paris sewers during the

nineteenth century in Les Misrables. Reid (1991) made the point that the subterranean sewer

systems relative relationship with the above ground city was symbolic of the class strugglesduring the time period. The sewer system was associated with the lower class, while the finer

parts of Paris above ground were associated with the upper class. Many of the bourgeois of the

period viewed the sewers as the origination of threats from disease (e.g., cholera) and social

disorder (e.g., insurrection). This perception was supported during 1832 and again during 1849with the outbreak of cholera and civil unrest, both of which impacted all classes.

Burian et al. (1999) summarized the primary urban drainage developments in the United Statesduring the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The developments were grouped into nine

categories:

1. Improvements in Pipe Materials, Construction Methods, and Maintenance Practices

2. Decision to Use Water-Carriage System of Waste Removal

3. Comprehensive Sewer-System Design4. Combined- Versus Separate-Sewer Systems

5. Identification of Waterborne Diseases

6. Introduction of Wastewater Treatment7. Advances in Urban Hydrology

8. Computer Advancements

"The sophistication of a civilization can often be judged by its

attention to the issue of drainage infrastructure,..."

-Wright and Valencia Zegarra (2000)

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

10/16

10

9. Environmental Awareness

A comprehensive discussion of the historical developments within each of these categories is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the major changes in urban drainage perspectives

during the time period can be summarized.

One critical turning point in urban drainage occurred during the middle of the nineteenth century.

During the first half of the nineteenth century sanitary wastes were discharged from buildings to

privy vaults and cesspools. Most sewers were designed exclusively for stormwater drainage.Sanitary wastes accumulated in privy vaults and cesspools and were periodically collected by

scavengers and transported to a suitable disposal location (e.g., farm, dump outside city). As the

nineteenth century progressed the concept of urban drainage changed with the incorporation ofwater-carriage sanitary waste collection into the urban drainage systems. Sanitary connections to

the sewers were made legal and new sewers were constructed to drain stormwater and sanitary

wastewater.

The public perspective of urban drainage changed during the nineteenth century from a neglectedafterthought to a vital public works system. The public also shifted their stance regarding

funding the construction and maintenance of sewer systems. The shift in public perspective wasdriven by many factors, but the most important was probably the scientific evidence accumulated

during the second half of the century linking sanitary wastes and disease transmission.

Municipal leaders, backed by strong public support, initiated massive projects to buildcomprehensive sewer systems in the larger cities in Europe and the United States. In 1843

Hamburg, Germany constructed the first comprehensively planned sewerage system for a major

city (Metcalf and Eddy 1928). William Lindley was commissioned to plan and design thesystem after a fire destroyed a large part of the city during 1842. The success of the Hamburg

sewer system led to the comprehensive design of sewer systems for other cities in Europe and the

United States. The comprehensive sewer system of London, designed by Joseph Bazalgette, wasconstructed between 1859 and 1865 (Kirby and Laurson 1932). Figure 5 illustrates the

magnitude of a major sewer construction project such as the London Main Drainage. In the

United States during the 1850s, E. Sylvester Chesbrough designed the Chicago urban drainage

system (Cain 1972) and Julius W. Adams designed a comprehensive system for Brooklyn(Adams 1880).

George E. Waring, Jr. hastened the shift in public perspective of urban drainage in the UnitedStates during the second half of the nineteenth century from a neglected service to a vital public

works system. Waring was outspoken about the economic and sanitary advantages of his version

of the separate-sewer system (Waring 1873, 1875). Waring believed the anticontagionist theoryof disease transmission and argued that his separate-sewer system could provide the rapid

removal of wastes imperative to protect public health. His opinion swayed several city

administrators to construct sewer systems.

The perspective of urban drainage also changed from a design standpoint during the nineteenth

century. Most sewers constructed before the nineteenth century were not planned or designed byan engineer using numerical calculations. Instead a trial-and-error process was executed, which

in some cases eventually produced well functioning systems. During the nineteenth century the

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

11/16

11

perspective of urban drainage design changed to incorporate the opinions of technical experts.

The design of the Hamburg sewer system, for instance, incorporated engineering calculations.

Empirical relationships were the first engineering calculations used. Most of the Englishspeaking community was familiar with Roes Table (see Table 1) during the middle of the

nineteenth century (Metcalf and Eddy 1928). Roe's Table, which indicated the catchment areas

that could be drained by sewer of specified sizes laid at various slopes, was based on empiricalobservations of London sewers in the Holburn and Finsbury Divisions.

Table 1. Roes Table, showing the quantity of covered surface, from which circular sewers will

convey away the water coming from a fall of rain of 1 inch in the hour, with house drainage, asascertained in the Holburn and Finsbury Divisions (McMath 1887).

Inner Diameter, or Bore, of Sewer in Feet

2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Inclination Fall orSlope of Sewer Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Level 39 67 120 277 570 1020 1725 2850 4125 5825

-in. in 10 feet 43 75 135 308 630 1117 1925 3025 4425 6250

-in. in 10 feet 50 87 155 355 735 1318 2225 3500 5100 7175

-in. in 10 feet 63 113 203 460 950 1692 2875 4500 6575 92501-in. in 10 feet 78 143 257 590 1200 2180 3700 5825 7850 11050

1 -in. in 10 feet 90 165 295 670 1385 2486 4225 6625

2-in. in 10 feet 115 182 318 730 1500 2675 4550 7125

Other engineers developed their own design methods. Joseph Bazalgette calculated the volumeof rainfall runoff that would be produced by a certain frequency event then estimated the limit of

combined sewer overflows desired. From this information he determined the additional volume

Figure 5. Photo of the construction of the Main Drainage of London during the1860s (Walker 1987).

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

12/16

12

of pipe required for the system to function adequately. Buerger (1915) summarized sewer-sizing

calculations available in the beginning of the nineteenth century and some of the more common

empirical equations are shown below. Recall that most sewer systems constructed during thenineteenth century were combined; therefore, the formulas below were meant to size a single

pipe to carry both dry weather wastewater and stormwater runoff.

Hawksley (or Bazalgette):

loglog log .

dA N

=

+ +3 6 8

10

where d= diameter of sewer (inches);N= length of sewer per foot of drop; andA = drainagearea (acres).

Adams:

q CR SA

=0 83 0 083

0167

. .

.

where q = discharge (cubic feet per second, cfs); C = an empirical coefficient; S = slope (feet

per 1000 feet); A = drainage area (acres); and R = rainfall (inches per hour).

McMath:

q CRS

A=

0 20

0 20

.

.

During the second half of the nineteenth century the sewer design methods were significantly

enhanced with the initial development of the present day Rational Method. Mulvaney (1851) in

Ireland, Kuichling (1889) in the United States, and Lloyd-Davies (1906) in Great Britain allwrote on the practice of runoff computations and sewer pipe sizing and contributed concepts

such as time of concentration that eventually evolved into the Rational Method. During the same

time period that these engineers were developing the foundation of the Rational Method, theperspective of urban drainage was changing yet again. The focus of urban drainage shifted to

include sewage treatment as water pollution and public health problems associated with unabated

sewer discharges into receiving waters mounted. Treatment of urban drainage was limited inEurope and the United States during the early part of the twentieth century despite the scientific

research demonstrating the linkage between sewage polluted waterways and disease

transmission. By 1892, the United States had only 27 cities with wastewater treatment works (21used land application and 6 used chemical precipitation) (Tarr 1979). The debate over

wastewater treatment centered on whether it was more economical to treat the wastewater prior

to discharge or treat the water source before distribution as potable water. At the turn of the

century, most sanitary engineers agreed with the editorial stance taken by the Engineering

Recordin 1903:

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

13/16

13

it is often more equitable to all concerned for an upper riparian city to

discharge its sewage into a stream and a lower riparian city to filter the water of

the same stream for a domestic supply, than for the former city to be forced to putin wastewater treatment works.

Current Urban Drainage Perspectives

Urban drainage in the early parts of the twentieth century was firmly established as a vital public

works system. Engineers continued to improve design concepts and methods. During thesecond half of the twentieth century regulatory elements were promulgated in the United States,

Europe, and other locations addressing urban drainage issues. Extensive monitoring efforts

vastly improved the understanding of urban drainage quantity and quality characteristics (e.g.,

NURP in the United States). Computer modeling tools advanced the methods used to design andanalyze urban drainage systems. Regulations, monitoring, computer modeling, and

environmental concerns have altered the perspective of urban drainage from a public health and

nuisance flooding concern during the first half of the twentieth century into a public health and

nuisance flooding with additional concerns for ecosystem protection and urban sustainability.

Methods to design and construct sustainable urban drainage systems are currently beingresearched and tested. Alternative development concepts (e.g., low-impact development) are

influencing development practices to minimize the impacts of development on stormwater

drainage. In addition, alternative on-site wastewater management strategies are being touted asmore sustainable than centralized wastewater management for some situations. Communities are

searching for innovative techniques to capture, detain, and use rainwater within the watershed

instead of constructing massive drainage structures. Many communities are developingwatershed-wide stormwater quality management plans to meet the dual objectives of flood

prevention and water quality control. Urban drainage has indeed expanded significantly during

the past few decades beyond a technical challenge to drain the urban area expeditiously toinclude the consideration of social, economic, political, environmental, and regulatory factors.

Summary

In this paper we reviewed chronologically several urban drainage systems from 3000 BC topresent. From this review three points stand out:

The general public and city administrators viewed urban drainage systems as aconvenient waste disposal system, an important flood control system, the cause ortransmitter of disease, a vital system for the protection of public health, an underground

refuge for criminals and undesirables, and a source of civic pride.

The purposes of urban drainage systems, including flood control, waste transport, watercollection and recycling, often evolved through trial-and-error modifications after the

systems were initially constructed.

Changes in perspective of urban drainage in one city were most often caused by diseaseoutbreaks, scientific discoveries, or technical advances in planning, design, and

construction.

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

14/16

14

Before the nineteenth century, urban drainage was usually viewed as a vital natural resource, a

convenient cleansing mechanism, an efficient waste transport medium, a flooding concern, anuisance wastewater, or a transmitter of disease. During the nineteenth century urban drainage

developments in Europe and United States modified the public perspective of urban drainage

significantly. By the end of the nineteenth century urban drainage was viewed as a highlyimportant public works system worthy of massive expenditures to prevent disease transmission.

Currently, well-planned urban drainage is viewed as a vital component of a sustainable urban

system.

References

Adams, J.W. (1880). Sewers and drains for populous districts. D. Van Nostrand, New York, NY.

APWA (American Public Works Association). (1976). History of public works in the United

States: 1776-1976. Chicago, IL.

Bishop, M. (1968). The middle ages. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Buerger, C. (1915). A method of determining storm-water run-off. Transactions of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, 78, 1139-1205.

Burian, S.J. (2001). Developments in water supply and wastewater management in the UnitedStates during the 19

thcentury. Water Resources Impact, 3(5): 14-18.

Burian, S.J., Nix, S.J., Durrans, S.R., Pitt, R.E., C.-Y. Fan, and R. Field. (1999). Historicaldevelopment of wet-weather flow management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and

Management, 125(1): 3-11.

Butler, D. and Davies, J.W. (2000). Urban drainage. E & FN Spon, London.

Cain, L.P. (1972). "Raising and watering a city: Ellis Sylvester Chesbrough and Chicago's first

sanitation system," Technology and Culture 13(July): 353-372.

Daedalus Informatics Ltd. (2002) "Knossos: The Palace of King Minos." Daedalus web site,

updated 1997. Daedalus Informatics Ltd, Athens, Greece. http://www.daedalus.gr/DAEI/THEME/Knossos.htm

Gayman, M. (1997). A glimpse into Londons early sewers. Reprinted from Cleaner

Magazine, .

Gest, A.P. (1963). Engineering. In: Our debt to Greece and Rome, Edited by G.D. Hadzsitsand D.M. Robinson, Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., New York.

Gray, H.F. (1940). Sewerage in ancient and mediaeval times. Sewage Works Journal, 12, 939-

946.

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

15/16

15

Hering, R. (1881). Sewerage systems. Transactions of the American Society of Civil

Engineers, 10, 361-386.

Hill, D. (1984). A history of engineering in classical and medieval times. Croom Helm Ltd.,

London.

Hodge, A.T. (1992).Roman aqueducts & water supply. Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., London.

Jones, D.E., Jr. (1967). Urban hydrology - a redirection. Civil Engineering, 37(8), 58-62.

Kirby, R.S. and Laurson, P.G. (1932). The early years of modern civil engineering. Yale

University Press, New Haven, CT, 227-239.

Kirby, R.S., Withington, S., Darling, A.B., and Kilgour, F.G. (1956). Engineering in history.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Krupa, F. (1991). Paris: urban sanitation before the 20

th

century. http://www.op.net/~uarts/krupa/alltextparis.html.

Kuichling, E. (1889). The relation between the rainfall and the discharge of sewers in populous

districts. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 20, 1-60.

Lloyd-Davies, D.E. (1906). The elimination of storm water from sewerage systems. Minutes of

Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers (London), 164, 41-67.

Maner, A.W. (1966). Public works in ancient Mesopotamia. Civil Engineering, 36(7), 50-51.

McMath, R. E. (1887). Determination of the size of sewers. Transactions of the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, 16, 179-190.

Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H.P. (1928). American sewerage practice, volume I: design of sewers.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1-33.

Mulvaney, T. J. (1851). On the use of self-registering rain and flood gages, in making

observations of the relation of rainfall and flood discharges in a given catchment. Proceedings

of the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland, 4, 18-31.

Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: its origins, its transformations, and its prospects.Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, NY.

Niemczynowicz, J. (1997). State of the art in urban stormwater design and research. Invitedpaper presented at the Workshop and Inaugural Meeting of UNESCO Center for Humid Tropics

Hydrology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 12-14, 1997.

Reid, D. (1991).Paris sewers and sewermen. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

8/2/2019 M1 Burian Paper

16/16

16

Reynolds, R. (1946). Cleanliness and Godliness. Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York.

Scullard, H.H. (1967). The Etruscan cities and Rome. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Sidwick, J.M. (1977). A brief history of sewage treatment. Thunderbird Enterprises, Ltd.,

Middlesex, England.

Strong, D. (1968). The early Etruscans. G.P. Putnams Sons, New York, NY.

Tarr, J. A. (1979). The separate vs. combined sewer problem: a case study in urban technology

design choice.Journal of Urban History, 5(3), 308-339.

Walker, D. (187). Great engineers: the art of British engineers 1837-1987. St. Martins Press,New York.

Waring, G.E. (1873).Draining for Profit, and Draining for Health, New York: Orange Judd &

Company.

Waring, G.E. (1875). "The sanitary drainage of houses and towns,"Atlantic Monthly 36(November 1875), pp. 535-553.

Waring, G.E. (1887). Report of the social statistics of cities, Part I. The New England and the

Middle States. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Webster, C. (1962). The sewers of Mohenjo-Daro. Journal Water Pollution Control

Federation, 34(2), 116-123.

Wright, K.R. and Valencia Zegarra, A. (2000). Machu Picchu: A civil engineering marvel.

ASCE Press, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.