This walkthrough demonstrates how to set up a Modified Rational Method (MRM) detention sizing analysis in HydraLink, based on the City of Celina, Texas design guidelines. The example models a 10-acre development site that must detain the difference between post-development and pre-development peak flows for the 100-year storm event. The results from this example match the City of Celina’s required detention volume, confirming the methodology implemented in HydraLink.
| Parameter | Pre-Development | Post-Development |
|---|---|---|
| Total Area | 10 acres | 10 acres |
| Runoff Coefficient (C) | 0.30 | 0.70 |
| Time of Concentration (Tc) | 20 min | 10 min |
Design Storm: 100-year event
Location: Celina, Texas (Collin County) — coordinates 33.313°N, 96.788°W
Detention Method: Standard
Atlas 14 Interpolation: Linear
Post-development sub-basins: Basin A-1 (6 ac, C=0.70, Tc=10 min) and Basin A-2 (4 ac, C=0.70, Tc=10 min)
The post-development site is divided into two sub-basins (A-1 and A-2) that drain to a common detention pond. The pre-development basin (Rational Basin 1) establishes the allowable release rate. This setup demonstrates how HydraLink combines multiple Rational basins into a single MRM detention calculation using basin roles.
Start HydraLink and click File → New Project (or press Ctrl+N).
Navigate the map to the Celina, Texas area.
Open the Project Settings and enter a project name and job number. For this example:
Open the Storm Events dialog from the ribbon toolbar and configure the 100-year design storm.
Interpolation recommendation: Linear interpolation was used in this example to match the City of Celina’s published numbers. In general practice, we recommend using log-log interpolation, which provides a better curve fit to ATLAS 14 depth-duration-frequency data.
| Duration | Intensity (in/hr) |
|---|---|
| 10 min | 9.54 |
| 20 min | 7.03 |
| 30 min | 5.40 |
| 40 min | 4.79 |
| 50 min | 4.19 |
| 60 min | 3.58 |
HydraLink uses plans to organize pre-development and post-development conditions within the same project file. Each plan has its own set of elements and can share elements across plans via linking.
Why use a junction? The junction acts as the network outlet point that is shared between plans. By linking Junction 1 across both plans, the pre-development and post-development networks share a common discharge point. This also ensures the pre-development basin is available in the post-development plan for assigning its MRM role as the target basin.
Splitting the post-development area into sub-basins (A-1 and A-2) is common when different portions of a site drain to the pond from different directions or have different land uses. In this example both sub-basins happen to share the same C and Tc values, but in practice each could differ. The MRM basin will combine them using area-weighted compositing.
The MRM basin is the element that computes the required detention volume. It does not represent a physical drainage area itself — instead, it references other Rational basins in the project and assigns each a role in the detention calculation.
| Basin | Role | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Rational Basin 1 (Pre plan) | Target | Its peak flow defines the allowable release rate |
| A-1 (Post plan) | Design Area | Post-development area draining to the pond |
| A-2 (Post plan) | Design Area | Post-development area draining to the pond |
| Role | What It Does |
|---|---|
| Target | The pre-development basin whose peak Rational Method flow (Q = CiA) sets the allowable release rate from the detention pond. This is the maximum flow the site is permitted to discharge. |
| Design Area | Post-development basins whose combined area and weighted C value define the inflow to the detention facility. The MRM iterates storm durations to find the critical volume difference between inflow and allowable outflow. |
| Bypass | Flow from the site that does not enter the detention pond. Bypass flow reduces the amount of flow that the detention pond must control. See the Bypass & Pass-Through Flows section below. |
| Pass-Through | Off-site flow that passes through the detention pond but is not detained. The outfall structure must be sized to convey pass-through flow in addition to the allowable detained release. See the Bypass & Pass-Through Flows section below. |
Before designing the pond, run the solver to compute the required detention volume. Click the
Run button (or press F5). You can run the active plan or all plans
at once using the split-button dropdown. HydraLink will:
The results from this example match the City of Celina’s required detention volume for this site configuration, confirming that HydraLink’s Standard MRM implementation with linear Atlas 14 interpolation produces the correct values against the city’s published example.
With the required volume known, the next step is to design the physical pond. Add a Pond element downstream of the MRM basin and upstream of Junction 1. When the MRM basin’s downstream is set to a pond, the MRM design criteria (required volume, allowable release rate, and storm event) are automatically passed to the pond for use in the outlet design analysis.
| Elevation (ft) | Area (ft²) |
|---|---|
| 100 | 0 |
| 101 | 1,000 |
| 102 | 5,000 |
| 103 | 15,000 |
| 104 | 26,000 |
| 105 | 26,260 |
| 106 | 26,523 |
The outlet structure must be sized so that the discharge at the required storage elevation does not exceed the allowable release rate. HydraLink’s Pond Design dialog shows this visually with the stage-discharge curve and a design point marker for each storm event. The stage-discharge table highlights the row at the required storage volume — red if the outflow exceeds the allowable rate, green if it passes.
With a 24-inch RCP outlet, the discharge at the required storage elevation (104.66 ft, 50,028 ft³) is 23.29 cfs — exceeding the 21.09 cfs allowable release rate. The stage-discharge curve passes above the design point, and the table row is highlighted red:
Reducing the outlet to a 21-inch RCP brings the discharge at the same elevation down to 17.51 cfs — below the 21.09 cfs allowable rate. The curve stays below the design point, and the table row is highlighted green:
The complete project has two plans:
Rational Basin 1 (10 ac, C=0.30, Tc=20 min) → Junction 1 (linked)
A-1 (6 ac, C=0.70, Tc=10 min) ──┐
├── Mod. Rational Basin 1 → Pond 1 → Junction 1 (linked)
A-2 (4 ac, C=0.70, Tc=10 min) ──┘
After finalizing the pond design, click Run again. This second run calculates the flows through the pond and propagates the outflow to Junction 1, completing the network analysis. The junction will show the combined discharge from the pond outlet, which should now be at or below the allowable release rate.
With both plans solved, use Compare Plans to view a side-by-side summary of linked elements across plans. Click the Compare button in the toolbar to open the comparison dialog. Because Junction 1 is linked between the Pre and Post plans, the comparison table shows the outflow from each plan for every storm event, along with the difference (Δ) and percent change (Δ%).
This provides a quick summary for verifying that the post-development outflow at the downstream junction meets the pre-development allowable release rate for each design storm.
Real-world detention designs often involve flows that either skip the pond entirely or flow through it without being detained. Understanding these concepts is critical for correctly sizing detention and designing the outlet structure.
Pass-through flows are typically off-site flows that enter and exit the detention pond but are not generated by the development. Common examples include an upstream creek or drainage channel that flows through the pond site.
Bypass flows are flows from the development site that do not enter the detention pond. This may occur when a portion of the site drains to a different outlet or when grading directs some runoff away from the pond.
The relationship between bypass flow and allowable release can be easier to understand with a thought experiment: imagine a developer builds an infinitely large pond that can hold all of the stormwater discharging to it. In that case, the pond releases no flow at all, and the only discharge from the site is the bypass flow. For the site to meet its allowable release rate, the bypass flow alone must be less than the pre-development peak flow. In other words:
If the bypass flow exceeds the pre-development flow, no amount of detention can bring the total site discharge into compliance. This is an important check when deciding how much of a site can bypass the detention facility.
| Flow Type | Enters Pond? | Effect on Volume | Effect on Outlet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Area | Yes | Increases required volume | Must be released at or below allowable rate |
| Target | N/A (reference) | Sets the allowable release | Defines maximum outlet discharge |
| Bypass | No | Reduces allowable release, increasing required detention | Reduces available release from pond |
| Pass-Through | Yes (not detained) | No change to required detention | Outfall must be sized larger to convey pass-through flow in addition to the allowable detained release |
The MRM.hyd example file also includes a second MRM scenario that demonstrates the
effect of bypass flow on detention sizing. In this scenario, a 1-acre portion of
the post-development site drains away from the pond (bypass), while the remaining 9 acres drain
to a second detention facility.
| Basin | Role | Area | C | Tc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Development Reference | Target | 10 ac | 0.30 | 20 min |
| Bypass | Bypass | 1 ac | 0.70 | 10 min |
| B-1 | Design Area | 9 ac | 0.70 | 10 min |
Even though the bypass basin removes 1 acre from the pond’s contributing area (reducing inflow from 66.78 cfs to 60.10 cfs), the bypass flow still discharges from the site. The pre-development allowable release rate applies to the entire site, so the bypass flow must be subtracted from the allowable release — leaving less capacity for the pond outlet.
| Metric | Without Bypass (MRM-1) | With Bypass (MRM-2) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributing Area | 10 acres | 9 acres | −1 ac |
| Peak Inflow | 66.78 cfs | 60.10 cfs | −10% |
| Allowable Release | 21.09 cfs | 14.41 cfs | −32% |
| Required Storage | 50,028 ft³ | 53,249 ft³ | +6.4% |
The allowable release dropped from 21.09 cfs to 14.41 cfs — a 32% reduction — because the bypass basin’s peak flow is deducted from the pre-development allowable rate. Although the pond sees less inflow, the much tighter outlet constraint means it must store more water: 53,249 ft³ vs. 50,028 ft³.
This demonstrates the “infinite pond” principle: bypass flow reduces the site’s effective allowable release, and if the bypass alone exceeds the pre-development flow, no amount of detention can bring the site into compliance. Always check that Qbypass < Qpre-development before finalizing a site layout with bypass areas.
The Rational Method and Modified Rational Method consider peak flows only — they do not generate a hydrograph, and timing between sub-basins is not modeled. This makes MRM well-suited for:
For more complex situations, a unit hydrograph method with full Modified Puls pond routing may be more appropriate:
HydraLink supports both approaches within the same project. You can use MRM for initial sizing and then create an additional plan with unit hydrograph basins and full pond routing to verify the design. The plan management system makes it straightforward to compare results between methodologies.
The HydraLink project file for this example (MRM.hyd) is included with the
installer and is also available for download from your
Example Files page (account required).
It contains both the original two-plan scenario (Pre/Post with Design Area
basins) and the bypass scenario (MRM-2 with a 1-acre bypass basin). Open it in HydraLink to
explore the element configuration and run the analysis yourself.