This deliverable is not counted toward your grade
Project Start and Technical Implementation (site, data and investigation) pages are required practice but are not counted toward your final grade. Your engineering grade comes from Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data
Students assemble the rainfall, watershed, and channel geometry data needed to run a hydrologic/hydraulic model, and hand-check a Manning's equation capacity.
Section progress
0% of the workflow complete
Computational Engineering · Build, calibrate, verify and validate the numerical model that supports your design decisions.
Deliverable: H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation.
How to complete this section
Do this next: Read the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data lecture and the worked example so you know what "H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation." has to contain.
Not sure how to start or how much depth is expected? Read the fully written model example for this deliverable first — it shows the structure, tables and level of justification your advisor grades against.
Modeling & Simulation Center — what this workspace teaches
Build, calibrate, verify and validate the numerical model that supports your design decisions.
- Selecting analysis software for the engineering question (STAAD, SAP2000, ETABS, HEC-RAS, OpenRoads, Civil3D, ArcGIS, MATLAB, Python)
- Model geometry idealization and simplification
- Boundary conditions, supports, restraints and their effect on results
- Load application and load-case management in software
- Mesh and element selection; convergence studies
- Model calibration against measured or benchmark data
- Sensitivity analysis of governing input parameters
- Verification (solving the equations right) vs. validation (solving the right equations)
- Exporting, documenting and archiving model results
End-of-term milestones
- Tuesday, November 17, 2026 — Poster printed and ready. 36 in × 48 in poster finalized and printed one week before the November 24 showcase.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Final document package uploaded for scoring. Chapters 4–5, calculation package, drawings and appendices uploaded in the app for advisor scoring.
- Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Poster presentation to faculty and industry. Wednesday poster session — printed 36 in × 48 in poster presented in person; industry reviewers score communication and impact.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2026 — Oral presentation and defense (scored). Scored oral presentation and defense held on Wednesday, November 25.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data
Students assemble the rainfall, watershed, and channel geometry data needed to run a hydrologic/hydraulic model, and hand-check a Manning's equation capacity.
Section B
Engineering story
A real project situation that frames this module
Week 3: hydrologic and hydraulic data is the item standing between the team and a reviewable hydrologic and hydraulic model with the sized conveyance. Students assemble the rainfall, watershed, and channel geometry data needed to run a hydrologic/hydraulic model, and hand-check a Manning's equation capacity. Review stalls on a single line: the team cannot show the record behind watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover).
Estimating Manning's n from a table without field-verifying channel vegetation or lining condition. Because iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth, the error does not stay local: it is carried into the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on, and every downstream product inherits it before anyone notices.
Downstream property owners, emergency responders and the utility carry the consequence. On this module specifically, the exposure runs through channel/pipe geometry survey requirements, and the cost of correction rises every week the hydrologic and hydraulic model with the sized conveyance moves closer to issue.
Decisions the engineer must make
- What record establishes watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover), and is that record in the project data inventory?
- Does HEC-22 (4th Ed.), Ch. 3, govern here — and is that the edition adopted by the jurisdiction?
- What is the acceptance criterion for iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth, and was it written before the result was known?
- Is Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) valid over the parameter range this project actually occupies?
- If the check fails, does the team revise the hydrologic and hydraulic model with the sized conveyance or raise a change request against the locked baseline?
Photo 1. Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section C
Why this matters
Professional
A licensed engineer defending hydrologic and hydraulic data cites HEC-22 (4th Ed.), Ch. 3, and shows the record behind each input. Your h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. is reviewed the same way — traceability is assessed before arithmetic.
Technical
Watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover) is what makes Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) usable on this project rather than a formula copied from a reference. Get it wrong and every quantity derived from it is wrong by the same factor.
Safety
The failure mode this module guards against is a conveyance or storage element overtopped by the design event. It reaches people through manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model, which is why the safety check is recorded explicitly here rather than inferred from a passing strength or performance check.
Economic
The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on is priced from this work. Quantities, unit costs and schedule float all trace to watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover); a late correction here is paid for as a change order, not a redline.
Environmental
Environmentally, this module fixes receiving-water quality, channel erosion and altered baseflow. Choosing conservatively without justification is not free — the excess shows up as material, energy and land that the project consumes for no measurable gain.
Community
Households and businesses in the floodplain the design is meant to protect inherit whatever this module decides — performance, accessibility, cost of ownership and resilience are set here, not at the ribbon-cutting.
Section D
Learning objectives
By the end of this module you will be able to:
- 1.Analyze watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover), using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 2.Justify iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 3.Explain channel/pipe geometry survey requirements, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 4.Evaluate manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model, using this project's own conditions rather than a textbook case.
- 5.Compute the governing quantity from Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2), with a unit audit on every term.
- 6.Apply HEC-22 (4th Ed.), Ch. 3, and cite the section that governs your acceptance decision.
- 7.Reproduce the worked example for a trapezoidal channel has A = 12 ft², wetted perimeter P = 9.5 ft, n = 0.035, and… and defend the interpretation of the result.
- 8.Produce h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. at a standard the floodplain administrator would accept without a second revision cycle.
Section E
Instructional content
Full lecture notes with figures and governing equations
Reading hydrologic and hydraulic data as a practising engineer
Students assemble the rainfall, watershed, and channel geometry data needed to run a hydrologic/hydraulic model, and hand-check a Manning's equation capacity. That single sentence hides the substance of the module: watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover), and iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth. Both must be established from project evidence before anything downstream is credible.
In water resources engineering, this work is the input to the hydrologic and hydraulic model with the sized conveyance. Channel/pipe geometry survey requirements — which is why this page asks you to record the source of every quantity, not just its value. The data foundation every later calculation silently depends on depends on it.
- Watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover)
- IDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth
- Channel/pipe geometry survey requirements: cross-sections, roughness estimation, invert elevations
- Manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model
Photo 1. Reading hydrologic and hydraulic data as a practising engineer in practice — Subsurface investigation: SPT samples and the boring log that every geotechnical number traces back to.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Governing relationships and how they are applied here
The relationships below govern hydrologic and hydraulic data. Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) — each is valid only inside the parameter range this project occupies, so state that range before substituting.
IDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth sets the values you place into these expressions. Any code-prescribed factor must match HEC-22 (4th Ed.); a factor lifted from a different edition silently changes the answer.
Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2)
- Q = flow rate (cfs)
- n = Manning's roughness coefficient
- A = cross-sectional flow area
- R = hydraulic radius = A/P
- S = channel slope
- P = wetted perimeter
Photo 2. Governing relationships and how they are applied here in practice — Pump station: where system head curve, pump curve and operating point meet real hardware.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for hydrologic and hydraulic data
HEC-22 (4th Ed.), Ch. 3, governs this module: Data requirements for storm drainage design FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping (2022), Vol. 1, adds the second constraint: Data collection standards for H&H modeling supporting flood studies
The safety case is explicit here. The failure mode is a conveyance or storage element overtopped by the design event; the people exposed are downstream property owners, emergency responders and the utility; the control that prevents it is manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model together with an independent check by someone who did not perform the work.
- Controlling criterion for this module: watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover).
- Adopted reference: HEC-22 (4th Ed.) — cite Ch. 3 by number.
- Failure mode guarded: a conveyance or storage element overtopped by the design event.
- Evidence produced: H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation..
Photo 3. Constraints, adopted standards and the safety case for hydrologic and hydraulic data in practice — Pump station: where system head curve, pump curve and operating point meet real hardware.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Where this method stops being valid
The worked example — a trapezoidal channel has A = 12 ft², wetted perimeter P = 9.5 ft, n = 0.035, and S =… — holds only while its assumptions hold. This hand-calculated capacity is the independent baseline the student compares against the HEC-RAS model output; a large discrepancy signals a geometry or roughness input error in the model, not necessarily a hydraulic model bug. Outside that envelope the arithmetic still returns a number, and the number is wrong in a way no unit check will catch.
For this project, the boundary you are most likely to push is manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model. If you cross it, say so in writing, bound the error, and carry the limitation into your results chapter. A disclosed limitation is professional practice; a silent extrapolation is not.
Photo 4. Where this method stops being valid in practice — Pump station: where system head curve, pump curve and operating point meet real hardware.
Capstone Studio instructional photograph
Section F
Engineering workflow
Steps
- 1. Assemble the inputs this module needs — watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length,…; iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design… — each with a unit and a source record.
- 2. Confirm HEC-22 (4th Ed.) is the adopted edition and locate Ch. 3.
- 3. State the assumptions and the acceptance criterion for watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover).
- 4. Evaluate Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) term by term, carrying one extra significant figure.
- 5. Test the result against channel/pipe geometry survey requirements.
- 6. Audit units and run an order-of-magnitude check by hand before the number leaves your desk.
- 7. Obtain an independent check from a teammate who did not perform the work, and record their name and date.
- 8. Assemble h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. and submit it to the floodplain administrator for review.
Decision points
- Is every input behind watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover) traceable? If not — stop and collect the record.
- Does the result satisfy iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth? If not — revise the work, never the criterion.
- Would the correction change the data foundation every later calculation silently depends on? If yes — raise a change-control request before proceeding.
- Have you ruled out the most common error on this module — estimating Manning's n from a table without field-verifying channel vegetation or lining condition?
Quality checklist
- Documented: watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover)
- Documented: iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth
- Documented: channel/pipe geometry survey requirements
- HEC-22 Ch. 3 cited by section number
- Units audited on every expression
- Acceptance criterion recorded before the result
- Independent check signed and dated
- H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation. attached and named per the course convention
Section H
Interactive visualization
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data — step-through
Advance one frame at a time. Each frame adds one engineering decision to the previous state.
Step 1 of 6
Delineate the watershed boundary from topographic data.
Section I
Applicable codes and standards
HEC-22
4th Ed. · Ch. 3
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Data requirements for storm drainage design
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping
2022 · Vol. 1
Adopted design/analysis reference governing this module.
Relevance: Data collection standards for H&H modeling supporting flood studies
Reference the section number and edition in your calculation package. Do not reproduce code text.
Section J
Worked examples
Full engineering solution format
Section K
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
- Estimating Manning's n from a table without field-verifying channel vegetation or lining condition.
- Using a single design storm from a national atlas without confirming the correct recurrence interval and duration for the governing design case.
- Treating watershed delineation and time-of-concentration data collection (slope, flow path length, land cover) as a given instead of establishing it from a project record.
- Producing h&h data package with manning's equation hand-check calculation. without showing how iDF (intensity-duration-frequency) data source selection (NOAA Atlas 14) for design storm depth was satisfied.
- Substituting into Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2) outside the range where it is valid, and reporting the number anyway.
- Missing manning's equation hand-check as an independent baseline against the hydraulic model, which is exactly the path to a conveyance or storage element overtopped by the design event.
- Collecting data before defining what decision the data has to support.
- Accepting a laboratory or field value without its method, date, operator and uncertainty.
- Stopping at output and skipping verification — an unverified number is not an engineering result.
- Confusing results (what the analysis produced) with conclusions (what the engineer decided).
- Ignoring constructability: a design that cannot be built safely is not a completed design.
Section L
Industry case study
Documented failure related to hydrologic and hydraulic data
A constructed civil works project where this module's decision was made incorrectly or skipped.
Official findings
- Published investigation identified a breakdown between analysis assumption and constructed condition.
Field observations
- The controlling assumption was documented nowhere in the design record.
- No independent check existed at the stage where the error entered the work.
Engineering interpretation
- Interpretation below is student analysis for instructional purposes, not an official finding.
- Map the failure to a step in your own workflow and state where your process would have caught it.
Lessons learned
- Document the assumption, then have someone else check it before it becomes construction.
Source: Summarize the published investigation; cite it in your reference list. Do not reproduce copyrighted report text.
Section M
FE Civil exam connection
Handbook FE Reference Handbook — water resources engineering section (record the section number from your handbook edition).
Exam topics
Handbook formulas
- Q = (1.49/n)·A·R^(2/3)·S^(1/2)
Weak results here feed your FE Civil Academy weak-area queue for targeted practice.
Question 1 of 2
Score: 0/2In hydrologic and hydraulic data, which item must be established BEFORE the analysis is run?
Section N
Apply it to your project — Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data
Complete this using your own capstone project data. Every field is saved to your project record and routed to your advisor with this module's submission.
Inputs and sources
Every value needs a traceable source.
| Quantity | Value | Unit | Source / record |
|---|
Assumptions and consequences
| Assumption | Basis | Consequence if wrong |
|---|
Self-check before submission
Section O
Design challenge
Consulting challenge — Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data
Your firm has been retained to deliver the hydrologic and hydraulic data scope for a municipal client on a compressed schedule. Produce the technical position your firm would defend at a public meeting.
Client request: The client wants a defensible recommendation, the basis of design, and an honest statement of what remains unresolved.
Constraints
- Adopted local code edition governs; no exceptions without written variance.
- Budget and schedule are fixed; scope changes require change control.
- Public safety and accessibility requirements are non-negotiable.
Deliverables
- One-page basis of design
- Supporting calculation extract
- Risk and limitation statement
Evaluation
- Technical correctness
- Standard compliance
- Clarity of engineering judgment
- Honest treatment of uncertainty
Section P
Documentation workspace
Write the report section for this module in the academic editor
Section Q
File uploads
Accepted: PDF, DOCX, XLSX, CSV, PNG, JPG, ZIP, SHP, HEC-RAS
No files uploaded yet.
Section R
Deliverable and advisor review
H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation.
Submissions route to your assigned faculty advisor and are scored independently by faculty and administrator rubrics.
Reflection
What was the hardest engineering judgment in this module, and how did you resolve it?
Section S
ABET outcome mapping
H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
H&H data package with Manning's equation hand-check calculation. with advisor review and dual scoring.
Assessment: Faculty rubric score and administrator rubric score on this module's submission.
Rubric: Data quality · Target: 70% of students at or above 'meets expectations'.
Section T
References and further study
HEC-22 (4th Ed.)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping (2022)
Adopted reference — cite section numbers, do not reproduce text.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data — instructor design procedure
Course template for the calculation package format expected in the final report appendix.
NCEES FE Reference Handbook
Locate the equations used here and note the handbook section for exam recall.
Advisor meeting agenda item
Bring the unresolved decision from this module to your next weekly advisor meeting.