Managing Urban Drainage: A Theoretical Case Study of SUDS Design.

Managing urban drainage: a theoretical case study of SUDS design
MANAGING URBAN DRAINAGE: A theoretical case study of SUDS design
Malcolm Sutherland (0204783)
A coursework report submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc module in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (WW545) at the University of Abertay Dundee, April 2003 REVISED May 2013
Copyright of LabSearch Ltd, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland, 2013
CONTENTS
SECTION 1: the changing hydrology of a river catchment

Introduction 1.1: 1950 1970 1.2: 1970 1990 1.3: 1990 - 2010
SECTION 2: installation of a combined sewer overflow

2.1: Purposes and problems of a combined sewer over-flows 2.2: Determination of Formula A 2.3: CSO arrangements for discharge into two contrasting rivers
REFERENCES (websites may no longer be available)
SECTION 1: THE CHANGING HYDROLOGY OF A RIVER CATCHMENT

This chapter concerns the hydrological and environmental changes caused by developments along a section of a theoretical river. As shown in Figure 1, this section includes a small tributary, which joins upstream from where a New Town has-been established. Two dams have been raised to create boating and Fishery lakes, and Hood barriers have been raised downstream of the town, in order to protect agricultural land.
Figure 1: layout of the hydrological catchment
At the gauge point, the following changes in river depth and flow were noted for are being predicted) (Table 1):
Table 1: records at the gauge point and historical information

3
Year 1950 1970 1990 2010
Flow (m /s) 12.5 13.0 13.7 13.0
Water depth (m) 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.6
Developments New Town established in 1952 New flood banks raised in 1965 Boating lake constructed in 1995 Fishery opened in 2000
The following sub-sections address the possible causes of these changes in flow and depth, how they correlate with the developments described above.
1.1: 1950-1970
The river flow increases from 12.5 m3/s to 13.0 m3/s, and the water depth rises from 2.1m to 2.3m. HYDROLOG1CAL CHANGES Both the river flow rate and the depth increased during this period. Two main events lake place alongside the river, which are likely to have caused this to happen: (i) urban development; and, (ii) the construction of flood banks where the gauge point stands.
Urban development increases the area of impermeable surface cover, and it requires drainage systems. This reduces the amount of water passing into the soil, and being absorbed into vegetation, or evaporating. As a consequence, urbanisation can increase the flow rate of receiving rivers by between 200% and 600% (Kiely, 1997). This may drastically change the hydrologic cycle section (from rain hitting The ground until water enters the river), and drain pipe networks with result in the direct and shortened discharge of drainage into the river (CIRIA, 2000; Herricks, 1995). The rise in water depth may owe to the construction of buildings and bridges, which reduce channel capacity (Figure 2) (Bennett et al, 1997):
Figure 2: the encroachment of development upon a natural river, resulting in rising levels
MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES The increase in flow will lead to more erosion of the riverbanks and the riverbed. This pattern was researched by Derricks (1995), who describes how increased runoff from urbanised catchments contributes to faster and deeper riverbank erosion and widened unstable river channels downstream. Straightened river channels (usually in urban settings) are out of phase with the water and sediment discharge regime, resulting in increased bank erosion (Bennett, 1997). A SEPA report on the Weinflu Case Study (Kennedy et al (see References: websites), described the effects of urbanisation and flood control along this river passing through Vienna. These include changes to the river pathway, along with disruptions to sediment transport and flow regime. Regular bank re-enforcement is a necessary precaution due to increased erosion. WATER POLLUTION CHANGES Increased water pollution is likely to be the result of changes occurring at this periodTypically, the flora and fauna within urbanised river channels deteriorate due to decreasing water quality and damage lo habitats (Herricks, 1995). Turbidity will inevitably increase with effluent/storm water discharges and increased erosion. There are several reports of changes to water pH, BOD and DO levels, and increased levels of heavy metals, oil, pesticides, nitrates, coliform bacteria, and dissolved ammonia. These are often directly attributed to wastewater, storm drainage and soil erosion (Herricks, 1995).
Construction areas and parking lots are an important source of suspended solids and heavy metals. River sediment may be characterised by high BOD levels, along with contamination by pesticides and hydrocarbons. Possible causes tor this include eroded (organic-rich) soil, garden/field pesticides (Manahan, 2001), spilled substances such as fuel oil, or trade/sewage discharges (Herricks, 1995; Radojevic et al, 1998). Furthermore, the excavation of soil and sediment required for the construction of flood banks will necessitate the use of heavy machinery, which contributes to soil erosion, and increased turbidity (Dept. of Natural Resources & Environment (Australia), 2001).
1.2: 1970-1990
The flow rate increases from 13.0m3/s to 13.7m3/s, and the water depth decreases marginally, from 2.3m to 2.2m. HYDROLOG1CAL CHANGES The water depth falls slightly during this period, in spite of increasing flow-rate. The initial impacts of raising flood embankments include increased water depth and riverbed erosion (ESCAP Publications). Flood banks only re-locate floods to either end of the levied stream. During storm events, the restrictive effect of the banks produces increased flow rates. The same effect leads to more concentrated sedimentation within the protected channel, which may explain the decrease in depth over this time (Bennett, 1997). MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES The establishment of the flood banks will lead to an increase in the flow-rate, due to these preventing the dissipation of floodwaters onto the surrounding land. However, the water depth will be lower, as the banks were raised, using dredged material from the old river bed banks, leading to higher flow velocity, and riverbed erosion in the new cutting (Figure 3):
Figure 3: morphological river bed changes. Sediment is dredged up from the old river bed (bold brown line), to be used for building the flood barriers (dotted brown line). The blue bold line is the old water level; the dotted blue line shows the new river water level (Bennett, 1997).
As mentioned, scouring of the embankments and the riverbed will occur within this modified river course, and increased flow conditions can exacerbate riverbank erosion (SUDS Working Party, 2000). The new town will still continue to expand during this time,
leading to further culverts being constructed. River modifications within the town and alongside the flood banks can lead to increased sedimentation and a changing river form downstream (Natural Resources and Environment, 2001). WATER POLLUTION As the New Town will still be expanding, there will be further increases in surface drainage and treated sewage/industrial discharges into the river. The effects of this have already been discussed, and (if this was in Scotland) these may not yet have been addressed under any environmental legislation. (As recently as 1996, sewage effluent discharges were the main causes of river pollution in Scotland (SUDS Working Party).) Since the fishery has not been considered yet, there may be no economic driver behind imposing water quality improvements as yet. The flood hanks will have reduced the amount of sediment and soil being washed into the river, along with diffuse agricultural pollution such as pesticides, fertilisers or manure. (NSW Government). This would result in reduced nitrogen and phosphorus, pathogens, turbidity, pesticides and hydrocarbons (e.g. from spilled oil) within the water column.
1.3: 1990-2010
It is predicted, that the flow rate will decrease from 13.7m3/s, to 13.0m3/s, and that the water depth will increase from 2.2m to 2.6m. HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES The creation of the fishery and boating lakes will require damming the river upstream and downstream of the town and embankment. This may lead to reduced flows downstream from these artificial lakes. These may also be weirs behind the lakes, and the water depth at the gauge point will have risen, if this is a short distance upstream from the fishery lake. The effects of a dam on river flows downstream are more significant during storm events, as these are mitigated with more steady flows passing out An average decrease in flow rate also requires a significant effort being made to control the diffuse inputs from the new town and rural land upstream of the gauge point (Bennett, 1997.) MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES The construction of a dam results in sediment being trapped behind this barrier under tranquil reservoir conditions. The resulting reduction in the river's sediment load downstream may result in abrasive, sediment-free water causing rapid channel incision. A study of the Stony Creek river in California revealed that this impact, resulted in the river changing from a braided pattern to a single-channelled meandering stream, which migrated laterally (across lad), and restricting land-use in that area (Bennett et al, 1997). This is illustrated in Figure 4 over-page:
Figure 4: fluvial changes downstream of a dam along the Stony Creak river (these are not accurate maps)
The construction of a fishery will raise the altitude of the water surface level, downstream of the gauge point. This may serve to raise the water depth as this retained water may extend upstream past this point, and increased sedimentation will occur within the reservoir. WATER POLLUTION The implementation of sustainable urban drainage systems under SEPA has been prolific; since 1996, over 760 SUDS systems have been developed across Scotland (CIRIA, 2000). Improvements would have to be made, if the river passing into the fishery can support the aquatic population therein. The UWTD (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive) requires all sewage being discharged to rivers, sensitive waters, and those used for commercial purposes, to be treated to a very high standard of effluent purity. The instalment of SUDS within the new town would serve to reduce levels of turbidity, BOD, heavy metals, pesticides, floating solids (e.g. litter), oils and other hydrocarbons within the water column, and passing into the river sediment (CIRIA, 2000).
SECTION 2: INSTALLATION OF A COMBINED SEWER OVER-FLOW

2.1: PURPOSES AND PROBLEMS OF COMBINED SEWER OVER-FLOWS
Combined sewer systems are single-pipe sewer networks, conveying both domestic/industrial effluent, and storm-water run-off, to an STW. During periods of intense rainfall however, these can be overwhelmed, and excess wastewater may have to be discharged straight into receiving waters, in order to prevent flooding at the STW. This emergency procedure is called the combined sewer overflow (CSO), and it has been permitted on the basis that the large volume of wastewater will be dilute enough, for some of it to be discharged into a river/lake, without causing serious environmental damage. Nevetheless, in practice this has not always been successfully achieved; the environmental damage to rivers in the UK by CSOs has been a major cause of urban river pollution for many years (Herricks, 1995). CSOs may contain raised levels of suspended solids, BOD, oils, floating debris, pathogens, heavy metals, suspended particles and other potentially toxic compounds. These pollutants pose a threat to aquatic species and human health, and may exceed water quality standards. The ecological and chemical changes downstream from a CSO or a sewage effluent discharge are well known. Increases in BOD, pathogens (including protozoa and bacteria) and suspended solids, are accompanied by depletion in DO, and clean water fauna (Figure 5) (Harrison, 2001):
Figure 5: ecological and chemical changes in a river downstream from a CSO
DETERMINATION OF FORMULA A The maximum combined sewer flow into an STW is conventionally predicted using this equation. The calculated volume was believed to be dilute enough for excess amounts of wastewater to be discharged to receiving waters, without any adverse effects. The equation is reproduced (Read and Vickridge, 1997), and following calculations are provided below:
Formula A (l/s) = DWF + 130P + 2E

DWF: wastewater produced by the population (daily water flow) P: Population (persons) I: Infiltration E: Industrial flow
= (PG + I + E) + 1360P + 2E
For a new CSO being constructed at the lowest point of a local sewer system, the following quantities of wastewater need to be considered: P = 4600 persons
DWF
I = 0.005m3/s
E = 0.012 m3/s
86400 seconds/day) + (0.012 86400seconds/day)
=> (4600 0.225m3/day) + (0.005 1035 + 432 + 1036.8 = 2503.8 m3/day
Formula A => 2503.8 + (1.36 4600) + (2 1036.8) 2503.8 + 6256 + 2073.8 10833.4 m3/d or ~10.8Ml/day 10,800,000 litres per day 86400 seconds/day = 125.4 l/s
SECTION 2.3: CSO ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE INTO TWO CONTRASTING RIVERS
The composition and environmental impacts of combined sewer overflow discharges have been discussed. The nature of these aspects will vary considerably, depending on the receiving water. The quantity of the receiving water is one important parameter for determining the effects of CSOs (Table 2) (Moffa, 1997):
Table 2: general qualitative effects of CSOs on rivers
Significance of impact on receiving water Small river Large river
D.O.
Nutrients
S.S.
Toxics
Pathogens
Turbidity
Sanitary debris High High
High Moderate
Low Low
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
High High
Low Moderate
Under the UWWTD, any discharge must not have any deleterious effects on water flora or fauna, and must not have any aesthetic effects such as oily layers, discoloration, etc (SEPA, 2003). Incorporating a 6mm or 10mm mesh to remove screenings is now essential for all CSOs, and any incompliant CSOs must be disabled under the UWWTD. DISCHARGE INTO A LARGE RIVER PASSING THROUGH AN INDUSTRIAL AREA It is unlikely that the river passing through an industrial area will have any amenity value within the vicinity. For discharging into large low-amenity rivers, Read and Vickridgc (1997) prescribed basic suspended solids removal techniques, including high-sided weirs, stilling ponds and vortex separation devices. That was in 1997. SEPA now recommend (2003) that where a discharge entering a river is diluted by a factor greater than 8 (>8:1 dilution), the CSO may not require storm water storage facilities. In addition to a sewer of Formula A capacity, a screening mesh of max. 10mm is essential for all CSOs. Nevertheless, wastewater being released into this river may need to be screened to a standard, which does not compromise water abstraction by industrial firms downstream (if appropriate). Industrial water uses include washing, processing and cooling processes. Problems with using poor quality water include scaling (caused by calcium salts); metallic corrosion (due to dissolved solids and metals); bacterial growth (which poses a health risk to workers); or, the fouling of pipes (inorganic and microbial slime deposits) (MetCalf and Eddy, 2003). Suspended sediment in abstracted water can lead to machinery damage and oilier operational problems. DISCHARGE INTO A SMALL RIVER PASSING THROUGH A RECREATION AREA The CSO must attain a high performance standard, in terms of its aesthetic effects on a receiving river, which is used for recreation. For a new CSO discharging into EU-designated waters (i.e. bathing waters and sensitive waters), there should not be more than one spillage per annum or season. This implies that a storm water tank volume of around 820m 3 is required. This would be above the 652m3 threshold volume, which would meet the SSD standard (for a dilution of 1:1 or less). The permitted number of discharges does not reflect the damaging effects, which may arise from these intermittent events. Since the wastewater is being discharged to a smaller river as well, it may be advisable to choose a larger storm tank volume than the 800m3 capacity, or to increase the flow to the STW. These would incur considerable capital costs, and so the use of SUDS is another option to be considered, if the CSO discharges lead to any legitimate complaints (e.g. by anyone using the waters for recreational purposes). Secondly, a finer screen (6mm or less) may be necessary to prevent large particle-sized matter passing into the river and harming the aquatic environment.

Managing Urban Drainage: A Theoretical Case Study of SUDS Design.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Managing Urban Drainage: A Theoretical Case Study of SUDS Design.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Managing urban drainage: a theoretical case study of SUDS design