Sustainable Drainage System

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS IN CONTROLLING FLOODING AND POLLUTION FROM

URBAN RUNOFF
by
Kirsteen C.B. Macdonald
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements of the University of Abertay Dundee
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
This research programme was carried out in collaboration

with the Carnegie Trust and SEPA
June 2003
I certify that this thesis is the true and accurate version of the thesis approved by the
examiners.
Signed Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to wholeheartedly thank my Director of Studies Chris Jefferies. His support,
enthusiasm, guidance and belief in me has been superb. I have also had the support of many
others, without whom I could not have carried out this project. During my years of data
collection I had assistance, often beyond the call of duty, from Bob Peter and Tony Breen.
They conjured up all sorts of necessary appliances and equipment in the lab for me to use on
site, and accompanied me for sitework through thick and thin. Dundee City Council staff
were highly co-operative and supportive in this research, in particular Frank Guz and Pat
Hamilton. SEPA staff have also provided much support and assistance, in particular Brian
D’Arcy. Thanks also to Lesley Bryce, Chin Boon and Adolf Spitzer who provided additional
monitoring data.
Thanks are extended to those who allowed me to set up monitoring equipment on their
property including Eric Parkinson, Emmock Woods farm, Carrick Knowe Primary school,
Edinburgh Zoo, and Dobbies garden centre who all permitted me to install raingauges. Also
Angela Walker, and latterly Allan Maitland, at National Air Traffic Services who permitted
me to monitor the car parks on their property and assisted with information. John Mackenzie
of Wimpey Homes at West Grange gave permission for me to monitor the swale at their site
and has shown ongoing interest in the project.
Funding for this research has come from the Carnegie Trust, with additional funding from the
Scottish International Education Trust, Formpave Ltd. and the University of Abertay Dundee.
Funding for my attendance at several conferences and workshops in many countries has been
gratefully received from the Carnegie Trust, the University of Abertay Dundee and the United
Engineering Foundation.
I would finally like to thank my Scot for his support and patience during this long writing up
period. We’re now free to get on with our life together!
This work is dedicated to my parents, because I could truly never have wished for better.
Your unquestioning love and support has given me the strength and ability to do whatever I’ve
wanted in life.
i
ABSTRACT
The research presented in this thesis addressed the performance of Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems (SUDS) at three sites in Scotland - a porous paved car park and two swales.
It is the first research to provide results for such systems in the UK and also the first direct
comparison between SUDS and traditional systems in situ. The aim of developing guidance
on effectiveness and synthesising design recommendations has been achieved with the
integration of hydrological and water quality studies together with modeling. Monitoring data
and information were analysed on both a site-by-site basis and as a comparison between sites.
Hydrological and water quality data were collected at each site. Key hydraulic parameters
examined include percentage runoff, initial runoff loss, peak flow reduction and lag time. The
term Benefit Factor has been introduced as a volumetric measure used to summarise the
hydraulic benefit gained by installing SUDS, as no comparable terminology has yet been used
elsewhere. The water quality parameters include physical/ chemical, hydrocarbons and
metals. All three sites had low levels of pollution with little scope for water quality
improvement, however the changes in water quality did indicate the different processes
occurring within the systems.
Computer models were built for the porous paving installation and one of the swales, further
to understand the processes of source control and to analyse the systems. Hydraulic capacity
exceedence criteria were investigated using design storms, and finally the models were used to
evaluate improvements to design detailing.
The results of this research have shown that, despite being under-designed according to
current guidance, all three sites performed very favourably. The performance of porous
paving and swales can be similar depending on design and detailing. A number of design
recommendations are made as a result of observations and sensitivity analysis, and these
should be considered in conjunction with current guidance.
11
CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research aim and objectives 2
1.3 Thesis outline 4
1.4 Advancement of knowledge 6
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE 8
2.1 The urban runoff problem 8
2.2 SUDS overview 16
2.3 Sustainability 24
2.4 Previous studies of pervious paving and swales 29
2.5 Summary of review of current knowledge 40
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 41
3.1 Strategy for site selection 42
3.2 Approach to fieldwork 42
3.3 Brief description of equipment 43
3.4 Calibration and accuracy of equipment 45
3.5 Strategy for determinand analysis 49
3.6 Determinands 49
3.7 Benefit Factor 56
CHAPTER 4 OVERVIEW OF SITES 57
4.1 NATS porous car park 57
4.2 Emmock Woods swale 61
4.3 West Grange swale 65
CHAPTER 5 MONITORING RESULTS 69
5.1 Periods of data availability 69
5.2 NATS data 71
5.3 Emmock Woods data 83
5.4 West Grange data 89
5.5 Summary of monitoring results 100
CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 101
6.1 NATS analysis and interpretation 102
6.2 Emmock Woods analysis and interpretation 113
6.3 West Grange analysis and interpretation 120
6.4 Summary’o f analysis and interpretation 132
CHAPTER 7 APPLYING ERWIN MODELS TO STUDY SITES 136
7.1 Erwin model software 136
7.2 The NATS model 138
7.3 The West Grange model 153
7.4 Summary of Erwin model application to the study sites 166
iii
CHAPTER 8 SUD SYSTEMS ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT OF
IMPROVED DETAILING 167
8.1 Performance comparison of the models 167
8.2 Hydraulic Exceedence of the SUD systems 170
8.3 Improved detailing 173
8.4 Summary of systems analysis & improved detailing 180
CHAPTER 9 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS 183
9.1 Comparison of swales 183
9.2 Comparison of porous paving and swales 187
9.3 Summary of comparison of systems 192
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 194
10.1 Conclusions on SUDS Performance 194
10.2 Design recommendations 196
10.3 Recommendations for further work 198
10.4 Principal Outcomes 199
APPENDICES
1.1 References 1.1 -1 to 10
1.2 Papers & reports published during registration period 1.2 - 1 to 59
3.1 Tipping bucket calibrations 3.1 - 1 to 8
3.2 Typical water quality values 3.2 - 1 to 3
4.1 Equipment installation photographs and diagrams 4 .1 - 1 to5
4.2 CALCULATION OF EXIT WATERFLOWRATE AT NATS 4.2 - 1 to 4
5.1 EVENTS MONITORED 5.1 - 1 to 6
5.2A HYDROGRAPHS-NATS 5.2A —1 to 7
5.2B HYDROGRAPHS - EMMOCKWOODS 5.2B —1 to 5
5.2C HYDROGRAPHS - WEST GRANGE 5.2C - 1 to 4
5.3A WATER QUALITY DATA PLOTS- NATS 5.3A —1 to 28
5.3B WATER QUALITYDATA PLOTS - EMMOCKWOODS 5.3B —1 to 3
5.3C WATER QUALITY DATA PLOTS - WEST GRANGE 5.3C - 1 to 17
6.1 TABLES OF HYDROLOGICAL DATA 6.1 - 1 to 9
6.2 TABLES OFWATER QUALITY DATA 6 .2 - 1 to 14
6.3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANECDOTAL OBSERVATIONS 6.3 —1 to 6
7.1 NATS ERWIN MODEL GRAPHS AND TABLES 7.1 - 1 to 11
7.2 WEST GRANGE ERWIN MODEL GRAPHS AND TABLES 7.2 - 1 to 10
8.1 GRAPHS FROMPERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF BOTH MODELS 8.1 -1 to2
8.2 GRAPHS FROMMODELS WITHIMPROVED DETAILING 8.2 —1 to 3
IV
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The widespread installation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) is a relatively
recent policy in the UK. The work presented in this thesis commenced near the start of this
promotion and has been an active part of the quest for improved understanding and
development of SUD systems. This research has concentrated on the performance of
SUDS at three sites in Scotland, a porous paved car park and two swales. It is the first
research to provide results for such systems in the UK and also the first direct comparison
between SUDS and traditional systems in situ.
1.1. BACKGROUND
The expansion of urban areas is an unavoidable part of modem society. It is also a
contributor to the impoverishment of downstream watercourses by flooding and pollution.
The characteristic concrete and tarmac surfaces of an urban area are predominantly
impermeable, and the ability of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground is impeded resulting in
increased rates and volumes of runoff. The runoff also contains a variety of pollutants
such as oil, sediment and organic matter picked up from the urban surfaces. The
characteristics of this urban runoff have a significant influence on the state of the receiving
watercourse. It had been estimated (SEPA, 1999b) that urban drainage is responsible for
20%, by river length, of all poor quality watercourses in Scotland. Flooding of many
watercourses is exacerbated by urbanisation and current thinking on climate change also
expects to see a mean annual precipitation increase in Scotland of up to 7% by 2020, with a
more intense hydrological cycle and hence a greater risk of flooding (Price & Mclnally,
2001). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are techniques designed to deal with
urban runoff by attenuating or reducing flow and removing pollutants before entering the
receiving watercourse.
SUDS have been promoted in Scotland by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
(SEPA), the Water Authorities and by local councils since the early 1990’s as part of an
effort to reduce watercourse downgrading as a part of the implementation of Local Agenda
21, to work towards sustainability. When the research for this thesis commenced in 1997 it
was recognised that for widespread uptake of SUDS, developers, regulators and planners
required detailed information about their performance and very little was currently
available. This included the effectiveness of different systems and their suitability for
specific types of development. There were no widely accepted performance data on SUDS
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
in the United Kingdom, showing whether or not they were effective in reducing the impact
of urban runoff. There was a clear need for such data, coupled with information on cost,
maintenance and reliability. This research has concentrated on the performance of SUDS
at three sites in the East of Scotland, and involved data collection, analysis, interpretation
and modelling. It is part of a larger programme of SUDS research also involving SEPA,
the councils and the Water Authorities (see Jefferies et al, 1999). The information from
this research programme has, and will continue, to feed directly into the CIRIA design
manual for SUDS (CIRIA, 2000) which was prepared for developers, regulators and
planners in Scotland with the support of the Scottish Executive.
The term ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems’ (SUDS) supersedes urban drainage ‘Best
Management Practice’ (BMP) in the UK, as many developers and consultants were
unhappy using the American terminology. Either phrase may be found in the literature,
and can be taken to mean almost the same, as the SUDS concept has been built on the
BMP concept.
1.2. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The monitoring data and information collected during the research have been analysed and
interpreted on both a site-by-site basis (individual investigation) and as a comparison
between sites (collective investigation). Figure 1.1 shows the key elements of analysis and
interpretation for both the individual and collective investigations. For each of the three
source control sites there were five key issues for analysis and interpretation, labelled in
Figure 1.1 as A-E, and conclusions have been drawn from each. The collective
investigations involved comparing selected issues from both swale sites, and also selected
issues from all three sites. The chapters which detail specific aspects are indicated on the
figure. Throughout the research, these investigations have provided an ongoing output of
results, as introduced in section 1.4, and which include the papers and poster paper referred
to in Figure 1.1. The aims of this PhD are a synthesis of the conclusions from the
individual and collective investigations.
m
Z
O +->
CD
HH
H
< O
c ti
O <D
HH
H o3
5Z)
W a
> "T h
O
£ 4 -*
NH
- J o
◄ J a
<u
Q 4—»
H -<
> a
h -H o
Q <+H
£
KH
wH m
W
mHH
>
H
Uw
ffl
in o
^ o
<D
H o3
ol-N COJ CO
H t5
cc
• i-H
>
£
W <+-<
o
>
NH c
H o
CD
U
Vh
W C3
h -3 a
hJ a
o
o o
u
m
CD
f i
Develop:
m
— < o
1. Guidance on effectiveness based on the three SUDS

• ’rH
4 -4
c tf
CZ5
sHH
6£
• *-H
f f i 4-4
CD
2. Design recommendations for flow and pollutant

H CD
Z >
m <+H
o
attenuation
F ig u r e 1 .1 F lo w d ia g r a m o f P h D
Aim 1: To synthesise guidance on effectiveness based on three SUD systems.
Outcome: this aim has resulted in practical guidance concerning the hydrological and
water quality performance to be expected.
Objectives
a. interpret and produce conclusions from field data and qualitative observations from all
three sites, and also from calibrated models for the source control sites
b. compare performance of source control sites
Aim 2: To synthesise design recommendations for flow and pollutant attenuation.

Outcome: this aim has resulted in recommendations for improved design of the types of
SUD systems studied
Objectives
a. interpret and conclude on qualitative observations at each site during and
between rainfall events
b. produce conclusions from improved design models developed for the source
control sites
1.3. THESIS OUTLINE

A review of current knowledge is presented in Chapter 2, to provide a foundation and
background to the research. Four topics are covered, commencing with a brief summary of
the urban runoff problem to understand why SUDS are necessary. This is followed by an
overview of SUDS in general, with a more detailed description of the SUD systems
monitored for this research, and highlighting their relatively recent promotion in the UK
compared to several other countries. A discussion on sustainability follows, providing a
summary of the relevant historical background and exploring the meaning of ‘sustainable’,
with regards to both SUDS and the broader topic of sustainability. The final topic in this
chapter is a review of previous research into pervious pavements and swales, justifying the
claim to originality of this research.
The research methodology is outlined in Chapter 3. This covers several elements which
had a heavy influence on how the site monitoring was carried out, and on the subsequent
analysis and results. The selection criteria for the sites monitored is followed by an outline
of the approach taken to fieldwork, which varied at each site. A brief description of the
equipment used is provided for reference throughout the thesis, and is followed by an
overview of the calibration and accuracy of each piece of equipment. The next two topics
covered in this chapter consider the water quality analysis: discussing why the data
collection was periodic and not continuous; the reasons for selecting the chosen
determinands; and a brief description of each determinand. The final section details the
parameter ‘Benefit Factor’ which is a term introduced in this research as no comparable
terminology has yet been used elsewhere.
An overview of the sites is presented in Chapter 4. This takes each of the three sites in
turn, providing a description of the site, design criteria and an outline of data collection.
The monitoring results from each site are presented in Chapter 5. A summary of the
numbers of events at each site is provided, the details of which are shown in Appendix 5.1
as tables, and which are referred to throughout the thesis. A definition of a ‘rainfall event’
is also provided. The periods of data available at each site are shown as Gantt diagrams.
The subsequent sections, which make up the main body of the chapter, illustrate and
discuss the hydrological and water quality parameters at each site. Due to the large amount
of data gathered, example plots are shown within the text but most are displayed in
Appendices 5.2 (hydrological) and 5.3 (water quality).
Analysis and interpretation of the monitoring results are presented in Chapter 6, with each
site considered individually. Hydrological data is examined, then water quality, which is
also compared to typical concentrations expected to be found in urban runoff, and to
various water quality standards. Also there is a compilation of all the qualitative
observations made during fieldwork at each site. At the end of Chapter 6 the key
hydrological and water quality values from each site are summarised.
In Chapter 7 the results of building calibrated models with Erwin for two of the SUDS sites
are presented. A calibrated model was built for the porous paving site and for one of the
swale sites (West Grange), along with a model for the relevant impervious surface system
at each site to enable calculation of the Benefit Factor. This process of modelling the
systems enabled a further understanding of the processes of source control and provided a
tool for further analysis of SUDS and determining improved design detailing.
Chapter 8 provides a further analysis of the two SUD systems and development of
improved detailing, based on the calibrated models discussed in Chapter 7. A performance
comparison of the calibrated models for both sites is provided, using specific rainfall
events. Design storms were then used to indicate the size of event each system can deal
with before hydraulic capacity is exceeded (hydraulic exceedence). The final section in
Chapter 8 presents the results of modifying each SUDS model to indicate the performance
improvement to be obtained by improved detailing, and the capacity of each improved
SUD system tested with design storms.
The collective investigations are discussed in Chapter 9. This comparison between the
systems studied covers several aspects. The performance of the two swale sites is
compared, examining both the overall summary statistics and the performance during
specific similar events. A further performance comparison is made for the West Grange
site with two different drainage outlet designs. Finally the performance of all three SUDS
sites are compared including results from the calibrated and improved SUDS models built
using Erwin. The conclusions of this research are detailed in Chapter 10. This summarises
the key aspects of performance, concludes on design recommendations for porous paving
and swales, and proposes recommendations for further work.
Twenty Appendices are included containing references, papers to which the author has
contributed significant parts, detailed information on equipment, tables detailing the
hydrology and water quality events at each site, graphs for hydrology and water quality,
and graphs and tables for the models. The Appendices are numbered according to the
Chapters to which they relate e.g. Appendix 3.1 and 3.2 both relate to Chapter 3. In
consequence there are no Appendices relating to Chapters 2, 9 and 10. Appendix 1.1
comprises references and 1.2 includes papers by the author. Appendices 5.2 and 5.3 are
each divided into three sections (A, B & C) with one section for each site.
1.4. ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

This research has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in six main areas:
i) Performance data on a porous paved car park and two swales were gathered and
are available in the form of graphs and tables of data. Prior to this there had
been no performance data for SUDS in the UK.
ii) Interpretation and analysis of the field data and modelling results has assisted in
the understanding of the behaviour of porous paving and swales. Graphs, tables
and discussion on interpreted aspects include percentage runoff, lag time and
effect of Apis. Interpretation of the water quality results has shown that the
pollutant levels at all three sites were generally very low, therefore there was
very little scope for major improvement. Qualitative observations have been
compiled for each site under a range of conditions. Graphs, tables and
discussion on the calibrated and improved design detailing models have also
been created.
iii) A comparison of the performance of a porous car park and two different swales,
and development of knowledge on the relative merits of each has been carried
out. This has included both the site data and the models.
iv) An indicator of the performance advantage of SUDS has been developed. This
is termed ‘Benefit Factor’, and is a single volumetric measure introduced to
summarise the hydraulic benefit gained by installing the SUDS compared to the
traditional system. This is the first research to monitor the performance of
SUDS compared to traditional systems in situ and consequently no comparable
terminology existed prior to this research.
v) General design guidance and recommendations on porous car parks and swales
have been developed from the monitoring results and from the models created.
vi) The timeous provision and presentation of data has driven decisions and
assisted in adjacent projects, and in improved swale installations. Eight papers,
one poster presentation and numerous reports have been produced throughout
the research, and many conferences and meetings have been attended at which
contributions have been made. Details of the papers and poster presentation are
shown at the start of Appendix 1.2. It is contended that this continuing
contribution to the understanding of SUDS has been an advancement of
knowledge.
Much of the above information gathered in research has been used by staff of Dundee City
Council, who required such information to improve their swale installations. The
information has also contributed to the CIRIA design manual for SUDS (CIRIA, 2000)
which was prepared for developers, regulators and planners in Scotland with the support of
the Scottish Executive. Results from the study on porous paving have been included in the
CIRIA design manual for pervious surfaces (CIRIA, 2002).
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE
Information and discussion on four topics is provided in this chapter: the urban runoff
problem; SUDS; sustainability; and a review of previous research into pervious pavements
and swales. This provides a foundation and background to the research presented in the
thesis.
A brief summary of the urban runoff problem is given to understand why SUDS are
necessary. The hydrological cycle is presented with a summary of how it is modified by
urbanisation and how water quality is reduced.
There is an overview of SUDS in general, with a more detailed description of the SUD
systems monitored during this research. The promotion of SUDS in Scotland, and
subsequently the rest of the UK, is relatively recent in comparison to some other countries
including the US, Germany, Sweden and Australia. This is also outlined in this chapter.
A discussion on sustainability is given since both the word and concept are so frequently
debated at many different levels. The discussion provided explores the meaning of
‘sustainable’, with regards to both Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and the broader
topic of sustainability.
The fourth topic in this chapter is a review of previous research into pervious pavements
and swales, confirming the originality of this research and providing a platform for this
new work. All previous SUDS research has been carried out in other countries, except
some studies of pervious paving which have been carried out in the UK and are
complimentary to that presented in this thesis.
2.1 THE URBAN RUNOFF PROBLEM

Urbanisation has a drastic effect on the hydrologic regime (Gardiner, 1994). The change
from rural to urban hydrology alters the quantity and quality of the water downstream.
2.1.1 Rural Hydrology

Rain falling onto a rural catchment follows the hydrological cycle as shown schematically
in Figure 2.1:
Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 8

Figure 2.1 The hydrological cycle (Ward & Robinson, 1990)
Water vapour in the atmosphere condenses and may give rise to precipitation. In the
terrestrial portion of the cycle the precipitation will have several possible routes prior to
eventual evaporation:
■ STORAGE/ INTERCEPTION - some rainfall will be intercepted by tree and other
plants resulting in leaf and stem storage. There will also be storage in pools, puddles
and surface moisture.
■ SURFACE RUNOFF - there may be surface runoff if the soil infiltration rate or
saturation point is exceeded.
■ INFILTRATION - some rainfall will infiltrate through the soil, filter down and
eventually reach the watercourse and/ or recharge groundwater stores.
This greatly simplified and generalised hydrological cycle provides a useful introductory
concept to express the relationships in a general way. When attempting to understand and
quantify the occurrence, distribution and movement of water in a specific area, it will
usually comprise of a river catchment or group of catchments each of which can be
regarded as an individual system.
2.1.2 Urban Hydrology

Urban growth increases the percentage of total ground surface that is impermeable. The
natural hydrological cycle is modified by this alteration of the natural vegetation and
infiltration characteristics of the catchment (EPA, 1990). Figure 2.2 shows the different
paths of rainfall for pervious and impervious areas. Rain falling on an impervious area
follows a far more direct, less intricate path.
RAIN
Figure 2.2 Rainfall routes on pervious and impervious areas (Novotny & Olem, 1994)
The result of this is demonstrated in Figure 2.3. Surface runoff is minimal in the pre
development site, but dominates the water balance at the highly impervious post
development site.

Figure 2.3 Water balance of pre and post-development sites (Schueler & Claytor, 1997)
The increase in impermeable surface area reduces infiltration, resulting in reduced

attenuation and storage within the ground and increasing the amount of surface runoff.
Figure 2.4 illustrates the increase in runoff as a result of imperviousness.
Figure 2.4 Runoff coefficient as a function of site impervious cover (Schueler, 1995)
Surface runoff travels quicker over hard surfaces and through sewers than it does over
natural surfaces and along natural streams. This means that the flow will both arrive and
recede faster, and the peak flow will be greater (Butler & Davies, 2000) as shown in Figure
2.5. This increase in peak flow can be by a factor of 2 to more than 10 (Roesner &
Brashear, 1999).

Figure 2.5 Effect of urbanisation on peak runoffrate (Schueler, 1987)
The effect of increased runoff volume and peak flow is a significantly higher flow
frequency curve for a developed area than for an undeveloped area (Roesner & Brashear,
1999), as shown in Figure 2.6. The peak runoff rate for a given return period storm
increases (Point A on Figure 2.6) and there is a significant increase in the frequency of the
predevelopment peak flows (Point B on Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6 Effect of urban development on flow-frequency curve (Roesner & Brashear, 1999)
In summary, the overall effects on the watercourse caused by the change in hydrological
regime include (CIRIA, 1996):
■ REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER RESOURCES: the reduced infiltration results in
reduced soil moisture which affects the recharge of groundwater resources. This can
be a severe problem in some urban areas which rely on the groundwater resource.
Continued use of such a resource without recharge has significant results including
land subsidence or salt water pollution if near the coast.
■ LOWER BASE FLOWS: due to the reduced attenuation and storage there is no water
in the soil to feed into the watercourse during dry periods. This affects the habitat,
wildlife and bank stability etc.
■ INCREASED VOLUMES OF STORMWATER RUNOFF: the modification of the
hydrological cycle results in a reduced use of the other routes for rainfall (infiltration,
evaporation and storage).
■ INCREASED PEAK FLOW RATES AND FLOOD WATER LEVELS: the runoff is
removed from the urban area as quickly as possible, hence the increased peak flow rate.
This also affects the flood levels because there is an increased difference between the
flow during rainfall and dry periods.
2.1.3 Urban Pollution

In addition to the water quantity problem associated with the altered hydrology of urban
areas, there is the major problem of water quality. The main causes of urban runoff
pollution are detailed below (SEPA, 1997), and are termed diffuse pollution. Diffuse
pollution comes from a variety of diffuse sources, unlike point source pollution from
industries or treatment plants for example. More information on many of these
determinands is given in section 3.6.
i. contaminants on surfaces. Rainfall landing on an urban area will entrain these
pollutants which include (Ellis, 1991 and Schueler & Claytor, 1997):
■ sediments and suspended solids
■ oxygen demanding materials
■ hydrocarbons, grease and detergents
■ toxic, heavy and trace metals
■ organic compounds such as pesticides
■ bacteria including pathogens and viruses
■ nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous)
■ salt and de-icing chemicals
■ road vehicle pollutants (exhaust emissions, tyre wear, oils, corrosion and
breakdown of the road surface)
ii. drainage system. In general, in the UK, two systems of drainage are found:
combined and separate. In the combined system both foul and surface water are
conveyed in the same drains. If the combined sewer overflow (CSO) comes into
operation then foul sewage will be discharged into the watercourse along with the
polluted surface runoff. In the separate system foul and surface water discharges
are conveyed in separate drains, with the foul sewage directed to the treatment plant
and surface water to the watercourse. Chronic pollution may occur due to the
continuous discharge of polluted surface water. Acute pollution may occur due to
the ‘first foul flush’ if there has been a long antecedent dry period with a build up
of pollutants on the surface, or if there is a concentrated discharge of a pollutant
e.g. an oil spillage. Wrong connections can occur in the separate system which
result in foul sewage discharging directly to the watercourse.
iii. Public ignorance of where drains ultimately lead to. Many activities result in
disposal of substances that cause pollution. These activities include: car washing
(detergents, hydrocarbons, trace metals); pesticide use on gardens, kerbs and
gullies; dustbin washing (disinfectants); and disposal of substances such as engine
oil and paint thinners.
iv. Erosion (EPA, 1990). Stream bank erosion may occur due to the increase in
extremes between high and low flows. During the reduced low flows the diversity
of the wildlife in the watercourse will be reduced. This reduced foliage cover, root
systems etc. leaves parts of the river bank bare which in turn results in instability
and erosion. There will also be erosion during land development, for example
initial clearing and grading operations that expose much of the surface soils.
Construction site sediment loads can be one or two orders of magnitude higher than
from agricultural or stabilised urban land uses.
v. Atmospheric deposition. Deposition of particulates, hydrocarbons, NOx and SOx
from the air can add to the pollution. The pollution from this source is more
significant in urban areas than in rural. Up to 90% of atmospheric pollutants
deposited on impervious surfaces are delivered to receiving water (Schueler, 1987).
vi. Plants and animals. Plant debris and animal excrement would normally be
recycled in a rural catchment, but in an urban catchment they accumulate and
subsequently wash off (EPA, 1990).

2.1.4 Summary of The Urban Runoff Problem
Urbanisation results in changes to the hydrological regime in terms of both quantity and
quality. Figure 2.7 illustrates the possible impacts.
Conventional wisdom proposes that to protect watercourses from these possible
stormwater runoff impacts (modified flow and increased pollution), urban hydrology must
be returned to a more natural and sustainable state. SUDS are one tool that can contribute
to this goal. Venables (1991) comments that “emphasis is changing from the tradition of
speeding the raindrop back to sea as quickly as possible to seeking alternative destinations
for the raindrop”.
9 9 am
INCREASE IN INCREASE IN DECREASE IN
DIVERSITY AND INCREASE IN VOLUME OF STORM VOLUME OF
AMOUNT OF SPEED OF RUNOFF GROUNDWATER
POLLUTANTS STORM RUNOFF RECHARGE
I
biological health
I
river morphology
o f river dim inished
altered 1
Increased risk groundw ater
o f flooding ta b le drops
♦
dow nstream
low flo w ra te s
reduced
channel to o
wide fo r new
low flo w regim e
risk to life , loss o f m ature

X
w a te r level
property etc, tre e s e tc . fa lls
am enity value landscape

reduced value reduced
loss o f shade
recreation
value reduced
Increased inchannel
p lan t grow th
and deoxygenation
t
T
.reduction in aquatic biology,
and ecological In terest
F T T
RIVER CORRIDOR UNDER THREAT OF DEVELOPMENT
-DEGRADED ENVIRONMENT
Figure 2.7 Possible impacts of urbanisation via hydrological change (Gardiner, 1994)
Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 15

2.2 SUDS OVERVIEW
SUDS are defined as:
‘a sequence o f management practices and control structures designed to drain surface
water in a more sustainable fashion than som e conventional techniques *(CIRIA, 2000)
There have been three innovative ideas proposed for stormwater management in the UK:
Source Control; BMPs; and SUDS (Walker et al, 2000). SUDS is the most recent and
holistic of these ideas, and encompasses the other two as illustrated in Figure 2.8:
Figure 2.8 Innovative ideas for storm w ater m anagem ent
■ Source Control - whereby incident rainfall is detained or infiltrated close to the

source, for example porous paving and infiltration trenches.
■ BMPs (Best Management Practices) - a diffuse pollution control approach developed
in the USA. This includes source control, and also site/regional controls (also referred
to as ‘end-of-pipe structures’) such as detention basins and ponds (Roesner, 1999).
■ SUDS - build on the BMP concept by taking account of the quantity and quality of
runoff, plus the amenity value of surface water in the urban environment, and can be
encapsulated by the urban drainage triangle in Figure 2.9. Thus whether a drainage
system be primarily for flood prevention, pollution control or an amenity feature, the
design should be undertaken to maximise all possible benefits.

Figure 2.9 Urban Drainage Triangle (CIRIA, 2000)
The SUDS concept involves a hierarchy of objectives to improve the urban runoff problem
(Urbonas, 1994), also conceptualised as the ‘surface water management train’ as shown in
Figure 2.10.
In order of desirability these objectives are:

■ Prevention: prevent pollution deposition on the landscape. These are non-structural
methods of minimising runoff and implementing ‘good housekeeping measures’ (see
section 2.2.1)
■ Source control: runoff rate, volume and pollutant content are dealt with as close to the
source as possible e.g. swales, porous pavements (see section 2.2.2)
Chapter 2 Review o f Current Knowledge 17

■ Site and regional controls: interception of runoff downstream i.e. on a catchment
scale rather than at source e.g. ponds, wetlands (see section 2.2.2)
Runoff need not pass through all the stages in the management train. It could flow straight
to a site control, but as a general principle it is better to deal with it as locally as possible,
returning the water to the natural drainage system as near to the source as possible.
There are many benefits and legitimate concerns surrounding the use of SUDS. A
discussion of this is not included here, but further information may be found in other
literature including Apostolaki et al (2001), Jefferies et al (1997 & 1998), McKissock et al
(1999) and SEPA(1997).
2.2.1 Preventative Measures

When applying the philosophy of sustainable urban drainage, the adage “prevention is
better than cure” can make practical sense (CIRIA, 2000). Non-structural preventative
measures tackle the core reason of urban runoff pollution —the habits and ignorance of the
public and industry. Preventative measures are “a practice (routine procedure) that reduces
the pollutants available for transport by the normal rainfall-runoff process” (EPA, 1990).
This is achieved through a variety of institutional and educational methods which deal with
the practices that result in pollution. Methods include (Urbonas, 1994 & CIRIA, 2000):
■ Minimising paved areas - if less than 5% of a site is paved or compacted, the impact on
the quantity of the surface runoff will be negligible
■ Rainwater recycling - reducing the amount of runoff also reduces the washoff of
pollutants
■ Minimising directly connected impervious areas - drain impervious areas such as roofs
or driveways onto pervious areas e.g. lawns.
■ Public education on proper use and disposal of household chemicals, paints, solvents,
motor oils, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, detergents, antifreeze etc.
■ Reduction of litter and animal faeces by education and provision of bins
■ Street sweeping, leaf pickup and efficient street de-icing programmes (CIRIA, 1994 &
1995 provide more information)
■ Detection and elimination of wrong connections to separate storm sewers - the use of
swales and permeable surfaces can limit these misconnections by replacing
underground surface water drains. If a foul connection is made to a SUDS, the source

of pollution is made easier to trace.
■ Containment of certain highly polluting substances. Risk assessments must be made
and appropriate bunds and treatment facilities provided (CIRIA, 1997 provides more
information and oil separators are discussed in the SEPA prevention guidelines PPG3)
2.2.2 Structural SUDS

Whilst preventative measures can help reduce the urban runoff problem, structural SUD
systems are also necessary. The different systems can be categorised as source control
systems or site/ regional control systems and are listed below:
Source Control Site/ regional Control

pervious paving detention basins
filter strips retention ponds
swales wetlands
soakaways and infiltration trenches
filter drains
infiltration basins
Pervious paving and swales are described in the following section. Information on the
other systems can be found in CIRIA (2000) and SEPA (2000a).
i. pervious paving
Pervious paving is the term used for both porous and permeable pavement constructions
(Pratt, 1997) and is described below:
Porous paving: allows immediate infiltration of rainfall into the underlying construction
across the total surface of the pavement. This may be p o ro u s asp h a lt (also called porous
macadam) or a p o ro u s b lo ck system .
Permeable paving: constructed using material which itself is not porous but which provides
inlets in the surface to allow the stormwater to enter the underlying construction e.g.
shaped concrete blocks with grass between the voids (termed p erm ea b le g ra ss-co n crete ),
or solid blocks with small spaces between (perm eable block system ).
Pervious paving allows water to permeate through the structure. The water can filter

directly into the subsoil or can drain into a reservoir before soaking away, discharging to
the watercourse or even being stored for secondaiy use (e.g. water gardens or toilet
flushing). For systems designed to dispose of water into the surrounding soil, care must be
taken that the sub-grade strength will not be significantly affected by an increased moisture
content and also that there is no potential threat to the quality of groundwater supplies. An
additional advantage is that ice will not form on the surface because the air contained in the
system acts as a heat store. This greatly reduces the risks of slipping and skidding due to
ice and snow formation, and reduces the need for de-icing or gritting during winter.
Use of pervious paving is generally restricted to low volume parking areas where the
loading will not be particularly high, and are not currently used for adoptable roads and
footpaths. The area can be used to accept runoff from rooftops or adjacent conventionally
paved areas (Schueler, 1987).
CIRIA (2000) recommends that regular maintenance be carried out to prevent clogging of
the system and delay the need for remedial maintenance. Maintenance practices should
include vacuum sweeping twice a year.
Water quality is improved as water filters through the sub-base and, where appropriate,
through the surrounding soil (CIRIA, 2000). The exact mechanisms occurring will vary
depending on the design e.g. depth of sub-base, whether water filters into the soil or if a
geotextile layer prevents it. In porous paving with a stone sub-base and which does allow
water to filter into the soil, the main mechanisms occurring will be: the trapping of
sediment (and therefore attached pollutants) in the sub-base; subsequent degradation of
these pollutants including bio-degradation of hydrocarbons (Pratt et al, 1998); and further
sorption, trapping and bacterial reduction within the soil profile (Schueler, 1987). Water
quality improvement is discussed further in section 2.4.
The site monitored for this research was a porous paved car park using patented blocks
from Formpave Ltd. Details of the site are given in section 4.1.1. Formpave Ltd. produce
a ‘storm water source control system’ (Formpave, 2000), which can either be sealed to
prevent infiltration into the surrounding soil, or a geotextile membrane used to permit
infiltration. In either variant any excess water will exit the system via a perforated pipe
and is termed ‘exit water’.

11. swales
Swales are linear grassed depressions that can be designed for a combination of
conveyance, infiltration, detention and treatment of surface runoff. They are usually
designed as conveyance systems to lead surface water from an impermeable area to a
storage or discharge system. As conveyance systems they would normally be quite
shallow and with relatively slack longitudinal gradients. They may be deeper and
incorporate check dams for increased attenuation, storage and infiltration, and should be
dry between rainfall events.
The inlet to the swale may be one of a variety of arrangements as shown in Plates 2.1a, b &
c, including (Macdonald et al, 2000):
■ sheet flow from the adjoining impervious surface (Plate 2.1a). These flows should be
less than 0.3m3/s (CIRIA, 2000) to promote filtration and settlement. This inlet type
is only advised on highways where there is little or no parking possible, and there is a
wide carriageway margin.
■ Depressed or drop kerb sections (Plate 2.1b). These must be short enough to
discourage access by vehicles onto the swale. Some problems of this arrangement are
discussed in section 6.3.3.
■ Drainage inlets which appear from a distance to be like gullies, but the outlet is to the
side into the swale (Plate 2.1c). These Clearway™ drainage inlets have a ribbed gutter
detail and a near horizontal pipe through the kerb into the swale. Some problems
observed are discussed in section 6.2.3 and 6.3.3.
■ Standard gullies without traps. These are possible only where sufficient elevation is
available.
Plate 2.1 Sw ale inlets - sheet flow, drop kerb and C learw ay™ drainage inlet

Locating swales at the end of piped systems is not recommended due to the high local
velocities and risk of erosion. If it is necessary, suitable scour protection and headworks
will be needed to spread the flow and to trap sediment. However, directing the flow to the
base of the swale bypasses the filtering effect of the side slopes (CIRIA, 2000).
The outlet arrangement will depend whether the swale is considered purely as a source
control device, with an outlet to a storm sewer, or as part of an integrated conveyance
system.
■ In the former situation, where draining to a storm sewer, the swale will normally have a
raised outlet utilising a grating cover (Plate 2.2). The elevation of this cover is such
that a depth and storage volume of water is created in the swale before outflow
commences to a soakaway chamber below. The outlet from this chamber is at a high
level, which in turn creates further storage in the system before final spill, if any, to the
watercourse via the storm sewer.
Plate 2.2 R aised o u tlet w ith grating cover
■ the swale may be part of a conveyance system which avoids using a storm sewer.
Special detailing may be required to cross driveways and roads. Drive crossings need
not be constmcted to carry heavy wheel loads and can be small diameter pipes or ducts
in class A bedding under tarmac. To cross roads at shallow depths requires either
special pipe sections or ‘Beany’ type drains.
Figure 2.11 shows the swale format. Swales should be designed with a broad bottom and
gently sloping sides. The sides should not be steeper than 1 in 4. The longitudinal slope
should be kept as level as possible, ideally no greater than 1 in 50 and certainly not in
excess of 1 in 17 (CIRIA, 2000). Steeper longitudinal slopes can be accommodated with
the use of check dams. The vegetation and soils used in the swale are important in
preventing erosion, filtering the runoff, aiding infiltration and providing aesthetic and
environmental benefits. A gravel layer beneath the swale may be incorporated to increase
infiltration.
Maintenance of swales involves mowing and inspection approximately twice a year for
sign of erosion damage, silt deposits, excessive waterlogging and poor vegetation growth.
Depending on the species of grass, the frequency of mowing is likely to be about twice a
year. More frequent mowing could be carried out for aesthetic reasons if required, but this
might reduce the ability to trap silt.
Water quality improvements occur in a well designed swale as pollutants are removed by
the filtering action of the grass, deposition in low velocity areas or by infiltration into the
subsoil (Schueler, 1987). The vegetation traps organic and mineral particles that are then
incorporated into the soil, while the vegetation takes up any nutrients (CIRIA, 2000).
2.2.3 Promotion of SUDS in Scotland

The potential environmental effects of urban runoff were first emphasised in the US in the
1960s (Malmquist, 1986). Field studies were initiated by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and by some American universities. European studies began some years
later in Germany, Sweden and Norway. By the end of the 1970s the problem was also
recognised in Scotland, but it was not until the mid 1990s that action was taken to reduce

the potential impacts of urban runoff, and urban drainage BMPs were promoted (Conlin,
2000 and D’Arcy & Roesner, 1997).
The promotion of BMPs in Scotland commenced using external design criteria, these being
derived from the practice in countries with experience in their use. However, the designs
were not necessarily appropriate for the Scottish climate, soils or local drainage practices.
The issue was identified as a key research and promotion priority, and a guidance
document produced by the former Forth River Purification Board (FRPB) introducing
BMPs (FRPB, 1995). They also led to the production and promotion of the ‘Nature’s
Way’ video with the International Association of Water Quality (IAWQ, 1996). The
Scottish River Purification Boards merged into the Scottish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA) when it became operational in April 1996, and they adopted and
republished the guidance document (SEPA, 1996). The SUDS term and concept was in
use by early 1998. Several documents have since been produced by SEPA (1998a, 1998b,
1999a, 2000a) on BMPs and SUDS, and the SUDS concept has been promoted as part of a
strategy developed by SEPA (Macdonald et al, 2000). The Sustainable Urban Drainage
Scotland Working Party (SUDSWP) has guided the production of the recently launched
SUDS design manual (CIRIA, 2000) which was a milestone in the UK in setting out rules
for the selection and design of SUDS systems.
2.3 SUSTAINABILITY
Sustain: to continue w ith ou t lessening, to nourish, to
allow to flo u rish (Hart, 2001)
The name ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage System’ often incites queries over the use of the
word ‘sustainable’, predominantly the query “are SUDS really sustainable?” The answer
can rarely be a simple “yes” or “no” because debate over the meaning of ‘sustainability’
and ‘sustainable development’ is sure to follow, added to which there are many indicators
for measuring sustainability. The meaning taken for this thesis follows that which is
commonly used and acknowledged by the UK government and regulatory authorities, as
discussed in the following pages.
2.3.1 Historical Progression of Policy and Reports

Sustainability is now an important theme in policy making at national, European and

international levels. It is an international goal to slow down, prevent and try to repair some
of the pollution damage that occurs due to human activity. The notion of the necessity of
sustainable development can be traced back to the report of the Club of Rome, ‘Limits to
Growth’ (Meadows et al, 1972). The fundamental argument of this report is that
technological development and societal increase simply cannot continue as they have for
the last 200 or 300 years. Figure 2.12 shows the ‘Limits to Growth’ in graphic form (from
Mitcham, 1995). Exponential growth, such as population, food, CO2 emissions etc., will
either terminate in a catastrophe or level out into a logistic curve. The argument is that
“we are going to go over the cusp of catastrophe if we do not take conscious action to
create a curve of logistic accommodation to resource” (Mitcham, 1995).
Unfortunately the message was phrased in largely negative terms and tone, saying that
human beings have to sto p what they are doing and replace growth with a no-growth or
steady state economy. The shift from stressing what sh o u ld n ot be done to stressing what
sh ou ld be done occurred with the shift from a discussion of ‘limits to growth’ to
‘sustainable development’.
Figure 2.12 The 'Limits To Growth' graph (from Mitcham, 1995)
In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) presented the
report ‘Our Common Future’, frequently referred to as the Brundtland Report, in which the
necessity of sustainable development was made clear (WCED, 1987). At that time the
commonly-held view of environmentalists in developed countries was that pursuit of
economic growth was incompatible with a responsible policy towards the environment, but
the Brundtland report offered a viable alternative. This was vital because in developing
countries the increase of national wealth is a primary aim and any global environmental
policy that threatens growth would be seen as the rich countries ‘pulling up the ladder after
them’ (Butler & Davies, 2000). The phrase ‘sustainable development’ was coined with the
Brundtland report and the inclusion of the word ‘development’ was particularly significant
as it affirmed the right of a country to seek to develop but only in a way that does not
compromise opportunities for the future. The Brundtland report proposes, in effect, a
possible third option in the transformation of the exponential curve in Figure 2.12 -
sustainable growth that does not eventuate in catastrophe (Mitcham, 1995). The concept
gained wide spread popularity.
The UN Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 focused on implementation, and produced
the action plan for sustainability titled ‘Agenda 21’ (UN, 1992). The European
Commission developed its 5th Environmental Action Programme in response this. The UK
government published its national strategy in 1994, and in parallel to this the Local
Government Management Board published ‘Local Agenda 21 - A Framework for Local
Sustainability’ requiring Local Authorities to produce their own strategies. The 1995
Environment Act confirmed the UK Governments’ commitment to sustainability. The
concept of sustainable development provides the framework within which the Government
wishes to achieve economic growth, social progress, prudent use of natural resources and
effective protection of the environment. The Environment Agency and SEPA contribute
towards the attainment of the environmental dimension of the sustainability objective,
whilst being conscious of the need to integrate with other policy objectives (SEPA, 1999b).
Unfortunately OFWAT, the regulators of water and sewerage providers in the UK, has no
statutory duty to include sustainability (Ashley et al, 2001).
The UK sustainable development strategy, ‘A Better Quality of Life’, was launched in
May 1999 with the aim to ‘translate sustainable development into goals that everyone
could share ... to give social progress the same emphasis as economic and environmental
objectives ... turning theory into practice’ (DETR, 1999a). A commendable goal that the
Government seems keen to uphold, and that has been confirmed by the production of
annual reports to review progress by the country using defined indicators (DETR, 2001a).
2.3.2 Definitions
Lack of clarity over the words sustainability and sustainable development occurs because
they are ‘fuzzy buzzwords’ (Palmer et al, 1997 cited in Rijsberman, 2000) i.e. they are
terms that appear to encapsulate a discrete notion but which actually have multiple
interpretations depending on the interest, situation and intent of the particular group in
question. The essence of the problem has been captured by Schaller (1993): ‘as a

destination, sustainability is like truth and justice - concepts not readily captured in concise
definitions’ (Bell & Morse, 1999). Mitcham (1995) states that they are ‘ideals which, like
love or patriotism, point towards something necessary and even noble, but can also readily
become a cliche and be misused by ideologues’. Ideas about sustainability are destined to
be discussed over time and place, as different generations will have to deal with different
problems (Balkema, 1998). Furthermore, different cultures and local circumstances will
give a different perspective on these problems. For example in Western countries, people
may judge population growth as the major threat to sustainable development, while people
in developing countries may point out that over-consumption is one of the major issues to
deal with (Mitcham, 1995).
Sustainability has become a ‘plastic word’ (Porksen, 1989 cited in Mitcham, 1995). It can
mean almost anything. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles with ‘sustainable
development’ in their titles are published each year. This can often be form without
substance and word without significance. Most of the voluminous literature available on
sustainable development begins with an attempt to clarify the concept. However, this
remains a necessary and beneficial action, as often the same key definitions are quoted
which in turn consolidates and in effect publicises them.
The most widely used definition of sustainable development is from the Brundtland
Report:
Sustain able developm en t is developm en t th at m eets the n eeds o f the p re se n t w ith ou t
com prom isin g the a b ility o f fu tu re gen eration s to m eet th eir ow n needs. (WCED, 1987)
The report then immediately explains:
The c o n c e p t ... d o es im ply lim its - n o t absolu te lim its bu t lim itation s im p o se d by
the p re se n t sta te o f technology a n d so c ia l organ isation on en viron m en tal resou rces
a n d b y the a b ility o f the biosph ere to a b so rb the effects o f hum an activities. B ut
tech n ology a n d so c ia l organ isation can be both m an aged a n d im p ro ved to m ake
w a y f o r a new era o f econ om ic grow th (WCED, 1987)
Richard Tapper of World Wildlife Fund for Nature has stated:
Sustain able ra tes o f use o f resou rces m eans livin g o ff the in terest ra th er than
the b io lo g ica l a n d environm ental ca p ita l o f the E arth (Bywater, 1997)
Further reflection has shown that sustainable development involves the simultaneous
pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity (World Business
Council on Sustainable Development cited in Hart, 2001).

The distinction between sustainable development and sustainability is that the former is a
process and the latter a goal (Parkin, 2000). Sustainability is a quality, it is an objective
not a process. Sustainable development is the process, a path for human progress to reach
sustainability.
The objectives of sustainable development are broad and carefully selected indicators must
be used to assess whether these objectives are being achieved (DETR, 1999b). They are
essential to the monitoring and reporting of progress and trends. A limited but
comprehensive set of indicators is required, as too many may burden the users and confuse
the priorities, while too few may lead to an incomplete picture (Lundin, 2000). The
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has developed indicators
for the UK at national regional and local levels. They cover the three pillars of sustainable
development, namely social progress, economic growth and environmental protection,
including people’s everyday concerns like health, jobs, traffic, wildlife and economic
prosperity (DETR, 2001b). They have produced a set of fifteen key ‘headline’ indicators,
as shown in Table 2.1:
Change Change Change over Latest
since since last year data
1970 1990
Ecomomic Output 0 0 improved 2000
ECON
Investment No change 2000

O M IC
• $
Employment @ ® Improved 2000
Poverty 0 e Improved 2000
Education © 0 Improved 2000
Health ® No change 1997
SO CIA L
0
Housing © @ No new data 1996
Violent 0 0 deteriorated 1999/20
Crime Vehicle, burglary 0 0 Improved 1999/20
Climate change 0 0 Improved 2000
Air quality © Improved 2000
E N V IR O N M EN T A L
0
Road traffic 0 @ No change 2000
River water quality @ 0 Improved 1999
Wildlife (farmland birds) 0 0 Improved 1999
Land use © © No change 1998
Waste 0 0 No new data 1997/98
KEY
0 Significant change, in direction o f m eeting objective
© N o significant change
0 Significant change, in direction aw ay from m eeting objective
© Insufficient or no com parable data
Table 2.1 H eadline indicators (from D E T R , 2001b)

2.3.3 The Sustainability of SUDS
The CIRIA SUDS design manual (CIRIA, 2000) states that 4SUDS are more sustainable
than traditional drainage methods because they protect or enhance water quality, are
sympathetic to the environmental setting and the needs of the local community, provide a
habitat for wildlife in urban watercourses and encourage natural groundwater recharge
where appropriate’ . However, usage of the epithet ‘sustainable’ as applied to SUDS is as
yet unproven (Ashley et al, 2001). No studies have been undertaken to investigate the
sustainability in terms of detailed pressure-response-feedback loops. A ‘mini-case study’
is being undertaken for a new refuse vehicle depot in England, to suggest criteria and
indicators to assess the relative sustainability of installing SUDS compared with a
conventional piped system (Ashley et al, 2001).
Terms used in other countries include the American ‘urban drainage Best Management
Practices’, the Australian ‘water sensitive urban drainage’ (Argue, 2001), and the French
‘alternative techniques’ (Karpel, 2000). However, use of the word sustainable in SUDS
takes the perception of the function of such urban drainage further, and declares the
importance and multipurpose of stormwater management. It automatically envelopes it
under the wing of sustainable development and the triple bottom line o f environment,
society and economics to which it must aim. The word itself may be debated, but it is vital
not to lose sight of the fundamental root of what that word represents - a movement in
global culture to accept and embrace the concept that the Earth is not a limitless supplier o f
resources nor is it immune to human impacts. The promotion and use o f SUDS are one o f
the tools to successfully cany out Agenda 21, the action plan for sustainability, by
localising and reducing the problems - which must be more sustainable than allowing
diffuse pollution practices to continue. It is a step in the right direction.
2.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF PERVIOUS PAVING AND SWALES

This section provides a summary of previous research and developments carried out on
pervious paving and swales. The information here is grouped by country, where the soils,
climate, regulations, accepted practices etc. will be similar. The review does not give
more thought in detail to the other SUDS since this thesis is focused on only porous paving
and roadside swales.

2.4.1 Previous Studies of Pervious Paving
Pervious paving is the term used for both porous pavement construction (porous m acadam
or porou s block system ) and permeable paving (perm eable grass-concrete or perm eable
block system ), as described in section 2.2.2. Most previous research carried out has been
on porous macadam and permeable grass-concrete paving (Bond et al, 1999; Schueler,
1987; Fujita, 1994; Legret & Colandini, 1998; Pratt et al, 1989 & 1998; Hogland et al,
1990; Larson, 1990; OWML, 1986; Smith, 1984). Two laboratory studies have been
carried out using porous block systems, one in Germany (Dierkes et al, 1999) and another
in Australia (Rommel et al, 2001). The site used in the research reported in this thesis is
the first in situ porous block system to be monitored, and the site is described in section
4.1. The main benefit claimed for porous blocks against porous macadam is that when the
inevitable clogging occurs (Schueler, 1987; Novotny & Olem, 1994; Ellis, 1998), the
porous block system is easier and cheaper to unclog/ replace (Pratt & Horstead, 1987;
Pratt, 1989).
One of the first countries where pervious paving was widely utilised was the United States.
It was used in Japan soon after, and its application there is now very widespread (Pratt,
1997; Fujita, 1994). Pervious paving then began to be used in some European countries,
including Sweden, France and Germany, followed by the UK where trial sites were built
during the late 1980s (Pratt & Horstead, 1987; Pratt, 1989).
Pervious paving research is discussed for each country, with an overall summary of the
research results provided prior to the discussion on previous swales research.
United States
Porous asphalt and permeable grass-concrete have been researched in the US, but porous
block systems have not.
Smith (1984, cited in Pratt et al, 1994) monitored a perm eable grass-concrete car park and
a conventional asphalt car park in the City of Dayton, Ohio. Observations for 11 storms
showed that runoff volume from the permeable grass-concrete car park was 10% (mean
value) of the runoff from the asphalt car park. This compares with a value of 25% from
the results reported here. The permeable grass-concrete car park was also shown to modify
air temperatures. The asphalt surface was 1 - 3°C higher than the grass-concrete. The
radiometric temperature (indicative of the reflected heat felt by pedestrians) was 3 - 7°C

higher at the asphalt surface.
Day et al (1981, cited in Pratt, 1989) carried out laboratoiy studies on three patterns of
perm eable grass-concrete blocks. All three patterns achieved significant removal of Pb,
Zn and Cr, as shown in Table 2.2 on p.36. It was also found that phosphorous removal
was very variable, and that nitrate/nitrite were leached from the soil.
Schueler (1987) discusses the results of porou s asphalt studies carried out in three states:
Willow Grove, Pennsylvania (Gburek & Urban, 1980); Rockville, Maryland (MWCOG,
1983); and Prince William County, Virginia (OWML, 1986). These studies indicate that
60-90% of annual rainfall volume is diverted to groundwater with this type of construction.
This is slightly higher than under natural conditions, as vegetation is absent. Storm runoff
volume is significantly reduced at these sites, with a percentage runoff of 20-40%.
Pollutant removal was considered at the Maryland and Virginia sites, and are shown in
Table 2.2. Removal of solids was 85-95%, and trace metals (e.g. Zn and Pb) was almost
98%. In some cases there was an increased export of inorganic ions (e.g. Ca, Mg, K &
Na), probably from dissolution or leaching of asphalt or stone aggregate. However, the
levels were not sufficient to pose a threat to water quality.
Japan
The most concentrated application of pervious paving in the world has been in Tokyo
(Pratt, 1997). The main impetus for its use, and for the use of other forms of local
stormwater management in the city, was the need to reduce the peak flows in the urban
rivers. Other benefits have included raising the groundwater levels, reducing ground
settlement, conservation of the urban ecology, moderation of temperatures in the urban
districts by local evaporative cooling and the recoveiy of base flows in the alluvial rivers in
urban districts (Fujita, 1996).
All footpaths in Tokyo constructed since 1983 have used porou s asphalt. Fujita (1994)
states that even when clogged, the porous asphalt is still expected to allow a minimum of
1 Omm/hr of stormwater to infiltrate. Clogging usually occurs to depths of around 3cm
from the surface. A cleaning machine has been developed to prevent/ remedy clogging of
porous asphalt.
Porous concrete blocks are often used for road surfaces. Japan is the only country where
porous concrete blocks have been installed on public highways (Suda et al, 1988, cited in

Pratt 1989). Some of the porous blocks now incorporate incinerated sewage sludge or slag
of melted sewage sludge (Fujita, 1994), helping Tokyo to dispose of sewage sludge since
ocean dumping is not permitted and land is at a premium.
Fujita (1994) also notes that porous asphalt and porous concrete blocks have been found to
be easier to walk on by pedestrians because no puddles form, and the surface of the
pavement is not slippery nor ‘glittering’ .
Sweden
An experimental porou s asphalt site in Lund, called the ‘Unit Superstructure’ was studied
by Hogland et al (1987, cited in Pratt et al, 1989). Two snowmelt events were examined
for water quality changes and the results are shown in Table 2.2 on p.36. A reduction in
pollutant concentrations was noted for solids and metals between the snow on the surface
and the drain water. There were increases in nutrients and chlorides in the runoff, perhaps
due to previous agricultural practices or from the porous asphalt or crushed granite
beneath. The structure also showed discharge quantity benefits (Hogland et al, 1990 &
Larson, 1990). Peak flows were reduced by about 80% and discharge volume by 77-81%.
Excavation of the site after one year showed that significant amounts of pollutants had
accumulated in the structure, particularly in the geotextile layer along with much of the
fine particulate matter.
Backstrbm (1999) investigated a full scale porou s asphalt pavement in Lulea, northern
Sweden, to determine the performance during freezing, thawing and snowmelt conditions.
Results showed a reduction in meltwater runoff (50-60%), a reduction in excessive water
on the road surface during snowmelt, and groundwater supplies were recharged. The
porous pavement was more resistant to freezing than impermeable pavements, thawing was
more rapid, and there was no frost heave damage.
Runoff simulations in Molndal (Niemczynowicz et al, 1985 cited in Backstrom, 1999)

found that porous asphalt , when compared to the traditional separate pipe system, reduced
peak flows and total runoff volumes by 80% and 77-81% respectively.
France
Legret and Colandini (1998) studied an experimental porou s asphalt car park in the city of
Reze. The average percentage runoff was 3.3%. After 40 events (1991-1994) pollutant

removal efficiency was calculated and are shown in Table 2.2. Suspended solids, Pb, Zn
and Cd were all retained. A trench was dug after eight years to examine the distribution of
heavy metals within the site. Metallic pollutants were found to be retained mainly in the
porous asphalt (particularly Pb, which is mostly conveyed by suspended solids), and some
on the geotextile layer. Heavy metals in soluble form (Cu, Cd, Zn) were retained to a
lesser degree. There was no pollutant accumulation in the surrounding soil.
Measurements of pollutant retention in permeable pavements in Bordeaux showed that 50-

60% of Pb, Cd and Zn were retained in the construction (Balades et al, 1995, cited in
Backstrom, 1999).
Germany
A laboratory study of porous blocks has been carried out in Essen (Dierkes et al, 1999).
Test rigs were set up with four different sub-bases: crushed stone of basalt, sandstone, and
limestone; and gravel. 50 storms were simulated with a total of 4000mm of rain, the
equivalent of 5 years of rain in Germany. The pollutant retention results are shown in
Table 2.2. For all structures Pb and Cu were retained more effectively than Cd and Zn.
Basalt and gravel were more effective than the limestone and sandstone. Tests on the
structure showed most retention occurred in the block itself, particularly for Cd and Cu.
Dierkes summarised that use of a porous block structure such as the one tested posed no
danger of groundwater contamination.
Australia
A laboratory study was set up with Formpave porou s blocks to determine the rate of
decrease in permeability, what ‘lifespan’ can be expected, the effect of sweeping/
vacuuming on performance, and the water quality improvement (Rommel et al, 2001). A
test rig was set up with two test beds, one with and one without sweeping and vacuuming.
They were tested for an equivalent of 35 years. For cross-correlation, data on
permeability was also collected at a field installation before and after sweeping and
vacuuming. The study concluded that: clogging occurs in both the block itself and the
geotextile layer; that sweeping/ vacuuming would be recommended if it is from the
commencement o f service life; and that a gradual reduction in permeability would occur as
service life continues, with a reduction of perhaps 80% in 40 years. TSS was measured for
water quality improvement, and results showed barely any difference for swept or unswept.
Chapter 2 Review o f Current Knowledge 33

UK
The first research into permeable paving in the UK was undertaken by Pratt in 1986 with
the construction and instrumentation of a small permeable paved car park at Trent
Polytechnic, now Nottingham Trent University, (Pratt et al, 1989). Since that date a
number of laboratory studies have been completed both at Nottingham Trent University
and at Coventry University. The research has concentrated primarily on the variable flow
and water quality results from different sub-base stone-types, and also on the bio
degradation of hydrocarbons within permeable paving.
The experimental perm eable grass-concrete car park built at Nottingham Trent University
in 1986 consists of shaped concrete blocks which allow stormwater to percolate between
them, into the underlying sub-structure contained within an impermeable membrane (Pratt,
1989; Pratt & Horstead, 1987; Pratt et al, 1995). The car park was divided into four
separate reservoirs, each with a different sub-base stone-type (gravel, blast furnace slag,
granite and limestone) from which the discharges were monitored for flowrates and water
quality. The four reservoirs discharged an average of 37%, 34%, 47% and 45% of rainfall
totals, respectively (Pratt et al, 1995). Rainfall events of up to 5mm produced no runoff.
Effluent discharge was always 25-50% into the rainfall duration, unlike the almost
immediate response of conventional tarmac surfaces.
The water quality of the outflow varied slightly for each sub-base stone-type, and variation
between storm events was slight (Pratt et al, 1995). It was noted that water quality
parameters became stable approximately six months after construction, by which time
surface contaminants on the sub-base stone have been washed out of the construction. The
only extreme values were for conductivity in effluent from the blast furnace slag, which
were approximately 3 to 4 times the values for the other stone types. Periodical samples
were analysed for hydrocarbons, and found to be at levels below detection. Sediment and
sediment-associated pollutants were trapped in the upper layers of the pavement above the
sub-base stone, yet it was estimated (Pratt et al, 1995) that reconstruction to restore the
permeable surface may not be necessary for 15 to 20 years. For one event in August 1987,
a discharge of 0.036 1/s produced a maximum sediment load of only 0.432 mg/s, which is
an order of magnitude less than the typical urban runoff load (Waller & Hart, 1985;
Schueler & Claytor, 1997; Novotny & Olem, 1994; ASCE, 1992).
Laboratory studies of hydrocarbons in pervious paving commenced in 1993 with a study of

the bio-degradation of hydrocarbons by microbial populations within the structure (Pratt

et al, 1996). The research has shown that the permeable pavement has performed as an
effective in situ aerobic bio-reactor, reducing mineral oil contamination in the effluent to
1.3% of the quantity applied (Bond et al, 1999). Nutrient supply to the microbial
population is the only limiting factor and must be available in sufficient concentration.
However, care must be taken to ensure high levels do not occur in the effluent as this may
cause eutrophication in the receiving waters (Pratt et al, 1998).
Chronologically the next research carried out in the UK was that reported in this thesis, at a
Formpave porous block car park in Edinburgh (NATS building). Values from this
research are shown in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 for comparison.
Schluter (Schliiter & Jefferies, 2001) monitored the outflow from another Formpave
porou s block car park in Edinburgh (Royal Bank of Scotland [RBS] headquarters). The
study was subsequent and complimentary to this research, although the site had a sealed
sub-base unlike the site reported here, and did not include monitoring a comparable
traditional system. Results showed an initial runoff loss (IRL) of 2.3mm, with a mean
percentage outflow of 46.5%. Lag times of 45 minutes for medium and 145 minutes for
small events were observed. Mean pollutant concentrations are shown in Table 2.2.
Physical and chemical parameters were of an acceptable level, most heavy metals
concentrations were within water quality standards for drinking water, and hydrocarbon
concentrations were below detection limit except when minor oil spillages had been
observed onsite.
Summary of Results from Pervious Paving Research

A summary of the results from the studies discussed is shown in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3,
and includes results from this research for comparison. Table 2.2 shows water quality
results in three formats: percent reduction of pollutant loads; percent reduction of pollutant
concentrations; and the range of mean concentrations. A plus sign (+) indicates an
increase in pollutant. The results show that all pollutant loads were reduced, except
chloride and chromium from this research. Concentrations of TSS and metals were all
reduced, whilst other physical and chemical parameters were sometimes increased at the
pervious site. The range of mean concentrations for metals at the porous asphalt site in
Lund, Sweden were significantly higher than those at the porous block site in Edinburgh
(Schluter) and this research. This may because the Lund site had snowmelt, which can
have different concentrations to normal runoff.

The hydrological results in Table 2.3 show Benefit Factor, percent runoff, peak flow
reduction and lag times. The benefit factor is explained in section 3.7, a high value
indicating the pervious system is producing significantly less outflow than a traditional
drainage system. The percent runoff values were all below 50%, and both peak flow
reductions were significant. The lag time from Schliiters porous block site is slightly less
than from this research, most likely because of the sealed sub-base.
LOAD CONCENTRATION Range of mean

% Reductions % Reductions concentrations
UK (Edinburgh, RBS)
France (Reze) Legret
US (Virginia) Day et
US (Virginia) Day et
Hogland et al (1987)
Schlliter et al (2001)
Balad^s et al (1995)
Dierkes et al (1999)
France (Bordeaux)
UK This research
UK This research
UK This research
Germany (Essen)
Shcueler (1987)
Shcueler (1987)
Sweden (Lund)
Sweden (Lund)
US (Maryland)
US (Virginia)
et al (1998)
Determinand
al (1981)
al (1981)
Unit
GC PA PA PA PA PB | GC PA PB PB PB PA PB
pH 8-8.1 7.5 7.6-8.3
Cond pS/c
m
8
5
+234-
+556
+630- 447-553
+820 361-462 210-497
Cl mg I +21- +398 20-24.8 17-60 3-57.6
/1 + 167
+650
TSS mg /1 95 85 59 53.2 1 95 32 6-23.2 18-38 15-24
+52- 0 .0 3 -
NH N mg 4 /1 73.2 +205 32.6 0.03-0.11 0.35-1.22 1.13
- 0 .0 5 -
phos mg 47.8 +157 0.03-0.14
0
/1
0.65
Tot.
phos. mg /1 65 65 71 - +18
0 .1 2 -
Cd Pg/1 77 50-60 63.7 1 0-33 74-98 4 <0.068 0.3-30 5.33
0 .9 3 -
Pb Pg/1 94-99 98 84 50-60 87.3 92-94 40-50 89-98 66 1.8 20-30 24.3
3 .7 6 -
Cu Pg/1 82.3 4 2 -+ 3 2 89-96 25.5 5.2 220-330 23.07
3 .8 5 -
Cr Pg/1 45-94 +155 26-80 57-96 +580 2.2 20-32 8.73
0 .9 5 -
Ni Pg/1 85.7 63 1.7 8.69
Zn Pg/1 90-97 99 73 50-60 75.9 77-93 17-62 72-98 42.3 22.2 220-250 1 7 -6 7
AI Pg/1 87-91
Hyd.- mg 69.4 0.1-1.97 0 .1 5 -
carbs /1
1.21
+=
Notes increase, 2events,
2 events, snowmelt
snowmel
KEY for Tables 2.2 & 2.3
GC = permeable grass concrete
PA = porous asphalt
PB = porous blocks
Table 2.2 Summary of water quality results from previous pervious paving research

HYDROLOGICAL RESULTS
Maryland & Virginia)
Niemczynowicz et al,
France (Reze) Legret

Schlttter etal (2001)

Sweden (Mdlndal)
US (Pennsylvania,
BdckstrOm (1999)
UK This research
UK (Nottingham)
Pratt et al (1995)
UK (Edinburgh)
Schueler (1987)
Sweden (Lule&)
Sweden (Lund)
Smith (1984)
etal(1998)
US (Ohio)
(1985)
GC PA PA PA PA PA GC PB PB
Benefit Factor
(%) * 90 77-81 75
% runoff 20-40 19-23 40-50 3.3 34-47 46.5 2 2 .2
Peak flow
reduction (%) 80 80 76.8
Lag time (mins) 45 (medium
events) 180
145 (small)
Notes snowmelt snowmelt snowmelt sealed sub-base geotextile
layer
* = see section 3.7 for description
Table 2.3 summary of hydrological results from previous pervious paving research
2.4.2 Previous Studies of Swales

Swales are now common in Scotland, and are featured in 10% of SUDS sites in Scotland
(Wild et al, 2002). Until the Forth River Purification Board proposed their use in 1995
(FRPB, 1995), there was very little information about or use of swales in Scotland.
Immediately following their introduction, many swales were in effect ‘added on’ to
drainage systems as afterthoughts, perhaps due to the transitional phase when source
controls were required by SEPA but the concept of the development had already been set
(Jefferies, 1998). They are now an integral part of the drainage design process. Available
information has now increased (CIRIA, 2000; Jefferies, 2000; SEPA, 1998a), yet there has
been no reliable data on the performance of swales installed in Scotland.
Swales of varying designs have been installed in most countries where SUDS are used.
They are very commonly used in the US (Buchan, 1994), and design guides have been
available there for several years (Petersen et al, 1993). Performance data are available
from the US, but results are highly variable depending on the location and the design used.
A range of pollutant removal efficiencies are shown in Table 2.4 (loads) and Table 2.5
(concentrations), with results from this research included for comparison. Some reports
which found a negative removal efficiency or no statistical difference have stated ‘NEG’ or

Pb
Zn
Cd
Cu
Determinand Determinand
TSS
Notes
Tot. N
Pb
Zn
Cu
TSS
Tot. N
Tot. Phos.
Tot. Phos.
Maryland (Yu in Claytor &
66
68
Texas (ASCE, 1999)
70
Schueler, 1996)
Ohio (ASCE, 1999) Virginia (OWML in
14 43
14 35
46
16 69
+84 +5
+= +=
inc. inc.
KEY for Table 2.4 & 2.5
Claytor & Schueler, 1996)
Florida (Yousef in Claytor &
8
Maryland (OWML in
NSD = no statistical difference
29
27
13
14
DC
Notes DC DC DC
74 NEG NEG
NEG NEG
NEG NEG
NEG NEG
Schueler, 1996) NEG NEG Claytor & Schueler, 1996)
New Hampshire (Oakland in Maryland (OWML in
48
37
50
57
DC
NSD’ and not recorded a value.
Claytor & Schueler, 1996) Claytor & Schueler, 1996)

Virginia (Dorman in
NEG = negative removal efficiency reported

Texas (Welbom in Claytor
NEG 41
DC
NSD
NSD
NSD
NEG NEG
1996) Claytor & Schueler, 1996)
Maryland (Dorman in
12
Ontario (Pitt in Claytor &
DC DC DC
DC
NSD NSD
Schueler, 1996) Claytor & Schueler, 1996)
Florida (Dorman in Claytor
NEG 49 9 81
33 48 55 81
28 14 65
31 65 NEG 98
Washington (Metro in
18
NSD 73
NSD 46
29
NSD 67
Claytor & Schueler, 1996) & Schueler, 1996)
Florida (Harper in Claytor
83
90
89
96
84
87
Sweden (Backstrom, 2001)
CONCENTRATION % Reductions
DC = Drainage channel i.e. no significant infiltration or attenuation & Schueler, 1996)
LOAD % Reductions
Florida (Harper in Claytor

81
69
56
40
50
17
UK This research (Emmock & Schueler, 1996)
33 NSD NSD 83 79-98 71.7
Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge

Woods)
Florida (Kercher in Claytor
99
99
99
99
99
UK This research (West & Schueler, 1996)
43
Table 2.4 Summary of water quality results from previous swale research (loads)
+85
+14
+423
Grange)
Washington (Wang in
60
70
80
80
Clayror 1996)
Table 2.5 summary of water quality results from previous swale research (concentrations)
US National Pollutant
28
32
35
38
14
14
Removal Database (Brown

& Schueler, 1997)
UK This research
81
38
62
30.3
(West Grange)
38
Many of the results shown in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 are from drainage channels (‘DC’)
which are grassed channels with no significant infiltration or attenuation due to a
combination of soil type and slope. The generally poor performance of these is due to the
fact that they do not act as an effective filter (Claytor & Schueler, 1996). The infiltration
pathway is of vital importance in pollutant removal as found by Yousef et al (1985), whose
studies concluded that the total mass removal was roughly proportional to the mass of the
runoff that fully infiltrated through the bottom of the channel.
Backstrom (2001) studied particle trapping efficiency in swales both in the laboratory and
field measurements, and concluded that the efficiency was influenced by the status of the
vegetation, the infiltration rate and the swale length. Schueler (1987) confirms this by
citing three field monitoring examples. Kercher et al (1983) and Yousef et al (1985) report
moderate to high removal of particulate pollutant in low gradient, densely vegetated swales
in Florida. Oakland (1983) found low to moderate removal of particulate pollutants and
negligible removal of soluble pollutants in a low gradient swale underlain by relatively
impermeable soils in New Hampshire. Schueler (1987) comments that mediocre
performance of swales may be due to soil compaction, high slopes and short grass height.
Braune & Wood (1998) compiled a matrix giving the effectiveness of various BMPs in
South Africa, taking into account several considerations including water quality, quantity,
applicability, design robustness etc. Three categories of BMPs were proposed, and swales
came out in the bottom category as only ‘moderately effective’, with porous pavements
judged as being ‘effective’ and detention ponds ‘very effective’.
Performance data regarding flow attenuation and reduction are limited. Anderson (1982,
cited in Claytor & Schueler, 1996) and Yu et al (1992, cited in Claytor & Schueler, 1996)
both observed that swales seldom produced measurable runoff during storms, although
adjacent curb and gutter systems did.
The performance data which are available are primarily from the US, and are highly
variable. It would appear that gradient, soil type, grass coverage and grass type are
amongst the factors which most influence the performance. Whilst soil types and climate
are both different in Scotland to the US, the clay soils and terrain of Maryland are much
like that of lowland Scotland (Campbell, 1997). Consequently, it is contended that it is
valid to compare results from this research with the performance data available for swales
in Maryland.

2.5 SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE
In response to the urban runoff problem, the SUDS concept has been promoted to enable
the restoration of poor watercourses and prevent further deterioration. The SUDS
hierarchy of objectives includes prevention, source control and regional control structures.
Porous paving and swales are considered in this report, which are both source control
structures. The urban runoff problem and SUDS concept have been discussed in this
chapter, with an overview of SUDS promotion in Scotland. A discussion of the
sustainability word and concept is presented, along with consideration of whether SUDS
can strictly be defined as sustainable. Whether or not they can, they are certainly a step in
the right direction and one of the tools available to successfully carry out Agenda 21. A
review of previous research into pervious paving and swales has also been presented to
confirm the originality of this work and provide a platform for this new research. The
review shows varying results for the research throughout the world. This research is the
first to provide results for porous block systems and swales in the UK and also the first
direct comparison between SUDS and traditional systems in situ. This chapter has
provided a background for the research discussed in this report. The next two chapters
look at the research methodology and the field sites studied, before results are presented,
analysed, discussed and concluded on.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A fundamental part of this research was a monitoring programme of SUDS, particularly a
porous paving system and two swales. Outlined in this chapter is the strategy for site
selection, approach to fieldwork, information on the equipment used, instrumentation
details, the strategy for determinand analysis, information on the determinands used in the
field studies, and a description of ‘Benefit Factor’ which is a term introduced in this
research as no comparable terminology has yet been used elsewhere.
The selection criteria for the sites monitored provides an insight to the inherent strengths
and weaknesses to be encountered in the results. Four sites were selected and monitored,
of which the results of three are presented in this thesis. The approach to the fieldwork
was slightly different for the porous paving and swale sites, and is outlined to facilitate a
clearer understanding of the results.
A brief outline of the equipment used is provided as a reference source for subsequent
chapters. The name used throughout the thesis to refer to that particular piece of
equipment is in bold italic type. This section is divided into two sections relating to
rainfall & flow, and water quality. Calibration and accuracy of equipment is overviewed,
along with the procedure used for dealing with spurious data, and the discussion also
indicates why and when some periods of data were lost.
The strategy for determinand analysis details information on the water quality monitoring.
This shows the effect on results and why the water quality data are periodic. The water
quality monitoring required more collaboration and preparation than that needed for flow
and rainfall monitoring.
The water quality determinands recorded and analysed are discussed to clarify their
relevance and importance, and why they were selected for monitoring. A description of
each determinand is given with some information on typical/ common sources, and
potential effects on a receiving watercourse.
The final topic in this chapter is a discussion of ‘Benefit Factor’. This term has been
developed during this research as an indicator of the performance advantage of SUDS, as
no comparable terminology has yet been used elsewhere. Details of this term are
introduced in this chapter and used as one of the key parameters throughout the thesis.
Chapter 3 Research M ethodology 41

3.1 STRATEGY FOR SITE SELECTION
Four SUDS sites were selected and monitored in two phases:
■ Stenton Pond, Glenrothes, Fife
■ National Air Traffic Services (NATS) porous car park, Corstorphine,
Edinburgh
■ Emmock Woods swale, Dundee
■ West Grange swale, Monifeith, Dundee
Phase 1 ran from April 1998 until March 1999. During this phase Stenton Pond and NATS
porous car park were monitored. Further monitoring was carried out at NATS between
February and August 2000. There were very few sites suitable for monitoring at the time
these sites were selected. From the scant selection of systems that had been installed by
that time, they had to be functioning and within a feasible distance of Dundee to carry out
monitoring. Although Stenton Pond was monitored, the results are not presented in this
thesis because the scope of the research changed as the relative importance of the three
other sites became apparent. Results from Stenton Pond have been presented previously
(Macdonald et al, 1999; Macdonald & Jefferies, 2000), and the data is being used to assist
in other projects.
Phase 2 ran from June 1999 until September 2000. During this phase the swales at
Emmock Woods and West Grange were monitored and flow monitoring at Emmock had
already been carried out during February and March 1999 (Spitzer, 1999). When planning
phase 2 there was an increased number of sites available. The two swale sites were
selected because they were both in Dundee, which made the logistics of monitoring easier,
and monitoring two swales of different design but in close proximity made comparison
more relevant.
3.2 APPROACH TO FIELDWORK

To determine the effectiveness of the monitored SUD systems in attenuating flow and
improving water quality, the overall hydrologic process occurring was considered as
shown simplistically in Figure 3.1. The effectiveness of the SUD system is determined by
monitoring the surface and SUD runoff. Thus it was necessary to monitor what was
entering and exiting the system to determine the effectiveness of that system, and this was
done in slightly different ways for the porous paving site and the swale sites.
Figure 3.1 Elem ents to consider in m onitoring for effectiveness
At the porous paving site it was not possible to monitor what was ‘entering’ the system, as
the pollutants would be on the surface and the rain falling directly onto it. The adjacent
tarmac car park was therefore monitored as a comparison. Both car parks would receive
similar atmospheric deposition, leaf litter, pollutants from cars etc. and the same rainfall.
Comparing the exit water (see section 4.1.1) from the porous car park to the runoff from
the tarmac therefore enabled quantification of the effectiveness of the porous system.
At the swale sites the runoff entering the swale was road runoff, therefore road runoff from
an area of the catchment adjacent to the swale was monitored. This was compared to any
runoff exiting the swale to determine how effective the swale was in attenuating flow and
improving water quality.
3.3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT

Several pieces of equipment were used for the site monitoring, and are referred to often
throughout the chapters of this thesis. A brief description of each piece of equipment is
given here, and the name by which it is referred to is given in bold italic for easy reference.
3.3.1 Rainfall and Flow Equipment

R a in g a u g e
Tipping bucket recording raingauges which automatically registered the intensity of

rainfall were used. The model used, see Plate 3.1a, had a large metal case with a funnel
shaped catchment basin to direct rainfall into a tipping bucket. The tipping bucket
consisted of two wedge shaped receivers with a magnet operating a reed switch. The
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 43
receiver would fill after 0.2mm rain, then tip and operate the reed switch. A logger
recorded the number of tips in two minute intervals.
Plate 3.1b shows the wedge shaped receivers and logger.
Plate 3.1 Raingauge
Flow Monitoring T ippin g B u ck et

These work on the same principle as the raingauge, but are much larger with a receiver
volume of approximately 1 litre. Images are shown in Plates 1 to 3 in Appendix 3.1. The
tipping buckets used were manufactured at the University of Abertay Dundee.
Isodaq! Vegason Ultrasonic Level Measuring Device
The Isodaq logger unit is attached to the Vegason (previously Milltronics) ultrasonic level
measuring device. Held in place above a body of water, the Vegason probe emits an
ultrasonic beam downwards and records the time taken for this beam to be bounced back to
the probe, thus recording how close the surface of the water is to the probe. The probe
measures the value in mA, which the Isodaq logger records and converts into a water
depth.
3.3.2 Water Quality Equipment

E P IC automatic sampler
The EPIC automatic sampler, as shown in Plate 3.2, consists of a base with bottles, and a
top with battery, pump, control panel etc. The sampler collects water samples through a
length of hose at specified time intervals. A rotor arm moves across the bottles and
deposits each sample in the correct bottle. The samples are then taken to a laboratory for
analysis (see section 3.5, and a list of the determinands in section 3.6.1). The sampler can
be set to sample at a specified time, or be triggered from an external source e.g. when
runoff commences and starts the tipping bucket.
Plate 3.2 EPIC autom atic sam pler Plate 3.3 Solom at w ater quality sonde
S o lo m a t water quality sonde
The sonde consists of six probes at the end of a long cylindrical body, as shown in Plate
3.3. There is one probe each for pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity and ammonium. The probes must be kept moist at all times, and is therefore
located in a permanent body of water. The sonde is placed on site to continually record
water quality at specified time intervals. These readings are stored in a logger and
downloaded to a PC.
3.4 CALIBRATION AND ACCURACY OF EQUIPMENT

The calibration and accuracy of each piece of equipment is discussed here, along with
procedures for dealing with spurious data. The discussion also indicates why and when
some periods of data were lost. Data from all equipment was downloaded using specific
software and exported to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for analysis. All equipment was
turned off during the Millenium New Year period.
Raingauge
The raingauge was used with the manufacturer’s calibration and installed as per guidelines
i.e. in an open level space away from overhanging trees/ buildings that might affect
rainfall. It was also desirable to site it away from possible vandalism or accidental
damage. An open roof space was used for the NATS and West Grange sites. For the
Emmock Woods site the raingauge was located in a spacious garden, however the cable to
the logger unit was severed accidentally during lawn mowing and data was lost (June
2000).
The raingauge logger has long life internal batteries, therefore data was never lost due to
battery failure. However data was lost at Emmock Woods in February 2000 when a
software failure occurred during downloading.
Tipping Bucket
Each tipping bucket had a slightly different nominal tip volume (0.7 - 1.1 litres). It was
realised also that the effective tip volume changed as the flow increased, so calibration was
carried out for each tipping bucket in the UAD laboratories. The method and results of this
are shown in Appendix 3.1, and a summary of the results is shown in Table 3.1. The
calibration provided an equation for each tipping bucket to enable calculation of the runoff
rate depending on tip rate.
Site Range Tip volume (1/tip) Runoff rate (mm/h)
calculation
up to 5.4 1 = tips (in 2 min interval) * 0.068
Emmock tips/min Equation 1
Woods swale 5.4 —>28 tips/min = 0.0097*tips/min + 1.0086 = [tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip]
Equation 2 / 14.67
Equation 3
Emmock = 1.09504 - [0.000139* tips/min] = [tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip]
Woods road up to 32 tips/min + [0.00024* [tips/min* tips/min]] / 8.33
Equation 4 Equation 5
= 0.8+ [0.000044* tips/min]
West Grange up to 54 tips/min [0.000159* [tips/min * tips/min]] / 14.83 + = [tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip]
swale Equation 6 Equation 7
West Grange up to 16 tips/min 0.7 = tips (in 2 min interval) * 0.42
road Equation 8
= 0.9 - [0.00107* tips/min] + = [tips (in 2 min interval) * I/tip]
NATS tarmac up to 31 tips/min [0.000395 * [tips/min * tips/min]] /14.73
Equation 9 Equation 10
Table 3.1 Equations for calculating runoff rate from tipping buckets (detailed in Appendix 3.1)
Each tipping bucket at Emmock Woods and West Grange was positioned in a plastic
container (see Plates 4 & 7 in Appendix 4.1) to direct the runoff to the water quality
equipment. The outlet pipe on the plastic containers was small enough to restrict extreme
flows, which would result in the container filling up and flooding the tipping bucket. The

only site which this affected was West Grange swale, which is discussed in Appendix 3.1.
Caution was exercised with the data from NATS tarmac tipping bucket as the maximum tip
rate recorded on site was above that obtainable in the lab. This is also discussed in
Appendix 3.1.
Periods of data were lost at times due to malfunctions. At NATS the tipping bucket for the
tarmac car park would sometimes slip and the bucket would jam against the side of the
gully. At Emmock Woods both tipping buckets had repeated problems with seizing due to
excessive silt on site. Software problems also resulted in periodic data loss at Emmock
Woods and West Grange between July and November 1999.
A tipping bucket was installed in the soakaway manhole at NATS porous car park,
however data from this was never used. Due to the size of the manhole, the position of the
tipping bucket meant it became drowned when the manhole was only half full. This
resulted in data which was only relevant for the start of the event. The tipping bucket
would be under water for long periods of time, which damaged the mechanism and
reduced reliability. Ultimately the tipping bucket was kept on site purely to activate the
trigger switch for the EPIC.
Isodaq/ Vegason Level Measuring Device

The Isodaq logger with linked Vegason level measuring device was calibrated on site
during installation, and regular checks were carried out to ensure the correct depths were
recorded. Values for manhole depth were required with current, maximum and minimum
water levels so the Isodaq could calculate a water depth from the voltage readings. The
Vegason had to be set a minimum distance from the maximum water level to ensure
accurate readings.
Occasionally data was lost when the logger was not downloaded soon enough, as once the
logger memory was full it would rewrite over the earlier logged data. The batteries were
replaced approximately monthly, when necessary. Some data loss occurred when battery
power became too low and readings wandered.
At NATS the Isodaq/ Vegason performed very reliably. Occasionally a small item would
float on the surface of the water just under the ultrasonic beam from the probe, resulting in
an odd value which would be edited in Excel.

At Emmock and West Grange the Isodaq/ Vegason did not perform so well. At Emmock
the Vegason probe was located in a vertical pipe, and at West Grange it was secured into a
hole in the false floor in the manhole. The calibration was never satisfactorily accurate,
and there seemed to be significant interference and wandering. However, data was
sufficient to determine an approximate exfiltration rate from the manhole.
EPIC Sampler
The EPIC settings must be adjusted to ensure the required quantity of sample is deposited
in the bottles, and that a suitable programme is entered. The programme can be adjusted
for many variables including the number of samples to be deposited in each bottle, the time
interval, and whether it starts at a specific time or is triggered. Problems with the EPIC
included: battery failure; blockage of the mechanism which measures the amount of
sample per bottle; the sample hose not being in the body of water being sampled; the
sample hose blocking; pump failure; and the rotor arm becoming detached.
At all sites the EPIC was triggered externally when runoff commenced. This was done via
a switch located on the tipping bucket under one of the receivers. Sometimes the switch or
circuit would fail, usually due to moisture.
More information on the EPIC sampling is given in section 3.5.
Solomat Sondes
The sondes required calibration approximately every two weeks. This was not realised at
the start of their use, and consequently periods of data for some deteiminands were
considered unusable. Calibration was a time consuming process carried out in UAD
laboratories. After approximately one year of use, the data from some of the probes was
unusable because the probes required to be replaced. This was done and data collection
resumed.
Duration of the battery packs varied depending on the season/ weather. Cold and damp
significantly shortened the duration, which resulted in some data loss. At the NATS
tarmac car park the sonde was located in a gully pot (see section 4.1.2). Due to the limited
space there was no room for a battery pack so standard alkaline batteries were used in the
logger unit, which would last for only one or days during cold weather. This resulted in
only short consecutive periods for data collection at the tarmac car park, and several
rainfall events were missed.
The probes required to be kept moist at all times, and the sonde was located in a permanent
body of water, as detailed for each site in Chapter 4. The resultant data shows the water
quality of the stagnant water at first, and then the change of water quality as runoff
commenced.
3.5 STRATEGY FOR DETERMINAND ANALYSIS

Water quality monitoring was carried out in periods for each site, not continuously as for
the flow monitoring. The reasons for this are discussed below. This periodic data
collection had an effect on the overall quality of the data because there is a lack of data
continuity and some sites have more results from one season than another.
Limitations in the amount of equipment available influenced the strategy for water quality
sampling. Two Solomats were available for most of the data collection period, and an
additional two were purchased later. EPICs were also in short supply. The EPICs and
Solomats were time consuming to maintain and it was practical only to install at one site at
a time, although for some short periods they were installed at both swale sites.
The samples obtained from the EPICs were analysed at the SEPA laboratories in
Riccarton. Due to the number of other samples the laboratory received, a limit of one set
of samples from one site was put on the number of samples that could be analysed every
week from this research. This meant that whilst several rainfall events may have occured
in one week, samples from only one event could be analysed. In the latter part of the
research, UAD laboratories were occasionally able to analyse some samples for limited
determinands, but the preferred option was to use SEPA laboratories whenever possible.
Samples taken to SEPA laboratories were analysed for determinands from one of three
suites, as listed in section 3.6. The EPIC sample bottles required different preparation
depending on which suite was to be selected. This meant that for one event, only one suite
of determinands could be analysed for.
3.6 DETERMINANDS
Several determinands were recorded and analysed using the EPICs and Solomats, and are

listed below. This section explains why those determinands were selected, and a
description of each determinand follows.
3.6.1 Selection of Determinands

The determinands recorded and analysed were selected for a number of reasons. Six
probes were chosen for the Solomats from a limited selection, balancing cost with
relevance. The EPIC samples taken to SEPA laboratories for analysis could be analysed in
one of three categories - sanitary (physical and chemical parameters), metals or
hydrocarbons. The determinands most commonly used were selected with SEPAs advice.
The determinands selected are listed in Table 3.2.
Solomat EPIC
Temperature PH Hydrocarbons
PH Electrical conductivity (EC) Cadmium (Cd)
Conductivity Total suspended solids (TSS) Lead (Pb)
turbidity Biochemical oxygen demand Copper (Cu)
(BOD)
ammonium Ammoniacal nitrogen (AmmN) Chromium (Cr)
Dissolved oxygen (DO) Ortho-phosphate (o-phos) Nickel (N i)
Chloride (Cl) Zinc (Zn)
Table 3.2 Solomat & EPIC determinands
3.6.2 Information on Determinands

Information on each determinand is provided in this section. For reference, both the
typical concentrations expected to be found in urban runoff and the consent/ water quality
standards from a variety of sources in different countries are detailed in Appendix 3.2.
Temperature
This is a general parameter which gives an indication of the state of the runoff. It will vaiy
with seasons and time of day. Temperature can alter the density and viscosity of the runoff
which could influence the settleability of solids (Urbonas, 1994). Water holds less oxygen
as it gets warmer and is more susceptible to oxygen demanding pollutants (ASCE, 1992).
Thermal pollution is usually limited to industrial discharges where large volumes of water
are discharged at a significantly different temperature to the receiving watercourse. Less
dramatic changes in runoff can still have an effect, for example during summertime, where

a rise of just a few degrees Celsius can reduce or eliminate sensitive stream insects and fish
species (Schueler, 1987). The rise in temperature can occur as the urban landscape heats
up and imparts this heat to runoff passing over it.
pH
Considered a general parameter to indicate the state of the runoff. It is a way of expressing
the hydrogen-ion activity (Sawyer et al, 1994). pH affects the solubility and toxicity of
metals and other constituents (Urbonas, 1994). Increases in pH decrease the toxicity of
metals (Makepeace et al, 1995). The pH of neutral changes with temperature, being 7.5 at
0°C and 6.5 at 60°C (Sawyer et al, 1994). An acceptable pH range in rivers is
approximately 6-9 (SEPA, 2000c). Urban runoff is generally slightly acidic due to
pollution.
Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Conductivity indicates the ionic activity in the water (Urbonas, 1994) because ions carry
electrical current. An increase in conductivity may be linked to an increase in salts (e.g.
from application of salt to roads in winter) or Total Dissolved Solids. pH and temperature
affect EC.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

DO is essential in watercourses for aquatic organisms. In addition, as DO levels fall
undesirable odours, tastes and colours reduce the acceptability of the water as a domestic
supply and reduce its attractiveness for recreational uses (Masters, 1991). A guideline of
greater than 70% DO is given by the EC for surface water (Gray, 1999). DO fluctuates on
a daily basis in dry weather flow, and will drop during a storm event. It may take several
days to return to the dry weather flow pattern (Makepeace et al, 1995). The main sources
of DO deficiency are the decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms, by the
chemical oxidation of some inorganic material (ASCE, 1992). If oxygen levels drop
significantly then anaerobic processes will occur that produce potentially toxic hydrogen
sulphide, methane and ammonia. The degree of potential DO depletion is measured by the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) test. DO is reduced with an increase in temperature
and also in saline water.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
BOD is the amount of oxygen required by microorganisms to biologically degrade the
organic matter in water (Sawyer et al, 1994). A high BOD level will result in oxygen
depletion. The BOD test involves the measurement of oxygen consumed by living
organisms while utilising the organic matter, and typically a 5 day incubation period is
used as a reasonably large percentage of the total BOD is exerted in that time (Sawyer et
al, 1994). There is a certain level of unreliability for using the BOD test to measure the
oxygen demand of urban runoff, since trace metals may inhibit bacterial growth and thus
interfere with the BOD test (Schueler, 1987). An alternative is the simpler chemical
oxygen demand (COD) test which measures all the oxidizable matter present in urban
runoff. This is also slightly unreliable though as it includes some organic matter that does
not ordinarily contribute to oxygen demand, and is only weakly correlated with BOD
levels (Schueler, 1987). BOD levels will be typically higher in combined sewer overflow
(CSO) discharges than in stormwater runoff (Hvitved-Jacobsen, 1985), although at times
BOD levels in stormwater can approach that of weak, untreated wastewater (Makepeace et
al, 1995).
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Turbidity

Solids in water consist of suspended, dissolved, volatile and fixed matter. In potable
waters most of the matter is in dissolved form and consists mainly of inorganic salts, small
amounts of organic matter and dissolved gases. Suspended matter is undissolved and the
quantity is determined by filtering the water through a glass-fiber filter (Sawyer et al,
1994). Volatile solids are the organic portion, determined by combustion. Fixed solids are
the remaining inorganic substances.
Suspended solids can come from a variety of sources in urban areas, and potential effects
on receiving watercourses include reduced light penetration, interference with
photosynthesis, clogging of gills and filter systems in aquatic organisms and impaired
recreational use. Additional impacts result after sediment is deposited in slower moving
receiving waters, such as smothering of the benthic community, changes in the
composition of the bottom substrate and dredging (Schueler, 1987). Sediment is also an
efficient carrier of toxicants and trace metals, which can be remobilised after deposition.
Turbidity is related to suspended solids, but it is also related to suspended organisms
(Makepeace et al, 1995). It is an expression of the optical property of a liquid that causes
light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines through the
sample (HMSO, 1981). Results are expressed as nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
Correlation between turbidity and TSS is not normally possible since the scattering of light
and hence the measured turbidity is affected by the particle size distribution, shape and
refractive index of the suspended material.
Chloride (Cl)
Chlorides occur in all natural waters in varying concentrations, increasing as the mineral
content increases (Sawyer et al, 1994). In natural systems, the solvent power of water
dissolves chlorides from the topsoil and deeper formations and spray from the ocean is
carried inland as droplets or as minute salt crystals. Human inputs of chloride are mostly
associated with winter de-icing of roads. It can also come from fertilisers and insecticides
(Makepeace et al, 1985). Chloride is also found in sewage due to human urine, and can
therefore enter receiving watercourses via CSOs. At high levels, chlorides are toxic to
many freshwater aquatic organisms.
Ammonium (NH ) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AramN)

4
Nitrogen exists in four main forms: organic (in the protein that makes up much matter);
ammonia (or ammonium salts); nitrate; and nitrite (Butler & Davies, 2000). Total nitrogen
is the sum of all forms, although in stormwater organic and ammoniacal nitrogen make up
most of the total. Total oxidised nitrogen (TON) is the total of nitrate and nitrite (see next
section).
Figure 3.2 shows the nitrogen cycle. Ammonia (NH3) is produced by the decomposition of
biological material.
Figure 3.2 Biological nitrogen cycle (Postgate, 1978)

Ammonia exists in two forms in natural waters: ammonium ion (N H ^ and ammonia gas
(NH3 ). Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN) is the combined amount of ammonium ion (NHU+)
and ammonia gas (NH3 ). They exist in an equilibrium state as indicated in Equation 11:
NH 4+ <->NH3 + H+
Low^ ^ High
Equation 11 Equilibrium state of ammonium ion and ammonia gas
The equilibrium relationship between the two forms is governed primarily by pH, and to a
lesser extent by temperature. At values of pH < 7, virtually all the ammonia is present as
ammonium, whilst at pH9 35% is present as NH 3 (Butler & Davies, 2000). The ammonium
ion is innocuous at the levels encountered in most natural waters, whereas ammonia gas is
toxic to fish. The presence of ammonia can reduce DO in the water as it tries to oxidise to
nitrites and nitrates. If this occurs, one of the byproducts is nitrate, which itself is a
pollutant (Chapra, 1997). Ammonia is one of the essential nutrients for photosynthesis,
thus can stimulate excessive plant growth. An excess can therefore result in eutrophication.
Total Oxidised Nitrogen (TON)

TON is the total concentration of nitrate (NO3') and nitrite (NO2"). Information on the
position of nitrate and nitrite in the nitrogen cycle is given in the previous section. They
are formed by the oxidation of ammonia. As time progresses, organic nitrogen (protein) in
the waterbody is gradually converted to ammoniacal nitrogen, and later on, if aerobic
conditions are present, oxidation of ammonia to nitrates and nitrites occurs (Sawyer et al,
1994). Therefore, waters in which most of the nitrogen is in the form of nitrates is
considered to have been polluted a long time previously. In sufficiently high quantities,
nitrate in drinking water can have serious, even fatal, effects in infants. Also, nitrates can
contribute to eutrophication and algal blooms.
Ortho-phosphates (o-phos)
Phosphorous can be expressed as total, organic or inorganic (ortho- and poly-)
phosphorous. Most phosphorous in stormwater is in the inorganic form (Butler & Davies,
2000). Ortho-phosphates consist of combinations of phosphorous, oxygen and hydrogen.
Phosphorous contributes to eutrophication and algal blooms. Sources include tree leaves,

fertilisers and building material (Makepeace et al, 1995).
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons are organic compounds including petrol, lubricating and road oils. They are
among the more stable organic compounds and do not easily biodegrade (Butler & Davies,
2000). They are lighter than water and virtually insoluble thus causing films and
emulsions on the water surface, reducing atmospheric re-aeration. They have a strong
affinity for sediment, and much of the hydrocarbon load eventually adsorbs to particles and
settles out (Schueler, 1987). Once in accumulated sediments, they can persist for long
periods and exert a chronic impact on bottom-dwelling organisms, as well as being
remobilised by subsequent storm events.
Metals
Many heavy and toxic metals can be found in stormwater, of varying concern. They can
exist in particulate, colloidal and dissolved phases depending mainly on the prevailing
redox and pH conditions. In stormwater, metals are predominantly in the particulate phase
(Butler & Davies, 2000). Often over half of the metals are attached to sediment (Schueler,
1987). This reduces the level immediately available for biological uptake and subsequent
bioaccumulation, but they can therefore settle out of the water column and accumulate in
soils and aquatic sediments. The following information on each of the metals monitored in
this research are sourced from Makepeace et al, 1995 and Sawyer et al, 1994.
C adm ium (Cd) - Cd in stormwater is a concern with respect to both drinking water quality
regulations and aquatic life criteria, and is mostly associated with dissolved solids.
Toxicity is affected by pH and temperature amongst other factors. It readily
bioaccumulates in both aquatic plants and animals. Sources include combustion, wear of
tyres and brake pads, fertilisers and pesticides. It is used in the manufacture of batteries,
paints and plastics, and to plate iron products such as nuts and bolts.
L e a d (Pb) -identified as the most important contaminant of concern. In stormwater runoff
Pb is mostly associated with suspended solids, with higher values occurring with the runoff
sediment than with the stormwater. It is highly toxic and carcinogenic and is
bioaccumulated in aquatic plants and animals. Main sources are from petrol combustion
and it is used as a filler material in tyres.
C o p p er (Cu) - Cu is the major aquatic toxic metal in stormwater, and is mostly associated
with dissolved solids and sometimes colloidal material. It is a gastrointestinal irritant.
Sources include the wear of tyres, brake linings, bearings, bushings and other moving parts
in engines, corrosion of building materials, and is found in fungicides and pesticides.
C hrom ium (Cr) - associated predominantly with suspended solids. Different forms of Cr
have different potential dangers e.g. the solubility, mobility and stability differs, some
forms are carcinogenic, some do not appear to be detrimental to human health, some are
more toxic to different types of fish. Sources include the wear of bearings, bushings and
moving parts in engines, dyes, paints, alloys, pesticides and fertilisers.
N ickel (Ni) - associated predominantly with suspended solids and organic matter, and is
more toxic in softer water. It appears to be o f low toxicity to humans, but can be to aquatic
life. Sources include wear of bearings, bushings and moving parts in engines,
electroplating and alloy manufacturing.
Z inc (Zn) — instormwater runoff it is mostly associated with dissolved solids although it
will adsorb to suspended sediment and especially colloidal particles. The toxicity is
affected by pH. Zn does not pose as much of a threat to aquatic life as Cu or Pb. It
bioaccumulates easily in aquatic plants and animals. Sources include wear from tyres and
brake pads and the corrosion of building materials.
3.7 BENEFIT FACTOR

The term Benefit Factor (BF) is introduced in this thesis as no comparable terminology has
yet been used elsewhere. It is a value calculated to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained
by installing a SUD system. BF is a volumetric measure expressed as the total volume of
SUDS runoff compared to the runoff from the traditional system, and is calculated using
only events producing SUDS runoff. It must therefore also be considered in conjunction
with the percentage of events for which the SUD system retains all the rainfall (see
‘Number of Events Retained’ in Chapter 6). Using the porous paving site at NATS as an
example, for an event with a total runoff of 0.95mm from the porous car park and 4.27mm
from the neighbouring tarmac car park the BF was 77.8% i.e. the porous car park produced
77.8% less runoff than the traditional tarmac car park. The tarmac car park produced runoff
from all the rainfall events monitored, whilst the porous car park produced runoff from
only 40% of them. It can then be said that not only did the porous paving system prevent
runoff from 60% of rainfall events, but for those that did produce runoff the BF was an
average of 75% i.e. the total runoff from the porous system was 75% less than the tarmac.

CHAPTER 4 O VER VIEW OF SITES
This chapter provides a site description and an overview of data collection for each site
monitored. Details of each site including location, year of construction, how it functions,
treatment volume (Vt) and also which equipment was used for the monitoring are all
outlined. All equipment referred to in this chapter is detailed in Chapter 3. Locations of
the sites monitored are shown in Figure 4.1:
Bridgefocrt rvenas Mains o

A rdesti
B urnside o f
Birkhill Duntrune
D ow nfield
Douglas Baldovie
Blairgowrie and A ngus
Dunsinane Denhead o f Gray
-jTlaypotte C astJ*^ M
Hill
Carnous
P e r th
D undee Broughty
Ferry
Crieff Irews
(ingoodie
Tayport
Bridge of Allan G lenrothes E

Leven AnstrutP Mnnrihawpn
A lloa
Lochgelly K ir k c a ld y W
^B erw ick
n»r,nw *■ ■ •*«' uui ii ei inline Gullane/o c G ranton
Denn* Dirleton
F a lk irk 0 Grangemouth
Broxburn Haddington on Edinburgh Portotaello
Prestonp*
itillo c h
L iv in g s to n 0 Juniper
^
.E d in b u r g h
D uddingston
□ N A TS porous car park .

G ogar
H erm iston
^ M orningside
Blackford Hill Millerhill
□ Em m ock W oods sw ale

lon
Juniper G reen
a
Couslanc
Dalkeith
W est G range swale Currie
F i g u r e 4 .1 Locations o f m onitored sites
4.1 NATS POROUS CAR PARK
4.1.1 Site Description

The porous paved car park studied is located at the National Air Traffic Services (NATS)
building in Corstorphine, Edinburgh (see Figure 4.1). It was built in 1996 as an extension
adjacent to an existing tarmac car park. This was the first site in Scotland to use the porous
paving concept (see section 2.2.2). Pervious paving was chosen in order to prevent surface
ponding and potential problems in the receiving watercourse (Stank Bum). Patented
porous blocks from Formpave Ltd. were used. The area surrounding the NATS building is
primarily residential, with a golf course on the south and east sides of the car park.
Chapter 4 Overview of Sites 57

The impermeable surface of the existing car park at NATS was hot rolled asphalt. This
material is colloquially known as tarmac, and is referred to as such throughout this thesis.
Plate 4.1 and Plate 4.2 show the porous and tarmac car parks during rainfall. Whilst
standing water is evident at the tarmac car park there is none at the porous.
P l a t e 4 .1 Porous paved car park during rainfall P l a t e 4 .2 Tarm ac car park during rainfall
Figure 4.2 shows further details of the porous car park design:
The structure is laid on the existing soil which trial pits showed to be light sandy clay in
some parts and dark brown clay in others. The 350mm deep sub-base consists of material
which is a variety of ungraded, unsorted, dense compacted stones with sand and dust
particles (DoT type B table 5). The geotextile layer below the sub-base permits infiltration
into the surrounding soil, but due to the low permeability of the soil type, most of the
rainfall will be retained in the sub-base. A 50mm layer of 6mm diameter clean stone has
been laid on the sub-base, and over this is the 80mm layer of Formpave porous brick.
Between the sub-base and the clean stone is a geotextile layer. A 110mm perforated pipe
has been laid in the sub-base so that when the ground is saturated, any excess water
(termed ‘exit water’) will drain to a soakaway manhole at one comer of the car park.
When this manhole chamber is full it overspills into the culverted Stank Bum. The
remaining water in the chamber evaporates and exfiltrates into the surrounding area over a
period of approximately 30 to 35 hours (see section 5.2.1). The exit water flowing into the
manhole chamber is the flow that has been monitored.
No maintenance had been carried out on the porous paving system up to and including the
period of monitoring.
Treatment volume (Vt) is the volume of surface runoff that contains the most polluted
portion of the flow from a storm (CIRIA, 2000). The volume (m3/ha) has been calculated
using the CIRIA (2000) equation “9*D(SOIL/2 + (l-SOIL/2)*I)”, where ‘D’ is the M5-60
rainfall depth and T is the impervious fraction of the area.
The design criteria of the porous car park are unknown, as the details could not be traced.
The treatment volume (Vt) equates to 16.45m3 for this site. The pore space volume of the
sub-base is approximately 98m (based on an estimated voids ratio of 20%) and,
consequently, Vt is effectively a depth of only 59mm of the sub-base. Guidance from
CIRIA (CIRIA, 2002) states that the sub-base should be no less than 450mm deep,
including 30% increase on design storage volume to allow for freezing, and that the time to
half empty should be between 24 and 48 hours. The sub-base at NATS is 350mm, and the
time to half empty is approximately 3.5 hours, based on this research. The car park was
less than the minimum design guidance dimensions for both depth and draindown. A
slower draindown time is an advantage because more attenuation occurs, whilst a faster
draindown time is an advantage because there will be more storage space available if
another event occurs shortly after.
4.1.2 Data Collection at NATS

Data were collected from both the porous paved car park a n d the adjacent tarmac car park.
The porous paved area was 1401m and the tarmac area was 442m . The site layout is
outlined in Figure 4.3, showing the relative positions of the tarmac car park, porous car
park and the culverted Stank Bum. Photographs and diagrammatic cross sections of the
equipment installations are shown in Appendix 4.1.

An Isodaq/ Vegason level measuring device was installed in the porous car park soakaway
manhole to monitor changes in water level within the chamber. These changes in level
were converted into a flow rate, using the method shown in Appendix 4.2. The flow rate
of runoff from the tarmac car park was monitored using a tipping bucket in the gully pot.
Water quality was monitored using sondes and EPIC automatic samplers on several
occasions. The sonde at the porous car park was placed at the base of the soakaway
manhole chamber. There was a permanent shallow body of water in the base and this
ensured the probes remained moist at all times. The sonde at the tarmac car park was
placed in the gully pot. The EPIC sampler for the porous was housed in a secure hut above
ground. The hose pipe and trigger cable for the EPIC was connected into the soakaway
manhole chamber via a solid pipe above ground. The EPIC for the tarmac was housed in a
nearby manhole chamber into which the gully pot drained. Problems with the trigger cable
connections for this resulted in few samples being collected. This problem was overcome
during the February 2000 period of sampling at NATS. Rainfall was monitored using a
tipping bucket raingauge located on the roof of a building at Edinburgh Zoo which was
nearby to the site.
F i g u r e 4 .3 Layout o f N A T S site

In summary, at the porous car park the flow of exit water was measured as that entering the
soakaway manhole. The sonde water quality and EPIC samples were taken from the water
in the soakaway manhole, therefore the results were for a composite which was added to
over time. At the tarmac car park the flow measured was the runoff entering the gully pot.
The sonde water quality was measured in the gully pot itself and EPIC samples were taken
from the water overflowing from the gully pot.
4.2 EMMOCK WOODS SWALE

This swale is located on in a new housing development, Emmock Woods, built on the
northern outskirts of Dundee (see Figure 4.1) on a greenfield site. The development has
been co-ordinated by Dundee City Council (DCC) and the infrastructure installation,
including the swale, commenced in summer 1997. Private housing commenced in 1998 by
Miller Homes, and continued by several developers throughout the duration of monitoring.
This was one of the first sites in the Dundee area to use swales.
As shown on Plate 4.3, the swale is located along one side of the road, with the crossfall of
the road sloping towards it (slope = 1:40).
sw ale
footpath/ cyclepath
approach footw ay
soakaw ay m anhole
security cabinet
P la te 4.3 E m m ock W oods developm ent
A footpath/ cycle path is on the opposite side of the swale, also sloping towards the swale
(slope = 1:36). The swales are punctuated by driveway crossings (approach footway) to
provide car access to driveways and allow people to cross when they contain water. A
pipe runs under the approach footway to carry flow from one swale to the next, until there
is a soakaway manhole via a raised outlet (see section 2.2.2, Plate 2.2 for more description
of this type of outlet). Some of the monitoring equipment used was housed in the security
cabinet. Plate 4.3 shows the site early in the monitoring period when very few houses had
been built.
Runoff enters the swale via Clearway™ drainage inlets (see Plate 4.4) which are located
every 8 - 1lm along the kerb. At the end of the swale monitored lies an approach footway,
with a pipe under it taking flow directly into a soakaway manhole. When full, the
soakaway manhole overspills to the traditional drainage system, and the remaining water in
the chamber either evaporates or exfiltrates in the surrounding area over a period of
approximately 24 hours.
The length of the swale monitored was 23.9m and had a slope of 2%. A cross-section of
the swale is shown in Figure 4.4.
F i g u r e 4 .4 C ross-section o f Em m ock W oods sw ale
The swale was constructed with a 50mm layer of top soil overlying a 300mm layer of
gravel. The surface was not properly finished by the contractors (due to a dispute), and
was not adopted by the Council. Natural vegetation became established, and no
maintenance was carried out.
The design criteria of the swale are unknown, as the details could not be traced. Vt for the
area draining to the swale equates to 5.96m a . The CIRIA design manual for SUDS
(CIRIA, 2000) states that swales designed for extended detention should be capable of
containing Vt within the swale. The volume of this swale was approximately 1.2m , taking
into account the slope of 2%, which is approximately 20% of Vt. The gravel layer would
add approximately 0.7m pore space volume, making a total of approximately 30% Vt.
■j

Building construction continued during the monitoring, with many heavy vehicles moving
around the site. A significant quantity of sediment was evident on the road and this was
entrained by runoff and deposited in the Clearway drainage inlets, in the base of the swale
and on the monitoring equipment, as discussed further in Section 6.2.3. The drainage
inlets became blocked very quickly and this was not realised at first, resulting in a period
with zero runoff from the swale during rainfall because no runoff could enter the swale
(5/11/99 - 24/1/00). Subsequently the inlets were hand cleared every couple of weeks or
when necessary. Plate 4.4 and Plate 4.5 ;how one of the drainage inlets cleared and
blocked.
P l a t e 4 .4 D rainage inlet unblocked P la te 4.5 D rainage inlet b locked
Sediment was deposited in the base of the swale which, in conjunction with a lack of
maintenance, meant that the base became very uneven over time, as discussed further in
Section 6.2.3. Periodically the equipment would be removed for thorough cleaning or
replacement.
4.2.2 Data Collection at Emmock Woods

Data were collected for both the swale and the road runoff to establish the effectiveness of
the swale in attenuating flow and improving water quality. The area contributing to the
swale runoff was 440m , and to the road was 250m . Figure 4.5 shows the approximate
layout of the site, while photographs and diagrammatic cross sections of the equipment
installations are shown in Appendix 4.1.

Excess runoff from the swale monitored flowed into the soakaway manhole via a pipe
under the approach footway. A tipping bucket was installed in the manhole on a false
floor to monitor the flow. Road runoff was monitored by connecting a pipe from one of
the drainage inlets directly into the soakaway manhole, and another tipping bucket
installed on the false floor. An Isodaq/ Vegason level measuring device was installed in
the manhole to monitor changes in water level.
Water quality was monitored using sondes and EPIC automatic samplers on several
occasions. The sondes (one each for swale and road runoff) were placed in vertical pipes
in the false floor. Runoff from the relevant tipping bucket, located in a plastic container,
was directed into each pipe (see Plates 4-5 and Figure 3 in Appendix 4.1). The pipe had
holes drilled a small distance up from its base to ensure a shallow permanent depth of
water to keep the sonde probes moist at all times. The EPIC samplers were located in a
purpose built manhole chamber adjacent to the soakaway manhole, and in the secure
cabinet located above. The hose pipe and trigger cable for the samplers were connected
into the soakaway manhole via ducting. Samples were taken from the water in the vertical

pipe. As the tipping buckets were located in plastic containers, some solids may have
settled out prior to the sonde or EPIC measuring the water quality (see Plate 10 in
Appendix 6.3). Rainfall was monitored using a tipping bucket raingauge located in the
garden of a nearby farmhouse.
4.3 WEST GRANGE SWALE

This swale is located on a new Wimpey Homes housing development at West Grange in
Monifeith, to the East of Dundee (see Figure 4.1). Building commenced in July 1998 and
construction continued throughout the duration of monitoring. However, the constmction
was downstream of the monitored area, and good site housekeeping was practiced, so the
sediment problem experienced at Emmock Woods swale did not occur at this location.
Construction of the swales commenced May 1999.
The swale monitored is located along one side of the road as shown on Plate 4.6. A
footpath is on the opposite side of the swale. At the end of each swale is a soakaway
manhole. Some of the monitoring equipment used was housed in a security cabinet.
Runoff enters the swale via Clearway drainage inlets (same as at Emmock, see Plate 4.4)
which are located approximately every 3m along the kerb, which is much closer than at
Emmock Woods.
sw ale
footpath
check dam
drainage inlet
soakaw ay m anhole
(security hut
obscures view o f it
from this angle)
security cabinet
P l a t e 4 .6 W est G range developm ent
The drainage arrangement for excess runoff from the swale was modified for the
monitoring, to enable a direct comparison of results with Emmock Woods. The original
design included a raised outlet (see section 2.2.2 and Plate 2.2). To be the same as at
Emmock Woods the excess runoff needed to drain via a near-horizontal pipe with the
invert level at the base of the swale. This was achieved with the installation of a check
dam near the end of the swale and laying a pipe to convey flow directly into the soakaway
manhole. All monitoring carried out for this project used this modified outlet arrangement.
Additional monitoring was then carried out at this swale and another similar one upstream
with a lower gradient slope (Bryce, 2001). For this additional monitoring the check dam
and pipe were removed to enable the raised outlet drainage arrangement to function.
The length of the swale monitored was 15.4m, with a slope of approximately 5%. A cross-
section of the swale is shown in Figure 4.6. The swale was constructed with a layer of top
soil over the existing predominantly clay soil, and a thin layer of sand was applied before
turf was laid to give an immediate aesthetic appeal. The swale was not adopted by the
Council during the time of monitoring, however Wimpey maintained the grass on the
swales. The drainage inlets were not regularly cleared, resulting in a degree of blockage
on occasions, which would reduce the amount of runoff entering the swale. This is
discussed in Section 6.3.3 and shown in Plates 9 and 11 Appendix 6.3. During monitoring
site visits the inlets were cleared to ensure this problem was minimised.
There are no specific design criteria for the swale, as the designers of the swale did not
have any design guidance at that time and were requested to design the swales as retrofit to
the existing development layout. Vt for this site equates to 6.03m . The CIRIA design
manual for SUDS (CIRJA, 2000) states that swales designed for extended detention should
be capable of containing Vt within the swale. The volume of this swale was approximately
1.25m3, taking into account the relatively steep slope of 5%, which is approximately 20%
of Vt.

4.3.2 Data Collection at West Grange
Data were collected for both the swale and the road runoff to establish the effectiveness of
the swale in attenuating flow and improving water quality. The area contributing to the
swale runoff was 445m2, and to the road was 50m2. Figure 4.7 shows the approximate
layout of the site and photographs and cross sections of the equipment installations are
shown in Appendix 4.1.
Excess runoff from the swale monitored flowed into the soakaway manhole via an
underground pipe laid from the check dam. A tipping bucket was installed in the manhole
on a false floor to monitor the flow. Road runoff was monitored by connecting a pipe from
two of the drainage inlets directly into the soakaway manhole, and another tipping bucket
installed on the false floor. An Isodaq/ Vegason level measuring device was installed in
the manhole to monitor changes in water level.
Water quality was monitored using sondes and EPICs on several occasions. The sondes
(one each for swale and road runoff) were placed in vertical pipes in the false floor.
Runoff from the relevant tipping bucket, located in a plastic container, was directed into
each pipe (see Plates 6-7 and Figure 3 in Appendix 4.1). The pipe had holes drilled a small
distance up from its base to ensure a shallow permanent depth of water to keep the sonde
probes moist at all times. The EPIC samplers were located in a purpose built manhole
chamber adjacent to the soakaway manhole, and in the secure cabinet located above
ground. The hose pipe and trigger cable for the samplers were connected into the
soakaway manhole via ducting. Samples were taken from the water in the vertical pipe.
As the tipping buckets were located in plastic containers, some solids may have settled out
prior to the sonde or EPIC measuring the water quality (see Plate 10 in Appendix 6.3).
Rainfall was monitored using a tipping bucket raingauge located on the roof of a nearby
garden centre.

CHAPTER 5 MONITORING RESULTS
The monitoring results from each site are presented in this chapter, and they are analysed
and interpreted in Chapter 6. In section 5.1 the data gathering periods at each site are
illustrated. Sections 5.2 to 5.4 illustrate and discuss the hydrological and water quality
parameters at each site. Each section is divided into two - considering hydrological
monitoring data first, then water quality monitoring data. The water quality monitoring
data is presented with sonde data first, then EPIC sanitary suite data, EPIC metals and
finally EPIC hydrocarbons. Due to the large amount of data gathered, example plots are
shown within the text but most are displayed in Appendix 5.2 and 5.3.
Appendix 5 is referred to regularly throughout this chapter and is divided into three main
sections. Appendix 5.1 contains a table for each site, listing all the events monitored,
stating whether or not runoff/ exit water occurred and which events were used for further
detailed analysis. At NATS 153 events were monitored, with 35 events analysed in detail.
At Emmock Woods 106 events were monitored with 26 analysed in detail, and at West
Grange 104 were monitored with 27 analysed in detail. Appendix 5.2 shows the
hydrographs for each event analysed in detail, except the example plots shown in the main
text, and is divided in three sections - 5.2A to 5.2C - with one section per site. Appendix
5.3 is laid out as Appendix 5.2 but shows water quality results, with one section per site.
Each section shows the plots for the sonde data, followed by EPIC sanitary suite
determinands, then metals and finally hydrocarbons.
In this research, a rainfall event has been defined as a period of rainfall separated by at
least six hours without rainfall. Event separation is dependent on the size and nature of the
catchment. Driscoll et al (1989) and Urbonas & Stahre (1993) reported that sufficient
sized events would be at least 2.5mm with a minimum of six hours separating storms. For
this research however, no lower limit has been put on event size, as it is vital to examine
the performance of each SUD system in a full range of events. Events as low as 0.2mm
were found to produce road runoff (at West Grange, see Appendix 5.1 table 3), therefore
no periods of rainfall have been excluded due to size.
5.1 PERIODS OF DATA AVAILABILITY

The periods of data available for the different items of equipment used at each site are
Chapter 5 Monitoring Results 69

displayed in Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3. There are breaks in the monitoring data and the
causes of these are discussed in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.
NATS Porous & Tarm ac Car Parks

Apr’98 -Feb’99 April 1 May June Jul £_____ 1 Aug_____ Sep | Oct “ 1 Nov Dec Jan Feb
Raingauge
Tarmac runoff #■ 1 I- 4 4 4 4 —■ Ih
Porous exit water 1
Sonde Tarmac 4- 4 • 1 1 "
Sonde Porous 4- r
EPIC samples 3L 1
Feb ’00 - Aug ’00 Feb | March | April | Ma y 1 June Jul | Aug
Raingauge U
Tarmac runoff 4 1
Porous exit water ~ L
Sonde Tarmac M il ► •• 1 Monitoring from May to Aug 2000
Sonde Porous 1 1r carried out by Ng (Ng, 2000)
EPIC samples O_ L J _SL O DO L J o
K E Y f o r F i g u r e s 5 . 1 , 5 . 2 & 5 .3
§— = Start of monitoring period •<— = Monitoring commenced earlier

—f = End of monitoring period = Monitoring on/off through this period
F i g u r e 5 .1 D ata available for N A T S car parks
Em m ock W oods Swale

Feb’99 - Dec’99 March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Raingauge ■ V
Road Runoff » 1 I- 4 1- —• i w
Swale Runoff ♦ r" V
S/way manhole level w I w
Sonde Road t ■f 1- • IH r •
Sonde Swale 4 1• H r W
EPIC samples
Raingauge
Road Runoff
f1
... I 1h- 4
Swale Runoff F f" V
S/way manhole level • 4 1 -4
Sonde Road I -r#
Sonde Swale < 14 |
EPIC samples O
F i g u r e 5 .2 D ata available for E m m ock W oods sw ale

West Grange Swale
Sep ’99 - July ‘00
Raingauge
S£11 I OctK _N ov Dj>ec Jan Feb | Mar in A El_____ Ma; _ J June n July
—
LiJ _ _ “““ — 4 _ Bi t _-—'— .. — “■“ _ —— —
m
Road Runoff mmm
i _
Swale Runoff __ JF f r r" u __ ¥
S/way manhole level jj
Sonde Road _jB_ V I * _aH
Sonde Swale
EPIC samples _d _ O _
3
]5_c I I pr I I _ 5~ I I
Aug - Sep’00 & Aug Sep Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug
Dec’00 - Aug’01
Raingauge r
Road Runoff
Swale Runoff
S/way manhole level iir
Sonde Road
Sonde Swale
4 J
EPIC samples
Monitoring from Dec 2000 to August 2001 carried out by Bryce (Bryce,
2001) with the drainage arrangement returned to original design
F i g u r e 5 .3 D ata available for W est G range sw ale
5.2 NATS DATA

The total number of rainfall events recorded at NATS was 153, with events as small as
0.6mm producing runoff at the tarmac car park. All events are listed in Appendix 5.1,
Table 1. Exit water at the porous car park was produced from 58 of these events. 35
events have been analysed in detail including all events with water quality data collected.
A brief overview of the data is provided in Table 5.1, which indicates events for which
water quality data was collected. The 35 events are discussed throughout the rest of this
report, and full details of the hydrological analysis are provided in Appendix 6.1, Table 1.
Total runoff Water Total runoff Water
Total Rainfall
Total Rainfall
(mm) quality (mm)

Event No.
quality
Event No.
(mm)
(mm)
Date
data
Date
data
Tarmac
Tarmac
Porous
Porous
(S=sonde (S=sonde
E= EPIC) E=EPIC)
1 16.4.98 5.4 2.95 0.49 18 28-29.2.00 6.6 1.64 0.38 E& S

2 24-25.4.98 5.6 1.2 0.14 19 23.3.00 6.6 3.49 0 E
3 11-12.5.98 8.8 4.64 0.41 20 2.4.00 7.8 N/A 3.6 S
4 28-30.5.98 21.4 9.8 1.8 21 11-12.4.00 16.6 4.68 4.12 E
5 12-13.7.98 33.4 24.3 7.5 22 17-18.4.00 9.8 N/A 6.5 E
6 7-8.8.98 15 8.6 1.6 23 16-17.5.00 10 4.9 1.8
7 1.10.98 9.2 6.67 0.8 E 24 f 27.5.00 8.6 N/A 0.2
8 4-5.10.98 16 10.1 3.8 E 25 f 28.5.00 9.4 N/A 1.4
9 9.10.98 7 4.27 0.95 26 f 3.6.00 16.8 N/A 6.8
10 16-17.10.98 29.8 N/A 15.3 S 27 f 6.6.00 7 N/A 3.8
11 20-21.10.98 6.6 N/A 0.48 E 28 f 9.6.00 5.6 N/A 0.14
12 24.10.98 8.4 3.19 1.1 S 29 f 9.7.00 32 N/A 8.8 E
13 26-28.10.98 12.8 6.6 1.96 s 30 t 27.7.00 18.6 N/A 2.1 S
14 28.11.98 4.4 1.13 0.28 s 31 f 28.7.00 10.8 N/A 5.12 E& S
15 24-27.12.98 23.8 16.6 8.1 32 f 31.7.00 10.4 N/A 2.69 E& S
16 27-28.2.99 9.8 4.4 3.9 33 t 1.8.00 5 N/A 0.32 E
17 27.2.00 8.2 2.46 2.3 s 34 f 2.8.00 13.4 N/A 4.8 E& S
t Data from Ng (2000) 35 f 14.8.00 14 N/A 3.53 E& S
T a b l e 5 .1 O verview o f N A T S events analysed
5.2.1 NATS Hydrology Data
H y d ro lo g ic a l m o n ito rin g at N A T S c o m p rise d c o lle c tio n o f ra in fa ll d a ta , r u n o ff fro m
tarm a c car p a rk and e x it w a te r fro m the porous car p ark. T h e f lo w o f e x it w a te r w as
calcu lated, as discussed in section 4 .1 .2 , and the m eth o d fo r w h ic h is s h o w n in A p p e n d ix
4 .2 . F ig u re 5 .4 shows an e xa m p le, fro m event 12, o f the recorded le v e l in the m a n h o le
(usin g Is o d a q ) w ith the subsequent c alc u late d flo w .
F i g u r e 5 .4 H ydrograph o f exit w ater flow calculated from w ater level in m anhole
T h e shape and dim ensions o f the w a te r le v e l curve in F ig u re 5 .4 are ty p ic a l at th is site.
O nce the m a n h o le had fille d and the e x it w a te r flo w ceased, the w a t e r w o u ld take
a p p ro x im a te ly 3 0 to 35 hours to e x filtra te . A p p e n d ix 5 .2 A , F ig u re 1 sh o w s the w a te r le v e l
data fo r th e m o n th o f O cto b er, as a sam ple m o n th , and it w il l be n o te d th a t e x filtra tio n
d u rin g a ll the events w as v e ry s im ila r.
H yd ro g ra p h s fro m events 3 and 12 are sh o w n in F ig u re 5.5 and F ig u re 5 .6 . H yd ro g ra p h s
fo r the oth er 33 events analysed in d e ta il are in c lu d ed in A p p e n d ix 5 .2 A (F ig u re s 2 to 3 4 ).
E v e n t 3 had 8 .8 m m ra in fa ll. T a rm a c r u n o ff w as generated a fte r 0 .4 m m ra in fa ll (3 6
m in u tes ), w h ils t porous e x it w a te r w as generated a fter 8 .6 m m o f r a in fa ll (4 4 0 m in u te s ).
T h e to tal r u n o ff w as 4 .6 m m fro m the tarm a c and 0 .4 m m fro m the porous.
E v e n t 12 had 8 .4 m m ra in fa ll. T a rm a c ru n o ff w as generated a fte r 1 m m ra in fa ll (5 2
m in u tes), w h ils t porous e x it w a te r w as generated a fter 6 .6 m m o f ra in fa ll (2 2 8 m in u te s ).
T h e total r u n o ff w as 3 .1 9 m m fro m the tarm a c and 1 .1 m m fro m the porous.

11th 12th M ay 1998
Event 3
Total Rainfall = 8.8mm

£“ 6 Tarmac Runoff = 4.6mm
!• Porous Exit Water = 0.4mm 8.6mm of rain fell

before porous exit
&
u> 0.4mm of rain fell
w ater recorded
before tarmac
runoff recorded
&
D a te
Rainfall Intensity (rrm/h) Tarmac runoff (mm/h) —— Exit water flow (mnn/h)
F ig u re 5.5 H ydrograph for N A T S, 11th - 12th M ay 1998 (event 3)
24th O ctober 1998

Event 12
8 Total Rainfall = 8.4mm
Tarmac Runoff = 3.19mm
~ 7
sz Porous Exit Water = 1.1mm
EE 6 6.6m m of rain fell
£CO 5 1mm of rain fell
before porous exit
w ater recorded
Q) 4
c before tarmac
runoff recorded
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
2? o CD o CD o CD O CD O CD O CD O O
o o o q o q o q o q o o o q 2?
o O
r: co r: oo ° ^ CM CO 66
O ^ o ^ o M- T“ 'r_ T_
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
Date
Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) Tarmac runoff (mm/h) Exit w ater flow (mm/h)
F ig u re 5.6 H ydrograph for N A T S, 24th Oct 1998 (event 12)
T h e re m ain in g 33 events had ra in fa ll totals b etw e en 4 .4 m m and 3 3 .4 m m . T h e tarm a c
m n o f f and porous e x it w a te r totals fo r these events are sho w n in T a b le 5 .1 , and fu rth e r
in terp retatio n in A p p e n d ix 6 .1 , T a b le 1. T h e characteristic f lo w a tte n u a tio n and re d u c tio n
b eh a vio u r o f the porous system is e v id e n t fo r a ll 35 events, and is discussed in S e ctio n
6.1.1.

5.2.2 NATS Water Quality Data
W a te r q u a lity data w e re c o llected fro m a to ta l o f 2 0 events at N A T S . T a b le 5 .2 show s the
determ in an d s analysed fo r each event, and also indicates w h e th e r d a ta w as c o lle c te d fro m
the porous o r tarm ac car parks, or fro m both.
SO NDE E P IC
on
3 r-v SANITARY METALS in
P H 7
a % o os
)CARBOJ
=1 "Sb ^b
dL d. n ^b
n ^b
ppm
NTU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
s a
o'-
EE =L
2 £
mg/1
J5 © £
Chloride
E ven t
AmmN
o-phos
Temp.
A mm.
s 2,
others
Cond.
Turb.
oQ
BOD
TON
in w Xa Xa.
y SSI u'O aOh Vs u z N X
7 P V V V V V V V
8 P&T V V V V V V
10 P V V V V
11 P&T V
12 P&T V V V V V
13 P&T V V V VV
14 P&T V V V V V
17 P&T V V V V V
18 P&T V V V V V V V V V V V V V
19 T VVVVVVVV V
20 P V V V V V V
21 P&T VVVVV VV V
22 P V
29f P V
30| P V V V V V
31f P V V V V V VVV VVV
32t P V V V V V V
33 f P VVVVV
34|# P V V V V V V V V V V
35f* P V V V V V V V V V V V V
f Data from Ng (2000)
* analysed at UAD not SEPA
Table 5.2 D eterm inands analsyed for each event at N A T S
T h e fo llo w in g w a te r q u a lity data are sho w n in this section, w ith p lo ts and a s u m m a ry tab le
fo r each:
■ one eve n t w ith sonde data (even t 12)
■ one eve n t w ith E P IC sanitary suite data (e v e n t 18)
■ one event w ith E P IC m etals data (e v e n t 3 1 )
■ one event w ith E P IC hydrocarbons data (e v e n t 2 9 )
T h e plots and sum m ary tables fo r each o f the o th er 16 events are g iv e n in A p p e n d ix 5.3 A
(Fig ures 1 to 111 & T ab les 1 -2 1 ). E ven ts w ith sonde data are s h o w n firs t fo llo w e d b y

events w ith E P IC data (san itary, m etals then h yd rocarbons). R esults fro m a ll 2 0 events are
analysed fu rth e r in S ectio n 6 .1 , in c lu d in g a com pariso n w ith e xp ected ru n o ff q u a litie s and
standards.
T h e m ean v alu e show n in this section fo r E P IC sam ples, and used to c alcu late an o v e ra ll
event m ean con cen tratio n ( E M C ) in C h a p te r 6, is an average o f the sam ples c o lle c te d , it is
n o t calcu lated w ith flo w . T h is is because the f lo w w as m o n ito re d c o m in g in to the tarm a c
g u lly p o t and porous m a n h o le , and the sam ple w as tak en fro m the o v e r flo w and c o m p o s ite
resp e ctiv ely (as e x p la in e d in section 4 .1 .2 ).
Sonde data
D u rin g event 12 sonde d ata w as c o llected fo r b o th the porous e x it w a te r and the tarm a c
ru n o ff, at 15 m in u te in terv als, and a ll probes excep t d issolved o x y g e n w e re w o rk in g .
F ig u re 5 .7 to F ig u re 5.11 sh o w the plots fo r each d eterm in an d .
KEY for Figures 5.7 to 5.11

T arm ac Porous
T arm ac Porous runoff exit w ater
Temperature pH
3
t _-C
2° E
24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98

04:00 09:00 14:00 19:00 04:00 09:00 14:00 19:00
date d a te
F ig u re 5.7 N A T S sonde tem perature (event 12) F ig u re 5.8 N A T S sonde pH (event 12)
Conductivity Turbidity
70 Event 12 4
60
t an S I , I' l p» ____ p.„

\ J 2° E
3 zu
_ __i! 2 E
1 ~
10
n n
24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98
04:00 09:00 14:00 19:00 04:00 09:00 14:00 19:00
date date
F ig u re 5.9 N A TS sonde conductivity (event 12) F i g u r e 5 .1 0 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 12)

Ammonium
25 Event 12
2 ■\_____
1.5 5= f
1 I rt 2 e E
0.5 ih ,
0 ..............................................
24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98 24/10/98
04:00 09:00 14:00 19:00
date
F i g u r e 5 .1 1 N A T S sonde am m onium (event 12)
T h e sondes had to be k ep t in w a te r at a ll tim es, as discussed in sections 3 .4 and 4 .1 .2 .
T h e re fo re the sonde readings at the start o f the eve n t are fo r the stagnant w a te r th a t the
sonde is lo cated in i.e . the g u lly pot fo r the tarm a c car p a rk and the s h a llo w w a te r at the
base o f the s oakaw ay m a n h o le cham b er fo r the porous. T h e sonde re a d in g s change w h e n
the r u n o ff com m ences, and this is e v id e n t in the abo ve plots.
T h e plots o f sonde data fo r event 12 sh o w that p H , c o n d u c tiv ity and a m m o n iu m are lo w e r
fo r the tarm a c th an the porous. T e m p e ra tu re b a re ly changes fo r the p o ro u s e x it w a te r
w h ils t there is a m a rk e d change at the tarm ac. T u rb id ity fo r the porous e x it w a te r show s
one p eak, w h ic h is p o ssibly the w ash out o f sedim ents in the p erfo ra te d p ip e as th e f lo w
com m ences, o r resuspension o f solids fro m the base o f the m a n h o le . T u r b id ity fo r the
tarm ac r u n o ff peaks con cu rren tly w ith flo w , p o ssibly in p art due to resu spen sion o f
sedim ents in the g u lly p o t as the f lo w co m m en c ed and entered the g u lly p o t fro m a h e ig h t
w ith force. T a b le 5.3 gives values fo r the determ in an d s m o n ito re d in e v e n t 12.
Sonde values Event 12

24,b October 1998
N o. o f Tarm ac =36 Total R ain = 8.4 N o t e s : no data for
readings: Porous =31 (mm): T arm ac = 3.19 D issolved Oxygen.
Porous = 1 .1
Param eter U nit M IN M \X M lE A N
Tar. Por. Tar. Por. Tar. Por.
T e m p e ra tu re °C 6.3 9.3 10.3 9.5 8 .3 9 .4
pH 6.45 7.63 6.88 8 6 .6 8 7 .9
C o n d u c tiv ity ps 18.4 274.7 64.8 309 30.53 2 7 7 .2
DO %
T u rb id ity N TU 23.5 24.9 49.9 59 35.6 33.85
A m m o n iu m Ppm 0.2 2 0.8 2.2 0 .2 4 2 .1 5
T a b le 5.3 Sonde values for N A T S event 12
T h e re m a in in g 11 events w ith sonde data are g iv e n in A p p e n d ix 5 .3 A (F ig u re s 1 -5 5 and

T ab les 1 -1 1 ). S o m e o f the events h ave d ata m issin g , and this is c o m m e n te d on in the
‘notes’ b o x in the re le v a n t tab le fo r each event. E v en ts 10 and 20 h a v e no tarm a c ru n o ff
data, a lth o u g h there is sonde data fo r the tarm a c ru n o ff. T a rm a c son d e d ata is sh o w n on
the plo ts b u t n o t in the tables. T h is is because w ith o u t the r u n o ff d ata it w as n o t p o ssib le to

d eterm in e w h e n th e ru n o ff occurred, and th e re fo re the re le v a n t v a lu e s c o u ld n o t be
extracted fro m the dataset. Events 3 0 to 35 h av e data fo r o n ly the p o ro u s e x it w a te r, n o t
tarm ac ru n o ff, as no e q u ip m e n t was in s ta lle d at the tarm ac car p a rk a t th a t tim e .
It can be seen that tem p eratu re, p H , c o n d u c tiv ity , a m m o n iu m and tu r b id ity f o llo w th e same
characteristics as in event 12, as discussed abo ve. p H w as alw ays s lig h tly a c id ic fro m the
tarm ac and alw a ys s lig h tly a lk a lin e fro m the porous. C o n d u c tiv ity w a s u s u a lly a b o u t one
order o f m a g n itu d e greater fo r the porous e x it w a te r than the tarm ac ru n o ff.
EPIC data - sanitary suite

D u rin g event 18 E P IC sam ples w e re c o llec ted fo r both the porous e x it w a te r and the
tarm ac ru n o ff, and analysed fo r eight determ in an d s fro m the san itary suite. 16 sam ples o f
tarm ac ru n o ff c o llec ted at 2 4 m in u te in terv als w e re analysed, and 16 sam ples o f porous
e x it w a te r at 12 m in u te in tervals. Not e v e ry sam ple w as a n a ly s e d fo r a ll e ig h t
determ inands. F ig u re 5 .1 2 to F ig u re 5 .1 9 sh o w the plots o f in te rp o la te d d ata fo r each
d eterm in an d . T h e values w h ic h represent actual sam ples are in d ic a te d w it h a c irc le or
square at the tip o f the co lu m n . T h e w a te r sam pled fo r the tarm ac w a s the o v e rflo w fro m
the g u lly p o t and fo r the porous was the com po site o f w a te r in the s o a k a w a y m a n h o le (see
also section 4 .1 .2 ). Sonde data was also c o llec ted fo r event 18, and is sh o w n in A p p e n d ix
5 .3 A , Fig u res 19 to 23 and T a b le 5.
F o r values b e lo w d etectio n lim its , a b la n k e t v a lu e w as g iven . F o r e x a m p le w h e n the
sam ple had a B O D le v e l b e lo w 2 m g /l, the resu lt w as stated as ‘ < 2 ’ , a n d fo r the purposes o f
creating plots, this w as assigned the v a lu e ‘ 1 .5 ’ . F o r T O N , 0 .1 5 m g /l represents a v a lu e o f
<0.2.
K E Y for Figures 5.12 to 5.27
T armac
® Tarmac sample Tarmac runoff
interpolated data
mmmm— m PorOUS Porous sample Porous exit

interpolated data water

Electrical Conductivity o
500 ^ 4 „_ X3
Event 18
400
2- S'
2E
12 £
0 miiimminiT
14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
Time
F ig u re 5.12 N A T S E PIC pH (event 18) F ig u re 5.13 N A T S EPIC EC (ev en t 18)
Total Suspended Solids Biochemical Oxygen Demand

120 Event 18 t 3
100
o> 80 2*- ^
E 60 §2 EE
<n
w 40
20
0
14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
Time Time
F ig u re 5.14 N A T S EPIC TSS (event 18) F ig u re 5.15 N A T S EPIC B O D (ev en t 18)
Ammoniacal Nitrogen Total Oxidised Nitrogen

0.5 Event 18 3
2_
§2 EE
14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
Time Time
F ig u re 5.16 N A T S EPIC A m m N (event 18) F ig u re 5.17 N A T S EPIC TO N (ev en t 18)
T h e plots fo r the E P IC data fo r event 18 s ho w that p H , c o n d u c tiv ity , T O N , and c h lo rid e
w e re a ll lo w e r fo r the tarm ac than the porous. O rth o -p h o sp h ate w as o n ly s lig h tly lo w e r.

TSS and BOD were higher in the tarmac runoff than the porous exit water, and AmmN
was very similar. Table 5.4 provides values for the determinands monitored in event 18.
EPIC values (sanitary suite) Event 18
28th February 2000
No. o f Tarmac =14 Total Rain =6 .6 Notes: 1.5mg/l for BOD
samples: Porous =24 (mm): Tarmac = 1.64 represents a value < ,
2
Porous = 0.38 0.15mg/l for TON

represents a value <
0 .2
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X ME AN

pH 6.7 8 .2 7.4 8 .2 6 .8 8 .2
EC ps/cm 39.5 404 50.6 429 44.6 415.9

TSS mg /1 1 0 .6 13.4 107 23.2 38.2 15.24
BOD mg /1 2.26 1.5 7 3.3 4.2 1.9
AmmN mg /1 0 .0 2 2 0.028 0.037 0.041 0.03 0.03
TON mg /1 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.42 0.15 0.36
o-phos mg /1 0.013 0.038 0.125 0.077 0 .0 2 0.049
chloride mg /1 9.4 56.5 12 58.6 10.9 57.56
Table 5.4 EPIC sanitary suite values for NATS event 18
The remaining 5 events with EPIC samples analysed for sanitary suite determinands are
illustrated in Appendix 5.3 A (Figures 56-96 and Tables 12-16). The data for each of the
events follows similar patterns to that of event 18. For event 7 (porous exit water) AmmN
was a little higher than in event 18, and Cl was much lower. For event 19 (tarmac runoff)
AmmN was also a little higher than in event 18, as was TON. For event 21 (porous and
tarmac) there were two differences to event 18. TSS was barely different between the
porous and tarmac, whereas in event 18 it was higher at the tarmac. AmmN was higher at
the tarmac in event 21, whereas in event 18 they were the same. For event 34 (porous exit
water) AmmN was significantly higher than it was in event 18. For event 35 both AmmN
and o-phos were higher than in event 18, and Cl was significantly lower —more like the
level in event 7.
Event 21 had a manual sample of porous exit water collected near the end of the event, in
addition to the EPIC samples. This was taken because once the sampler had completed its
cycle, the exit water was still flowing. The sample was taken from the flow of water
entering the manhole, i.e. not from the composite in the manhole which is where the EPIC
samples are taken. The value of collecting this sample was to determine if there was any
significant difference in value between the water composited in the manhole and the actual
‘pure’ exit water as it flowed into the manhole. The results show there is virtually no
difference, except a marginally lower amount of chloride in the manual sample.

Some of the samples from event 21, including the manual sample, were analysed for six
additional determinands. These were Total Organic Solids, Organic Suspended Solids,
Total Dissolved Solids, Total Solids, Ashed Suspended Solids and Total Ash. Between
one and three samples were analysed, to obtain a general impression o f the composition of
solids in the runoff. The porous exit water has significantly higher Total Solids, Total
Dissolved Solids and Total Ash than the tarmac runoff, lower Organic Suspended Solids
and slightly higher Total Organic Solids and Ashed Suspended Solids. TSS was similar.
EPIC data - metals

During event 31 EPIC samples were collected for porous exit water, not tarmac runoff, and
analysed for six metal ions. The samples were also analysed for TSS because often large
fractions of metals are attached to sediments (Schueler, 1987). Nine samples collected at
hourly intervals were analysed. Figure 5.20 to Figure 5.26 show the plots of recorded and
interpolated data for each determinand. On the plots, the values that represent actual
samples are indicated with a circle at the tip of the column.
Figure 5.20 NATS EPIC Cadmium (event 31) Figure 5.21 NATS EPIC Lead (event 31)

Nickel Zn
'it £
gS £E c E
E E
28/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00 28/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00

17:30 00:30 07:30 14:30 17:30 00:30 07:30 14:30
Time Time
Figure 5.24 NATS EPIC Nickel (event 31) Figure 5.25 NATS EPIC Zinc (event 31)
Total Suspended Solids

300 Event 31 15
ORC\
"Sonn
c
runofl
mm/h
Ei qn
M>100
n
H 50
n n
28/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00 29/07/00
17:30 00:30 07:30 14:30
Time
Figure 5.26 NATS EPIC TSS (event 31)
The plots for event 31 indicate the ‘first flush’ phenomenon, i.e. a high concentration of
metals at the start of the event, followed by a gradual recession. The TSS concentrations
also follow this pattern. This first flush is likely to be the wash off and scouring of
pollutants deposited in the porous pavements pores and perforated pipe, and may be linked
to the first flush of sediments. Copper is the only determinand that did not appear to
follow this pattern, and produced a peak once flow of the exit water ceased. Table 5.5
shows values for the determinands monitored in event 31.
EPIC values (metals) Event 31
28th - 29thJuly 2000
No. of Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 10.8 Notes:
samples: Porous =9 (mm): Tarmac = /
Porous = 5.12
Parameter Unit M INM \X ME AN
Cd ESd_____ 0.36 24.7 5.33
Pb Pg /1
7.2 81.3 24.32
Cu 8.45 47.6 23.07
Cr ESd_____ 1.95 13.3 8.73
Ni ESd_____ 4.35 15.7 8.69
Zn Pg/i 128
22 67
TSS mg /1 54.4 277 113.77
Table 5.5 EPIC metals values for NATS event 31

The remaining two events with EPIC samples analysed for metals are illustrated in
Appendix 5.3A (Figures 97-108 and Tables 17-18). Event 8 has data for tarmac mnoff and
a manual sample for porous exit water, and event 33 has data for porous exit water.
The data for event 8 showed an increased concentration of metals in the tarmac runoff
during peak flows, except for Cd which increased just at the end. The manual sample from
the porous exit water shows metals concentrations lower than in the tarmac mnoff, except
for Cd which was almost the same and Cr which was higher. The concentrations from
both porous and tarmac were lower than in event 31.
The data for event 33 showed a similar pattern to event 31, with a ‘first flush’ phenomenon
occurring for all metals and TSS, except Cu. The concentrations for all determinands were
lower than in event 31.
EPIC data - hydrocarbons

During event 29 on the 9th July 2000 EPIC samples were collected for porous exit water,
not tarmac mnoff, and analysed for hydrocarbons. 12 samples were collected at 30 minute
intervals, and all 12 were analysed. Figure 5.27 shows the plot of data.
The plot shows a slight increase in hydrocarbon concentration during the middle of the
event while flow ceased. Hydrocarbon has a strong affinity for sediment, eventually
absorbing to particles and settling out. The re-suspension of sediments from the base of
the manhole could account for the increase concentration while no flow was entering.
Table 5.6 provides the values for event 29.
Hydrocarbons
09/07/00 09/07/00 09/07/00 09/07/00

07:00 09:00 11:00
T im e
13:00
Figure 5.27 NATS EPIC Hydrocarbons (event 29)

EPIC values (hydrocarbon) Event 29
9th July 2000
No. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 32 Notes:
Porous = 8 .8
Parameter Unit MIN MAX MEAN

Tar. Por.Tar. Por. Tar. Por.
Hydrocarbon mg /1 0.1 0.37 0 .2
Table 5.6 EPIC hydrocarbon values for NATS event 29
The remaining three events with EPIC samples analysed for hydrocarbon are illustrated in
Appendix 5.3A (Figures 109-111 and Tables 19-21). Event 11 has data for tarmac runoff
and a manual sample for porous exit water. Event 22 has two manual samples for porous
exit water. Event 32 has data for the porous car park. They show that the concentration of
hydrocarbon in the porous exit water was lower than in the tarmac runoff, and the levels in
all the events with data for porous exit water were similar except for event 32 where the
level was higher.
5.3 EMMOCK WOODS DATA
The total number of rainfall events recorded at Emmock Woods was 106, with events as
small as 0.2mm producing runoff from the road and swale, and all events are listed in
Appendix 5.1, Table 2. Runoff from the swale occurred from 52 of these events. 26
events have been analysed in detail including all the events for which water quality data
was collected. A brief overview of the data is provided in Table 5.7 below, which also
indicates those events for which water quality data was collected. These 26 events are
discussed throughout the rest of this report, and full details of the hydrological analysis are
provided in Appendix 6.1, Table 2.

Total runoff Water Total runoff Water
Total Rainfall
Total Rainfall
(mm) quality (m m ) quality
Event No.
Event No.
data data
(mm)
(mm)
Date
Date
(S=sonde (S=sonde
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
E= EPIC) E=EPIC)
1 27-28.2.99 16.6 6.80 3.6 14 5.7.99 6.4 N /A 0.15
2 2.3.99 4.6 1.09 0.34 15 10.10.99 2.2 0.03 0.05 S
3 12.3.99 3.2 0.76 0.07 16 4-5.11.99 14.4 N /A 0.35
4 13.3.99 1.6 0.44 0.06 17 30.1.00 N /A 3.5 0.025 S
5 28-29.3.99§ 17.8 (2.14) 2.6 18 8-9.2.00 4.2 3.6 0
(5.6) (1.72) 19 11-12.2.00 3.2 0.4 0.11 s
6 5-6.4.99 10.2 N /A 1.08 20 23-24.3.00 19 N /A 0.13 E*
7 20-21.4.99 34.2 N /A 12.3 21 10.4.00 5.2 N /A 0.02
8 21.5.99 8.8 N /A 0.42 22 11-12.4.00 23.4 N /A 0.31
9 28-29.5.99 17.6 N /A 0.27 23 21.6.00 N/A 6.3 0.09
10 2-3.6.99 13.8 7.81 1.01 24 9.8.00 8.2 7.12 0
11 4.6.99 2.4 1.62 0.11 25 14.8.00 11.2 5.1 0
12 5.6.99 9.6 1.6 0.38 26 16.8.00 4.2 N /A 0.3
13 27.6.99 12.2 N /A 0.96
* = single manual sample
§ = brackets indicate values up tol6:00 when road data ends
Table 5.7 Overview o f Emmock Woods events
analysed
5.3.1 Emmock Woods Hydrology Data

Hydrographs from events 2 and 10 are shown in Figure 5.28 and Figure 5.29.
Hydrographs for the remaining 24 events analysed in detail are given in Appendix 5.2B
(Figures 1-24).
2nd March 1999
Event 2
Total Rainfall = 4.6m m
Road Runoff = 1.09m m
S w ale Runoff = 0.34mm
4m m of rain fell
before s w ale
runoff recorded
0.4m m of rain fell

before road runoff
recorded
CCTD>O
O
Vimininiu'iin#m'
CCO
N
Date
Rainfall Intensity (mnVh) Ro ad runoff (rrmVh) S w ale runoff (mrrVh)
Figure 5.28 Hydrograph for Emmock Woods, 2nd March 1999 (event 2)

Event 2 had 4.6mm rainfall. Road runoff was generated after 0.4mm rainfall (18 minutes),
whilst swale runoff occurred after 4mm rainfall (476 minutes). The total runoff was
1.09mm from the road and 0.34mm from the swale.
2-3rd June 1999

Event 10
Total Rainfall = 1 3 . 8 m m
Ro ad Runoff = 7 . 8 1 m m
S w ale Runoff = 1.01 m m
6-
4.4m m of rain fell
before s w ale 5!
runoff recorded
0.8m m of rain fell
before road runoff
recorded
2s 2
CD CD CD CD
nirnnmiiifriTififTififnTrnTiniirnnnTTTfi
TTTiiniimmTfrmiiifnfmTiTTnrnnninmiim
Date
Rainfall Intensity (mnVh) Ro ad Runoff Rate (mrrVh) S w ale Runoff Rate (mrrVh)
Figure 5.29 Hydrograph for Emmock Woods 2nd - 3rd June 1999 (event 10)
Event 10 had 13.8mm rainfall. Road runoff was generated after 0.8mm rainfall (54
minutes), whilst swale runoff occurred after 4.4mm rainfall (712 minutes). The total
runoff was 7.81mm from the road and 1.01mm from the swale.
The remaining 24 events had rainfall totals between 1.6 and 34.2mm. The amounts of road
and swale runoff for these events are shown in Table 5.7, and are also shown in Appendix
6.1, Table 2, with details from the analysis and interpretation. The characteristic flow
attenuation and reduction behaviour of the swale is evident, and is discussed in section 6.2
5.3.2 Emmock Woods Water Quality Data

Water quality data were collected from four events at Emmock Woods. Few water quality
results were obtained because the events which did produce runoff had either insufficient
volume (mean 6.5% runoff, see Section 6.2.1) or occurred when the water quality
equipment was not installed! Three events had sonde data and one event had one manual
sample. No samples were analysed for metals or hydrocarbon. Table 5.8 shows which

determinands were analysed for each event.
SONDE EPIC/ Manual sample

Samples from swale (S)
SANITARY METALS
HYDROCARBONS
cni EQ. E
%
"ob '5b
a ~5b
mg/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
NTU
°C =L
mg
mg
mg
mg
mg
mg
Cu
&/or road (R)
i
mg /1
Chloride
Event
AmmN
T3
o-phos
E
Temp.
others
Turb.
aa. UCO < aQ. W
TON
BOD
£ U "O -o s L. e
TSS
DO
U 0- U u 5? SI
15 S&R A A A A
17 S&R A A A A
19 S&R A A A A
20** S&R A A A A A A
* = single manual sample
Table 5.8 Determinands analysed for each event at Emmock Woods
The following water quality data are shown in this section, with plots and a summary table
for each:
■ one event with sonde data (event 15)
■ the event with one manual sample (event 20)
The plots and summary tables for each of the other two sonde events are located in
Appendix 5.3B (Figures 1-8 and Tables 1-2). The results from all four events are analysed
further in Section 6.2.
Sonde data
During event 17 sonde data was collected for both the road and swale runoff, at 10 minute
intervals. All probes except DO and turbidity were working, and also ammonium for the
swale. Figure 5.30 to Figure 5.33 show the plots for each determinand.
Tarmac Porous
Tarmac " Porous runoff exit water

Temperature pH
8
6!£ S'
4 ° E
2 E
10:30 13:30 16:30 19:30

30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00
date date
Figure 5.30 EW sonde termperature (event 17) Figure 5.3i EW sonde pH (event 17)
Ammonium
10:30 13:30 16:30 19:30

30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00
date
Figure 5.32 EW sonde conductivity (event 17) Figure 5.33 EW sonde ammonium (event 17)
The sondes had to be kept in water at all times, as discussed in sections 3.4 and 4.2.2. The
sonde reading at the start of the event is therefore for the stagnant water in the pipe that the
sonde is located in. The sonde readings change when the runoff commences, and this is
evident in the above plots.
The plots of sonde data for event 17 show that pH, conductivity and temperature were all
lower for the swale runoff than the road. As the runoff commenced, temperature and pH
increased for both swale and road. The conductivity readings for the swale runoff appear
to drop prior to runoff, and it is unclear why this is. Conductivity readings for the road
increase with flow. Ammonium readings for road runoff decrease as runoff commences.
Table 5.9 provides values for the determinands monitored in event 17. These values are
taken after runoff commenced.

30th January 2000
No. o f Road —50 Total Rain = ? Notes: No data for DO
readings: Swale =2 (mm): Road = 3.5 and turbidity for both
Swale = 0.025 sondes and no amm. for
swale.
Parameter Unit M IN M \X M LAN
Road Swale Road Swale Road Swale
Temperature °C 1.3 5.8 7.3 6 .1 4.95 5.95
pH 7.97 8.14 8.62 8.23 8.37 8.18
Conductivity ]JIS__ 42.3 78.9 8 8 .2 83.8 77.4 81.35
DO %
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium ppm 0.1 1 0.374
Table 5.9 Sonde values for Emmock Woods event 17
The remaining two events with sonde data are given in Appendix 5.3B (Figures 1-8 and
Tables 1-2). Event 15 had no flow data for tarmac runoff and therefore no values for
tarmac sonde data could be extracted from the dataset for that event. The difference
between road and swale runoff can be observed in the graphs. Temperature is slightly
lower in the swale runoff and fluctuates less than the road, and pH is higher in the swale
runoff. Conductivity and DO show little difference. In event 19 the values for
temperature, pH and conductivity in the swale and road runoff are similar, and there was
no sonde data for ammonium from the swale.
Manual sample - sanitary suite

During event 20, on the 23rd to 24th March 2000, one manual sample was taken at 22:45 on
the 23 rd March from both the road and swale runoff. No flow data for road mnoff was
available due to equipment failure. They were analysed for determinands from the sanitary
suite. Figures 5.34 to 5.39 show bar graphs of the values.
road data swale data
350
cond.
Figure 5.34 EW sample pH Figure 5.35 EW sample Figure 5.36 EW sample TSS
(event )
2 0 conductivity (event )2 0 (event )
2 0

1.22
amm.
Figure 5.37 EW sample Figure 5.38 EW sample o- Figure 5.39 EW sample

ammonium (event )
2 0 phos (event )
2 0 BOD (event ) 2 0
From the small amount of runoff that did occur from the swale, it can be seen that pH,
conductivity, TSS and ortho-phosphate were lower in the swale runoff than the road,
ammonium was higher and BOD the same. Table 5.10 provides values for the
determinands sampled in event 20.
Manual sample (sanitary suite) Event 20
23 - 24,h March 2000
No. o f Road =1 Total Rain = 19 Notes: Analysed at UAD
samples: Swale =1 (mm): Road = ? laboratory.
Swale = 0.13
Parameter Unit M IN M;\X ME AN
pH 7.6 7.41
EC ps/cm 292 167
TSS mg /1 1057 299
BOD mg /1 2.4 2.4
AmmN mg /1 1 .1 1 1 .2 1
TON mg /1
o-phos mg /1 0.28 0
chloride mg /1
Table 5.10 Manual sample values for Emmock Woods event 20
5.4 WEST GRANGE DATA

The total number of rainfall events recorded at West Grange was 104, with events as small
as 0.2mm producing runoff from the road and swale, and all events are listed in Appendix
5.1, Table 3. All 104 events produced road runoff. Runoff from the swale occurred during
62 of the events. A brief overview of the data is provided in Table 5.11, which also
indicates those events for which water quality data was collected. These 27 events are
discussed throughout the rest of this report, and full details of the hydrological analysis are
provided in Appendix 6.1, Table 3. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the drainage
arrangement for the excess runoff from this swale was modified.

Total runoff Water T otal runoff Water
_____ (mm)_____
Total Rainfall
Total Rainfall
(mm) quality (mm) quality
Event No.
Event No.
data data
(mm)
Date
CD
Date
(S=sonde T3
CO3 13 (S=sonde
Swale
Road
E= EPIC) £ E=EPIC)
1 20.10.99 3 1.59 N /A E&S 15 27.5.00 16 10.1 9.7
2 4-5.11.99 N /A 12.56 4.38 E 16 29.5.00 3.2 1.04 0.92 E
3 25.11.99 0.8 0.35 0 17 6.6.00 1.6 0 .6 6 1.04 E
4 26.11.99 2.8 1.69 0.33 18 10.6.00 0.6 0.15 0.11
5 27-28.11.99 10.4 6.8 4.28 19 22.6.00 1.2 0.3 0.06 S
6 8.12.99 4.2 3.6 1.02 20 9.7.00 2.8 1.2 1.1 S
7 11.12.99 15.2 11.2 4.25 21 25.7.00 2 0 .6 9 0.52
8 30.1.00 3.6 2.6 0.6 22 31.7.00 3.6 1.5 0.5 E&S
9 17.2.00 5 2.73 1.79 23 14.8.00 10.8 7.8 3.2 S
10 9-10.3.00 3.8 1.97 1.33 24 27.8.00 3.6 0 .9 8 0.63 E& S
11 23-24.3.00 13.4 10.43 12.8 E* 25 31.8-1.9.00 12.4 6.25 3.12 E&S
12 2.4.00 7 3.96 6.38 E* 26 6.9.00 13 12.1 7.2
13 24-27.4.00 23.8 10.2 N /A E* 27 11-11.9.00 6.6 3.9 3
14 15.5.00 4 1.43 N /A E*
* = manual sample
Table 5.11 Overview o f West Grange events analysed
5.4.1 West Grange Hydrology Data

Hydrographs from events 10 and 25 are shown in Figures 5.40 and 5.41. Hydrographs for
the remaining 25 events analysed in detail are given in Appendix 5.2C (Figures 1 to 25).
9th - 10th March 2000

Event 10
3.5 3.5
3 0.7 m m of rain
Total Rainfall = 3 .8 m m
3
Road Runoff = 1.9 7 m m
fell before road
runoff recorded 1 m m of rain fell
Swale Runoff = 1 .3 3 m m f
2.5
before sw ale
runoff recorded
2 ^fl
1.5 ®
COPcOPcOOcOOcOOcOOfOOÔO
_ — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
co —co
date
Rainfall Intensity mnVh road runoff (mnrVh) sw ale runoff (mrrVh)
Figure 5.40 Hydrograph for West Grange, 9th - 10th March 2000 (event 10)
Event 10 had 3.8mm rainfall over a period of 16 hours. Road runoff was generated after
0.7mm rainfall (28 minutes), whilst swale runoff occurred after 1mm rainfall (38 minutes).
The total runoff was 1.97mm from the road and 1.33mm from the swale.

Figure 5.41 Hydrograph for West Grange, 31st Aug - 1st Sep 2000 (event 25)
Event 25 had 12.4mm rainfall over a period of 22 hours. Road runoff was generated after
0.4mm rainfall (12 minutes), whilst swale runoff occurred after 1mm rainfall (24 minutes).
The runoff was 6.25mm from the road and 3.12mm from the swale.
The remaining 25 events had rainfall totals between 0.6mm and 23.8mm. The amounts of
road and swale runoff for these events are shown in Table 5.11, and are also shown in
Appendix 6.1, Table 3 with details from the analysis and interpretation.
From all 27 events analysed in detail, flow attenuation and reduction is evident for most of
the events but not for all. Events 11, 12 and 17 appeared to have more runoff from the
swale than the road, although it is unclear how or why this occurred. The Apis for these
three events was high, it is therefore possible that the ground in the area was saturated and
that additional flow from neighbouring catchments was entering the catchment draining to
the monitored swale. The characteristic flow attenuation and reduction behaviour o f the
swale is discussed in Section 6.3.
5.4.2 West Grange Water Quality Data

Water quality data were collected from a total of 14 events at West Grange. Seven events
had sonde data, seven events had EPIC samples collected and manual samples were
collected from four events, three of which were analysed in the UAD laboratory. Table

5.12 shows the determinands analysed for each event
SONDE EPIC/ Manual sample
Samples from swale (S)

SANITARY METALS
HYDROCARBONS
Eo. £ 9. 9. 9. ~9.Sb ■9.s, '59.b
35o9.
°C
NTU
%
9.
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
a.
&/or road (R)
mg/1
Chloride
■d
Event
AmmN
Xa . Uoc
o-phos
Temp.
others
◄E ECLC UW
Turb.
U■o Xa,) u9 u z N
BOD
TO N
TSS
DO
l S&R V V V T a/ a/ V V a/ a/ a/ a/
2 S&R V V V V a/
11** S&R a/ V V V a/ V
12** S&R V V V a/ V
13* S&R VVVV V a/ V V V
14** S&R a/ V a/ V
16 S&R a/
17 S&R A1 a/ a/ a/ a/ a/ V
19 S&R V V V V
20 S&R V a/ a/ V
2 2 S&R V V V V a/ a/ a/ V a/ a/ a/
23 S&R a/ V V V a/
24 S&R a/ V V V V a/
25 S&R a/ a/ a/ V V
* = manual sample
Table 5.12 Determinands analysed for each event at West Grange
The following water quality data are shown in this section, with plots and a summary table
for each:
■ one event with sonde data (event 25)
■ one event with EPIC sanitary suite data (event 17)
■ one event with EPIC metals data (event 22)
■ one event with EPIC hydrocarbons data (event 16)
The plots and summary tables for each of the remaining 10 events are given in Appendix
5.3C (Figures 1-68 & Tables 1-14). Events with sonde data are shown first followed by
events with EPIC data (sanitary, metals then hydrocarbons). Results from all 14 events are
analysed further in Section 6.3, including a comparison with expected runoff qualities and
standards.
Sonde data
During event 25 sonde data was collected for both the swale and road runoff, at 10 minute

intervals, and all probes except ammonium were working. Figures 5.42 to 5.46 show the
plots for each determinand. EPIC samples were also collected for this event and analysed
for hydrocarbon. The results are shown in Appendix 5.3C, Figure 68 and Table 14.
Road Swale
Road Swale runoff runoff
Temperature pH
E vent 25
05:40 11:40 17:40 23:40 05:40

31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 1/9/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 1/9/00
Date Date
Figure 5.42 WG sonde temperature (event 25) Figure 5.43 WG sonde pH 9 (event 25)
Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen

10
8
6c- *£§ 1.c
42 £
0
05:40 11:40 17:40 23:40 05:40
31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 1/9/00
Date Date
Figure 5.44 WG sonde conductivity (event 25) Figure 5.45 WG sonde DO (event 25)
Turbid it}/
250 Event 25 10
?nn Q
3 150 66 *=
| |5
5 inn
4 C E,
50 o
0 11 ______ - £ Z 0
05 40 11:40 17:40 23:40 05 40
31/f5/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 31/8/00 1/9 /OO
Date
Figure 5.46 WG sonde turbidity (event 25)
The sondes had to be kept in water at all times, as discussed in sections 3.4 and 4.3.2.
Therefore the sonde readings at the start of the event are for the stagnant water in the pipe

that the sonde is located in. The sonde readings change when the runoff commences, and
this is evident in the above plots.
The plots of sonde data for event 25 show that the runoff from the road and swale were
very similar. pH, conductivity and turbidity are slightly lower in the swale runoff. Table
5.13 provides values for the determinands monitored in event 25. The values for both
swale and road runoff are similar except for conductivity, which is slightly lower in the
swale runoff.
s onde values Event 25
3(1st A u g -I s* Sep 2000
No. of Road =70 Total Rain = 12.4 Notes: No data for
readings: Swale =34 (mm): Road = 6.25 ammonium.
Swale = 3.12
Parameter Unit M IN M \X M IAN
Temperature °C 13.6 13.7 15.7 15.8 14.6 14.5
pH 7.04 7.08 7.91 8 .6 6 7.7 7.53
Conductivity ps 17.6 2.4 184.6 122.4 85.7 58.6
DO % 24.4 24.6 96.5 85.3 58.5 65.7
Turbidity NTU 23 34 209 150 93 74
Ammonium ppm
Table 5.13 Sonde values for West Grange event 25
The remaining six events are given in Appendix 5.3C (Figures 1-27 and Tables 1-6).
Some of the events have data missing, and this is stated in the ‘notes’ box in the relevant
table for each event. Event 1 had no swale runoff data, however there is sonde data for the
swale runoff which has been shown on the plots. No values for the swale sonde data are in
the table because without the runoff data it was not possible to determine when runoff
occurred, and therefore the relevant values could not be extracted from the dataset.
It can be seen from the plots that the determinands generally follow the same
characteristics as in event 25 discussed above i.e. - the runoff from the road and the swale
were very similar, although there are a few exceptions. pH and conductivity in the road
runoff during event 1 were particularly high compared to the other events, and it is not
clear why. In event 19 conductivity in the swale runoff was notably lower than the road.
The pH of the swale runoff in event 20 was higher than the road, unlike all the other events
where it was slightly lower. Turbidity of the swale runoff in event 23 was notably lower
than the road.

EPIC data - sanitary suite
During event 17 samples from both the swale and road runoff were collected at 12 minute
intervals, and six analysed for eight determinands from the sanitary suite. Figures 5.47 to
5.54 show the plots of interpolated data for each determinand.
For values below detection limits, a blanket value was given. For example when the
sample had a BOD level below 3mg/l, the result was stated as *<3’, and for the purpose of
creating plots, this was assigned the value ‘2.75’. For AmmN 0.015mg/l represents a value
of <0.02, and for TON 0.05mg/l represents a value of <0.1.
Road
interpolated data ® Road sample -------------- Road runoff
mmmmmm Swale Swale sample Swale runoff
interpolated data
8 16 16
Event 17
7.5 12 12
x
Q. 7 | 8 2E 8 2E
2 E E E
6.5 4 4
J
6 A* vn TPr fbrl hTTTTTfl 0
17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30
0
6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00
Date Date
Figure 5.47 WG EPIC pH (event 17) Figure 5.48 WG EPIC EC (event 17)
Figure 5.49 WG EPIC TSS (event 17) Figure 5.50 WG EPIC BOD (event 17)

Figure 5.51 WG EPIC AmmN (event 17) Figure 5.52 WG EPIC TON (event 17)
20 Chloride
Event 17 16
3= jo 15 12
£ £ 10 8 £E
2 E 2 E
5 At « . 4
0 -"IITIlf TPnIhr jiyyuLfjL- 0
17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30
6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00 6/6/00
Date Date
Figure 5.53 WG EPIC o-phos (event 17) Figure 5.54 WG EPIC chloride (event 17)
The plots for the EPIC data show that the water quality for both road and swale runoff
were very similar, except TSS and BOD were a little lower in the swale runoff. Table 5.14
gives values for the determinands monitored using EPICs in event 17.
EPIC (sanitary suite) Event 17
6lh June 2000
No. of Road = 6 Total Rain = 1 .6 Notes: 2.75 mg/1 for BO D
samples: Swale = 6 (mm): Road = 0.66 represents a value <3,
Swale = 1.04 0.015mg/l for AmmN is for
a value <0.02, and 0.05m g/l
for TON is for a value <0.1
Parameter Unit M [N Mj\X M EAN
pH 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.17 7.3
EC ps/cm 49.8 53.4 165 117 93.1 79.4
TSS mg /1 27.8 14 225 106 114.7 51.8
BOD mg /1 6 .1 2.75 15 8 .2 11.3 4.13
AmmN mg /1 0.015 0.015 0.142 0.105 0.06 0.06
TON mg /1 0.05 0.05 1 .2 1 1.14 0.56 0.61
o-phos mg /1 0.06 0.039 0.177 0.115 0.1 0.074
chloride mg /1 2 .6 1.7 16.8 1 2 .2 9.8 7.08
Table 5.14 EPIC values for West Grange event 17
The remaining two events with EPIC samples analysed for sanitary suite determinands and
the four events with manual samples are illustrated in Appendix 5.3C (Figures 28-66 and
Tables 7-12). Most of the data from these events concur with that from event 17, although
there are some exceptions. In events 1 and 2 ortho-phosphate is a little higher in the swale
runoff than the road, but is lower in event 13. AmmN is lower in the swale runoff in
events 11,13 and 14, but higher in event 12. EC is lower in the swale runoff in events 12,
13 and 14 but higher in event 11. TSS is lower in events 11,13 and 14. BOD is higher
in the swale runoff in event 11 and lower in event 12. In event 14, all values for the swale
runoff are lower than the road runoff. TSS values for road runoff are notably high in
events 11 and 14 compared to the other events, as is the value for EC in swale runoff and
AmmN in road runoff in event 11. Chloride values in event 1 are high in road and swale
runoff compared to the other events.
EPIC data - metals

During event 22 EPIC samples for swale and road runoff were collected and analysed for
six metals, and TSS. Three samples from each were also analysed for dissolved metals in
addition to the total metals. Whilst the rainfall continued steadily throughout this period,
there were two main periods of road and swale runoff from which the samples were
collected. 2 batches of samples from road and swale at 12 minute intervals were collected,
the first batch from approximately 13:00 on the 31st and the second batch from
approximately 5:00 on the 1st. A total of 11 road samples and 8 swale samples were
analysed. Figure 5.55 to Figure 5.61 show the plots of the interpolated data for each
determinand. The values which represent actual samples are indicated with a circle or
square at the tip of the column, and the values that represent dissolved metals are shown
with an orange or green horizontal line. Sonde data was also collected for event 22, and is
shown in Appendix 5.3C, Figures 13-17 and Table 4.
Road — Road dissolved
interpolated data Road sample metal sample --------- Road runoff
mmmmmm Swale Swale sample swale dissolved Swale runoff
interpolated data metal sample

Cadmium Lead
Event*22
13:00 14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08

31/7/00 X 1/8/00 31/7/00 > 4 1/8/00
Figure 5.55 WG EPIC Cadmium (event 22) Figure 5.56 WG EPIC Lead (event 22)
Copper Chromium
200 1 Event 22 7
150
6~
5E
x:
-
100 s
4 E
o 50 »- 1
0 m .............
13:00 14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08 13:00 14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08
◄ -----M
31/7/00 1/8/00 4 31/7/00 ^ 4
o -i 1-7ir\r\
1/8/00
7/0 m ^
Figure 5.57 WG EPIC Copper (event 22) Figure 5.58 WG EPIC Chromium (event 22)
Nickel Zinc
14
12
10
----------
Event 22
1
250
200
Event 22
8 O)
3
150
6
J____ •
___Ii NC
100
n till
4
2 50
0 0
13:00 14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08 13:00 14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08
31/7/00 1/8/00 4-----o ôoX.
31/7/00 1/8/00
Figure 5.59 WG EPIC Nickel (event 22) Figure 5.60 WG EPIC Zinc (event 22)
Total Suspended Solids
140 Event 22
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
14:20 15:40 05:28 06:48 08:08
31/7/00 X - 1/8/00
Figure 5.61 WG EPIC TSS (event 22)

The plots for event 22 indicate the ‘first flush’ phenomenon, i.e. a high concentration of
metals at the start of the event, followed by a gradual recession. The TSS concentrations
also follow this pattern. The first flush of metals may be linked to the flush of sediments.
Overall, the pollutant levels in the runoff on the 1st August are lower than those on the 31st
July, although the first flush is still clearly visible. Cd and Cu are significantly higher in
the swale runoff than the road, and Zn is slightly higher, this is the same for the dissolved
metals in the three samples analysed. Table 5.15 gives values for the determinands
monitored in event 22.
31s'J u ly -1 st August 2000
No. o f Road =11 Total Rain = 3.6 Notes: 2 batches o f samples
samples: Swale = 8 (mm): Road = 1.5 taken, one on 3 1st and one
Swale = 0.5 on 1st. The dissolved
metals are from 3 samples.
Parameter Unit M IN Mj\X M EAN
Cd 0.071 0 .1 2 1 0.293 2.9 0.17 0.89
Dissolved Cd Pg /1
0 .1 1 20.24 0.25 1.7 0.19 0 .8
Pb Pg /1
1.95 1.63 18.3 9.84 8.15 4.64
Dissolved Pb PM _____ 7.23 3.34 14.78 6.79 10.5 5.31
Cu Pgd_____ 1 0 .1 1 2 .8 52.5 178 28 51.8
Dissolved Cu Pgd 2 2 .8 2 1 39.4 70.4 28.7 43.4
Cr Pgd_____ 1.58 1.41 10.9 4.99 5.4 2.83
Dissolved Cr Pgd_____ 1.82 0.97 2.33 2.24 2 1.69
Ni Pgd 0.76 0.98 12.4 5.18 6.3 3.1
Dissolved Ni Pgd_____ 2.53 2.15 4.36 3.74 3.57 3.15
Zn pg /1
29 29 183 223 82.1 93.7
Dissolved Zn Fg /1
77 75 156 126 111.3 102.7
TSS mg /1 7.8 7.3 133 46.1 56.8 18.9
EPIC data - hydrocarbons

During event 16 samples for both for road and swale runoff were collected at 12 minutes
intervals. Six road samples and five swale samples were analysed for hydrocarbons.
Figure 5.62 shows the plot of the interpolated data. The values which represent actual
samples are indicated with a circle or square at the tip of the column.
The plot shows a ‘first flush’ at the start of the event which decreases. The level of
hydrocarbon in the swale runoff is lower than in the road runoff.

Hydrocarbon
5 Event 16 16
4 1 12
3
2 A 8 2E
S E
1 4
0 '!mflTllT■kJItiî^Mh^7m^Tr?nTTiftiInilIihiiTrrm 0
14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
29/5/00 29/5/00 29/5/00 29/5/00
Date
Figure 5.62 WG EPIC Hydrocarbons (event 16)

29th May 2000
No. o f Road Rain = 3.2
= 6 Total
Notes:
samples: Swale =5 Road = 1.04 (mm):
Swale = 0.92
Road Swale Road Swale Road | Swale
Hydrocarbon mg 0.57 0.31 /1 4.73 1.09 1.47 0.6
The remaining two events with EPIC samples analysed for hydrocarbons are illustrated in
Appendix 5.3C (Figures 67 & 68, Tables 13 & 14). They show that the concentration of
hydrocarbons is slightly lower in the swale runoff and varies less than the road. The levels
are similar to those in event 16.
5.5 SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS

The monitoring results from individual events at each site have been presented in this
chapter, with the data gathering periods illustrated. The hydrological and water quality
parameters are discussed and illustrated with example plots. The remaining plots and data
are given in Appendices 5.2 and 5.3. The individual event data given in this chapter are
the building blocks of the subsequent research, and are analysed further in Chapter 6, with
summary tables and anecdotal observations.

CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Analysis and interpretation of the monitoring results are presented in this chapter, to show
how each site has performed, both numerically and through observation on site, and
subsequent chapters build on this information.
Each site is considered individually, looking at hydrological data, water quality data and
compilations of all the qualitative observations made during the fieldwork. A comparison
between the three sites is detailed in Chapter 9. Summary tables of hydrological and water
quality data for each site are shown in this chapter, with more detail given in Chapter 5 and
Appendices 6.1 and 6.2.
Summary tables of hydrological data are shown for each site with the characteristic flow
attenuation and reduction capabilities. The tables are summarised from the detailed tables
in Appendix 6.1, the information for which has been derived from the monitoring results in
Chapter 5. There are six key parameters discussed which provide numerical information
on the performance of each site. These parameters are:
■ Initial runoff loss (IRL)
■ Number of events retained (as percentage)
■ Percentage outflow/ runoff (outflow/ runoff as a percentage of rainfall)
■ Benefit Factor (introduced in Section 3.7)
■ Peak flow reduction (in mm/h and percentage)
■ Lag time
Tables of water quality are shown for each site, summarised from the detailed tables in
Appendix 6.2. The water quality results are discussed in three groups: physical and
chemical; metals; and hydrocarbons, with a short summary at the end. The group for
physical and chemical determinands includes results from the sondes and the EPIC
samples analysed for sanitary suite determinands. The groups for metals and for
hydrocarbons include results from the EPIC samples. For all EPIC samples the results for
both concentrations and loads are discussed. The water quality at each site is compared to
typical concentrations expected to be found in urban runoff and to a variety of water
quality standards. This comparison indicates that, in general, all three sites monitored have
a fairly low level of pollution, and would be unlikely to cause a pollution problem.
Information on individual determinands is provided in Section 3.6.2 for reference. The
Chapter 6 Analysis and Interpretation 101

water quality data collected for each site is important to assess effluent quality and also to
determine processes occurring within the system.
During the years of data collection undertaken at each site for this research, the systems
and sites were watched and observed during a variety of conditions. These ‘qualitative
observations’ are condensed and discussed in this chapter as they provide essential and
unique insight to the performance of each SUD system monitored, and highlight some vital
information for the design and construction of SUDS.
The antecedent precipitation index after 5 days (Apis) is referred to often in the analysis in
this chapter. It is defined as “APUgCp*1 ~9)/24+Pt’-9Cp(t "9)/48 ”, and APU 9 is determined for the
each of the five days prior to the event using “EP.nCpn'°5”. Cp=0.5, t’ is the start time of the
event, Pf-9 is the rainfall depth between t’ and 0900, and P.n is the rainfall on the nth day.
6.1 NATS ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

A total of 153 rainfall events were recorded at NATS and 35 of them examined in detail, as
discussed in Section 5.2. The hydrological and water quality data from these 35 events are
analysed and interpreted here along with the qualitative observations.
6.1.1 NATS Hydrology

Table 6.1 shows the minimum, maximum and mean values of the hydrological data. The
total rainfall of the 35 events ranged from 4.4mm to 33.4mm and had a mean of 12.4mm.
The mean duration was 16.2 hours (range 0.75 - 52), with an average maximum intensity
of 13.6mm/h (range 3-84mm) and a mean Apis of 2.58 (range 0.1-11.9).
Outflow/
Lag time
intensity
(V***”*^V'±'
m iricVTl
Total Rainfall (mm)
/ ___m/ii)
Runoff
/L.\
runoff
run0ff
runnff
before
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
(m
%
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
reduction
Porous*
Porous*
Porous*
Porous*
(mm/h)
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Porous
Api5
Min 4.4 0.75 3 51.2 1.13 0.14 21.4 2.3 0.93 0.05 23.7 -158 29
(6.5)
0 .1 0 2 .6
Max 33.4 52 84 11.9 17.2 24.3 15.3 72.8 91.2 2 .6 66 17 9.8 98.4 123 600
75
MEAN 12.4 16.2 13.6 2.58 0.76 7.29 6.4 3.15 48.2 22.17 (64.2) 5.2 1.93 76.8 9.59 180
count 35 35 35 35 19 34 19 34 19 34 15 (18) 19 34 18 21 34
* excluding event 19 which did not produce porous exit water
O some events have more than 1 lag time value as two or more peaks were calculated
t figures in brackets are values with three possible outliers included in the dataset
Table 6.1 Summary o f NATS hydrological data - min, max & mean
Initial Runoff Loss (IRL)
Initial losses at any site will vary according to antecedent conditions. A value for IRL has
been calculated at NATS using an average of results from two methods, and the results
shown in Table 6.2:
i) value from regression equation in Figure 6.1, for total runoff and total rainfall
ii) mean value of ‘mm rain before runoff commences’ in Table 6.1
Location Value (mm)
i) ii) IRL
Tarmac 0.9 0.76 0 .8
Porous 4.2 7.29 5.6

Table 6.2 calculation o f IRL for NATS
Figure 6.1 Total Runoff v. Rainfall for NATS
Figure 6.2 shows ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’ for both car parks plotted against
Api5.
Figure 6.2 'mm rain before runoff commences' v. Api for NATS
5

The mean values are indicated on the y-axis. The very low R for the tarmac and porous
'y
indicates that the commencement of runoff is independent of antecedent wetting. The

greatest value of recorded depth of rain before runoff commenced at the tarmac car park
was 2.6mm, which was the same as the minimum depth required at the porous. The range
of values for the tarmac car park was significantly less than for the porous, 2.6mm
compared to 14.6mm, confirming that the production of runoff from the tarmac car park
was independent of antecedent conditions, whilst the porous had more variation.
Number of Events Retained

From the 153 events recorded, 145 had a total rainfall of 0.8mm or more (IRL for tarmac).
The monitoring equipment at the tarmac car park was operational during 88 of these
events. However, as the IRL at the tarmac car park was 0.8mm it can be assumed that
virtually all of these 145 rainfall events produced runoff at the tarmac car park. Only 58
events produced outflow from the porous paved car park i.e. the porous paving system
prevented runoff from 60% of all the rainfall events that produced runoff from the tarmac.
Percentage Outflow
For each event that did produce outflow at the porous paved car park, the total depth of
outflow/ runoff was significantly less for the porous car park than the tarmac. This is
expressed at ‘Percentage Outflow’ (‘Percentage Runoff for the tarmac). Runoff from the
tarmac car park was 48.2% of rainfall, whilst the outflow from the porous car park was
only 22.2%. Figure 6.3 shows Percentage Outflow/ Runoff plotted against Apis, from
which it is evident there is no relationship. Figure 6.4 shows Percentage Outflow is
independent of total rainfall, and there is a very weak relationship for the tarmac
Percentage Runoff, indicating that there % Runoff was highest in larger rainfall events.
Figure 6.3 % Outflow v. Api for NATS

5 Figure 6.4 % Outflow v. Total Rainfall for NATS
Benefit Factor
The term ‘Benefit Factor’ (BF) is introduced in Section 3.7. The dataset included three
very low values of 6%, 11% and 12% (as illustrated in Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6), which
were significantly less than the 51- 92% range of the other values. These low values are
from events 16, 17 and 21. Table 6.1 shows the minimum, maximum and mean with the
three low values removed from the dataset, and in brackets shows the minimum, maximum
and mean with the three values included. The mean BF without these three very low
values was 75%.
Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 show the plots of BF against Apis and Total Rainfall
respectively. The three outlier low values are shown, but are not included in the trendlines
and regression equations. The plots show that BF is independent of Apis, and there is a
weak relationship with Total Rainfall indicating that BF was largest in smaller rainfall
events.
Benefit Factor v. Api5
100
♦ ♦ ♦
80 ♦— * -..- ♦ ------------- — ♦
* > — ---- ♦
60 .? ♦
o5 ♦
y =2.134x +71.074
an
R 2 =0.0581
♦ ♦
♦
n
1 2 Api5 3 4 5
♦ Benefit Factor ♦ 3 outlier low values
Figure 6.5 Benefit Factor v. Api for NATS 5 Figure 6 .6 Benefit Factor v. Total Rainfall for NATS
Peak Flow Reduction

Analysis of the data shows that the porous paved car park significantly reduced the peak
runoff rate, with the statistics shown in Table 6.1. The mean peak intensity from the
tarmac was 5.2mm/h (range 0.93 to 17) and from the porous was 1.93mm/h (range 0.05 to
9.8). The mean reduction was 76.8%, ranging from 23.7 to 98.4%.
Lag Time
Lag time, ‘the time from centroid of total rainfall to peak flow’ (NERC, 1975), at the
porous paved car park was found to be significantly longer than at the tarmac. The mean
lag time at the tarmac car park was 9.6 minutes, i.e. almost instantaneous, whereas it
was found to be 180 minutes at the porous with a range of 30 minutes to 10 hours. On
several occasions the peak flow at the tarmac car park was b e f o r e the centroid of the total
rainfall, resulting in a negative value.
Figure 6.7 shows the relationship of mean lag times at the porous paved car park for
groups of Api5 values. No relationship could be developed for individual point pairs. It
shows that as Apis increased the lag time was reduced. This will be primarily due to
ground saturation.
Figure 6.7 Mean lag times at NATS porous paved car park v. Api 5
No relationship between lag time and Api5 could be found at the tarmac car park. All
graphs and analysis showed that the points, ranging from -158 to 123 minutes, had no
relationship and averaged at approximately zero (9.3 minutes) indicating that runoff from
the tarmac car park was almost instantaneous.
6.1.2 NATS Water Quality

Water quality data from 20 events events were collected. Section 5.2.2 provides more
detail on the data used, and graphs of individual events are shown there and in Appendix
5.3 A. Some visible evidence of pollutants is discussed in Section 6.1.3
Physical and Chemical Determinands

Table 6.3 shows a summary of the sonde data gathered at NATS. The EPIC sanitary suite
results are summarised in Table 6.4, whilst the loads are summarised in Table 6.5. The
values from which these summaries are extracted are shown in Appendix 6.2, Tables 1-3.

Sonde water quality values (12 events)
Parameter Temp pH Cond DO Turbid. Ammon.
Unit °c pS % NTU ppm
Average § Tarmac 6.7 68 71 43 0.68
Porous 7.9 341 42 95 1.57
Range of Tarmac 4 .2 -8 .3 6 .5 - 7 3 0 .5 -1 0 7 6 6 -7 6 3 6 -4 9 .5 0.1 1 -1 .6
EMCs Porous 5.1 - 18.8 7 .6 -8 .3 2 3 8 -4 9 7 2 9 -7 7 9 -3 0 8 0 .7 -2 .1 5
E M C R ed ./ Inc. (-/+) * +0.36° + 1.3 + 630% + . %®
1 8 -24% +602%
* calculated from reduction/ increase for individual events
® From only one event
§ calculated from EMC for each event (except temperature and pH which have no EMC, only average)
Table 6.3 Summary o f NATS sonde data
EPIC water quality - SANITARY (6 events)

Parameter pH Cond. TSS BOD TON o-phos C hlor. Am mN
Unit pS/ cm mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Average§ Tarmac 6.68 49.3 30.03 4.8 0.68 0.03 8.3 0.2
Porous 8.03 316.5 19.1 1.74 0.86 0.207 23.9 0.32
Range of Tarmac 6 .4-6.8 5 41.25-62 15.8-51 2.8-5.8 0.15- 1.42 0.02- 0.04 6.5- 10.9 0.03- 0.48
EMCs Porous 7.74- 8.2 210-416 15-24 1.5- 2.2 0.36- 1.36 0.05- 0.65 3 -5 7 .6 0.03- 1.13
E M C R ed ./ Inc. (-/+ )* +1.37 +822% -32.1% -48.8% +165.3% +157.1% +397.8% -32.6%
* calculated from reduction/ increase for individual events i.e. not the difference between the Average
§ calculated from EMC for each event (except pH which have no EMC, only average)
Table 6.4 Summary of NATS EPIC sanitary suite data (concentration)
EPIC water quality-SANITARY LOADS (mg/m2) (6 events)

Parameter TSS BOD TON o-phos Chlor.A AmraN
Unit mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m mg/m
Average Tarmac 104.7 13.44 2.46 0.098 24.8 0.72
Ioad§ Porous 52.2 4.3 2.86 0.66 40.4 1.36
Range Tarmac 62.6 - 177.6 6 .9 -2 0 .3 0.25 - 4.95 0.033 -0.1 4 1 7 .9 -3 0 .4 0 .0 5 -1 .6 7
Porous 5.8 - 105.6 0 .7 - 7.2 0 .1 4 -5 .6 0 .0 1 9 -2 .3 3 .7 - 125.2 0 .0 1 1 -5 .4 2
R ed ./ Inc. (-/+) * -53.2% -69.5% +55.2% +47.8% +167% -73.25%
§ calculated from load for each event
Table 6.5 Summary of NATS EPIC sanitary suite data (load)
The event mean increase of temperature was +0.36°C (sonde). However, this does not
reflect the insulating effect of the porous car park. For individual events the range of
temperatures of the porous car park exit water during each event was very small compared
to the tarmac with an average range of 0.67°C compared to 2.6°C (see Appendix 6.2, Table
i).
pH was always slightly acidic at the tarmac car park and always slightly alkaline at the
porous. The event mean increase was +1.3 from the sondes and +1.37 from the EPIC
samples, with an average of 6.7 from the tarmac and 8 from the porous. An acceptable pH
range in rivers of excellent quality in Scotland is 6-9 (see Appendix 3.2, Table 2), and the
values for outflow from the porous and tarmac were always within this range.
Conductivity was significantly higher in the porous exit water than the tarmac runoff. The
EMC increase was +632% from the sondes and 822% from the EPIC samples, with an
average of 68 & 49 pS from the tarmac and 320 & 316 from the porous. The significant
increase is probably related to a high level of dissolved solids in the porous exit water.
EPIC samples from event 21 were analysed to obtain a detailed breakdown of the solids
concentration at both sites (see Appendix 5.3A, Figures 71 - 84 and Table 14). Total solids
in the porous exit water was 338% more than in the tarmac runoff. Most of the difference
can be accounted for by an increase of dissolved solids, as the total suspended solids were
similar at both sites. The results for chloride, which contribute to the dissolved solids
levels, from the EPIC samples concur with the increase of conductivity. The EC Drinking
Water Directive sets a maximum level for conductivity at 400 pS/cm, and the EC Surface
Water Directive sets the level at 1000 pS/cm. Conductivity in the porous exit water only
exceeded 400 pS/cm during events 17 and 20, where it reached maxima of 506 and 421
respectively.
The EMC increase of dissolved oxygen was +1.8%. However, this is inconclusive since
there was only one event for which a direct comparison was possible (event 17). The
average DO was 71% at the tarmac (2 events) and 62.8% at the porous (7 events). Water
quality standards for DO are shown in Appendix 3.2, Table 2. The levels in the tarmac
runoff are nearly in the classification of excellent river quality, whilst the porous exit water
is closer to fair.
The EMC reduction of turbidity was -24% from the sondes and -32% for TSS from EPIC
samples. The average TSS from the EPICs corresponded with this reduction, unlike the
average turbidity from the sondes. This higher average from the porous car park (sonde
data) may be due to the inclusion of six events which have no corresponding tarmac data,
and have a significantly greater EMC than previous events. Visually, the samples taken
from the porous car park always appeared less turbid than those from the tarmac. The TSS
load, per m , was 53.2% less from the porous than the tarmac car park, and the average
corresponds with this. Compared to the expected TSS concentration values in urban runoff
shown in Appendix 3.2 Table 1, the levels at NATS were quite low. The maximum EMC
values were 51mg/l for tarmac and 24 for porous, and the maximum values for individual

samples were 154mg/l for the tarmac car park (event 19) and 114mg/l for the porous (event
34). The water quality standard for TSS in the EC Surface Water Directive is 25mg/l (see
Appendix 3.2, Table 2), and the average for the porous exit water is less than this whilst
the average for the tarmac runoff slightly exceeds it. The World Health Organisation
drinking water guide value for turbidity is 5NTU, which is exceeded by both the tarmac
and the porous car parks.
The EMC increase of ammonium (sondes) was +602%, with an average of 0.68ppm for
the tarmac runoff and 1.57ppm for the porous exit water. The EMC reduction of
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN) does not concur (-32%), although the average of 0.2mg/l
for the tarmac and 0.32mg/l for the porous was an increase in a similar ratio to that of the
sondes. Whilst there is an increase in concentration of AmmN in the porous exit water the
load (per m2) has an overall reduction of 73.25% , although the average load is 1.36mg/m2
for the porous and only 0.72 for the tarmac. The increase in concentration in the porous
exit water is probably due to the larger effective surface area of the porous car park,
particularly in the sub-base. A bacterial biofilm may exist on the stones of the sub-base
which will convert protein (from decaying plants and bacteria) into ammonium i.e. in situ
bio-remediation (Pratt et al, 1998). When compared against water quality standards
(Appendix 3.2, Table 2) for river classifications in Scotland, the average levels of AmmN
for the porous and tarmac are around the levels for excellent water quality, although the
range of EMCs goes to the level of fair water quality. The levels of ammonium are greater
than those given for EC Surface Water and Drinking Water directives. Typical values for
urban runoff (Appendix 3.2, Table 1) indicate that levels of AmmN are on the lower side
of what would be expected, whilst levels of ammonium are higher.
The EMC decrease of BOD was —49%. All the EMC values were low when compared to
the expected values for urban runoff shown in Appendix 3.2 Table 1. During event 19 the
tarmac runoff was in the range of expected values, with a maximum value of 12.5mg/l and
a mean of 5.8mg/l. All the BOD values for porous exit water were within the Scottish
river classification of excellent, whilst the tarmac runoff average was within the acceptable
limits for the EC Surface Water Directive for ‘good water’ (see Appendix 3.2, Table 2),
although individual EMC values were sometimes higher. The load of BOD was 69.5%
less from the porous car park than the tarmac.
The EMC increase of TON was 165.3%, with an average of 0.7mg/l from the tarmac and
0.9mg/l from the porous. These values are within the expected range for urban runoff (see

Appendix 3.2, Table 1), and no water quality standards were available for TON. The EMC
increase of o-phos was +157.1%, with an average of 0.03mg/l from the tarmac and
0.207mg/l from the porous. The value for tarmac runoff is lower than expected for urban
runoff (Appendix 3.2, Table 1) whilst the values for porous exit water are within the
expected range, and no water quality standards were available for o-phos. This increase in
nutrients, confirmed by the sonde results for ammonium (+602%), may be due to plant
decomposition (Chapra, 1997) or leaching from soil (Pratt, 1989). The loads for both TON
and o-phos were increased at the porous car park by +55% and +48% respectively.
The EMC increase of chloride was +398%, with an average of 8.3mg/l from the tarmac
and 23.9mg/l from the porous. This sizeable increase may be one of the contributing
factors to high conductivity level, but it is unclear why it occurred. The levels are still well
within the range of expected values for urban runoff (Appendix 3.2, Table 1) and the
average for the tarmac and porous car parks are below the limit set in the EC Drinking
Water Directive (Appendix 3.2, Table 2). The load per m was greater at the porous car
park than at the tarmac.
Table 2.2 in the review of literature shows percentage reductions for loads and
concentrations for a range of sites, and also a range of mean concentrations for porous
asphalt, porous blocks and permeable grass concrete. Values from this study generally
concur with the values in that table, except that TSS from this study had a lower percent
reduction than in the Swedish study (Hogland et al, 1987).
Metals
Table 6.6 shows a summary of the EPIC samples analysed for metals, whilst the loads are
summarised in Table 6.7. The values from which these summaries are extracted are shown
as Appendix 6.2, Tables 4 and 5.
EPIC water quality - METALS & HYDROCARBONS
________________(3 events metals, 4 for hydrocarbons)________________
Parameter Cd Pb Cu Cr Ni Zn Hydrocarb
Unit Mg/l Fg/1 Mg/1 Fg/1 Fg/1 ug/l mg/1
Average§ Tarmac® 0.3 2.76 5.05 0.68 4.64 29.4 1.07
Porous 1.91 9.8 10.9 5.73 3.78 42 0.47
Range of Tarmac® 0.3 2.76 5.05 0.68 4.64 29.4 1.07
EMCs Porous 0.12-5.33 0.93- 24.3 3 .7 6 -2 3 .0 7 3 .8 5 -8 .7 3 0.95- 8.69 17- 67 0.15-1.21
EMC Red./Inc. (-/+)*® -4% - % -25.5%6 6 +580% -63% -42.3% -69.4%
§ calculated from EMC for each event
Table 6 .6 Summary of NATS EPIC metals & hydrocarbons data (concentration)
EPIC w ater quality - M ETA LS & H Y D R O C A R BO N S L O A D S (pg/m2)
____________________ (3 events metals, 4 for hydrocarbons)____________________
Parameter Cd Pb Cu Cr Ni Zn Hydrocarb
1 to
Unit pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 mg/m2
Average§ Tarmac® 3.03 27.9 51 6.9 46.9 267.5
Porous 9.5 43.3 45 21.3 17.2 203.8 1.53
Range of Tarmac® 3.03 27.9 51 6.9 46.9 267.5
EMCs Porous 0 .0 5 -2 7 .3 1 .8 9 -1 2 4 .5 2 .6 7 -1 1 8 .1 1 .7 3 -4 4 .7 0 .4 3 -4 4 .5 64.6 - 343 0.16-3.25
EMC Red./Inc. (-/+)*0 -63.7% -87.3% -82.3% +155% -85.7% -75.9%
<8> From only one event
Table 6.7 Summary of NATS EPIC metals & hydrocarbon data (load)
The EMC reduction/ increase shows that metals concentrations and loads were reduced in
the porous exit water, except chromium which increased. The averages did not concur
with this, primarily because the tarmac averages were from only one event which had a
low EMC for both car parks. The porous EMC for other events were higher. This is
shown in Appendix 6.2, Table 4.
The values for concentrations from both the tarmac and porous car parks were less than the
water quality standards from various sources, shown in Appendix 3.2, Table 2. The values
were within the expected range for urban runoff quality (Appendix 3.2, Table 1).
In the literature review in Chapter 2, Table 2.1 shows percentage reductions for loads and
concentrations, and also a range of mean concentrations for porous asphalt, porous blocks
and permeable grass concrete. The values for this study generally concur with the results
in that table, except for the following: the mean concentrations in the Swedish study
(snowmelt) were significantly more than for those in this study; the mean concentration of
Ni was higher in this study than that for Schluter et al (2001); and Cr was increased in the
porous car park in this study and not in the studies shown in Table 2.2.
H ydrocarbons
Table 6.6 shows a summaiy of the EPIC samples analysed for hydrocarbons, whilst the
loads are summarised in Table 6.7. The values from which these summaries are extracted
are shown in Appendix 6.2, Tables 6 and 7. Visible evidence of hydrocarbons is discussed
in Section 6.1.3
Hydrocarbon concentration was reduced by 69.4% in the porous exit water. This was the
value from the one event for which there samples were taken from both the tarmac and the

porous car park. The values for the averages for the porous and tarmac car parks confirm
this reduction. As shown in Appendix 6.2, Table 7, no tarmac runoff data were available
for this event so a load could not be calculated. The values for hydrocarbon concentration
were in the lower range expected to be found in urban runoff, and higher than the limits set
for the EC Surface Water Directive and EC Drinking Water Directive. Event 32 showed a
slightly higher level of hydrocarbon concentration than the other events, ranging from 0.14
to 2.01 mg/1.
6.1.3 Q ualitative O bservations at NATS
A severe flood event occurred on the 26th April 2000. Unfortunately the monitoring
equipment at NATS was flooded, hence no data could be collected. However, from the
media and conversations with various people it is apparent that the porous paved car park
performed very favourably. A total of 101mm rainfall fell in 48 hours on the 25th and 26th,
having a return period of 1 in 100 years. The average monthly rainfall for Edinburgh in
April is 39mm (Walker & Denholm, 2000). By the evening of the 25th, the catchment was
saturated and SEPA issued flood warnings at 5am on the 26th. Murrayfield was one of the
worst affected areas as the Water of Leith burst its banks, people were evacuated from their
homes and the national rugby stadium was under a foot of water. NATS is approximately
one mile from the stadium. During a follow up visit to the NATS site on the 27th it was
clear that the manholes with the monitoring equipment had been flooded - there was
sediment and storm litter on top of the equipment and around the top of the manholes. A
conversation on site revealed that the Services Supervisor had been called out during the
previous night as the manholes on the site were surcharging and causing the manhole
covers to lift. He also said that the four houses surrounding the car park, the golf course
there and the tarmac car park itself were all flooded, but that he had observed that the only
area which had no standing water was the porous paved car park. Although there is no
monitoring data, it is evident that the porous car park system is capable of performing
under extreme events.
Visible pollutants were occasionally observed on site. A slick of oil/ petrol would
sometimes be seen in the runoff from the tarmac car park, as shown in Appendix 6.3 Plate
1. This is evidence that, whilst the EPIC samples may have had relatively low
hydrocarbon concentrations, there were periods when distinct quantities of hydrocarbons
would be entering the system. During the latter part of the monitoring a large stain,
apparently an oil spill, was observed on the porous car park as shown in Appendix 6.3
Plate 2. Another pollutant source was leaf litter which was evident at the tarmac car park,
as shown in Appendix 6.3 Plate 3. This could reduce DO whilst increasing BOD and
solids as they decomposed, as well as blocking the system. It was also noted that
sometimes the funnel going into the tipping bucket at the tarmac gully pot was crammed
full of leaves.
Another observation made at the porous car park was the growth of plant matter/ moss, as
shown in Appendix 6.3 Plates 4 and 5. This appeared during the later part of the
monitoring, and may be a result of or a contributing cause of the high nutrient levels in the
porous exit water.
6.2 E M M O C K W O O D S ANA LY SIS A ND IN TER PR ETA TIO N
A total of 106 rainfall events were recorded at Emmock Woods and 26 of them examined
in detail, as discussed in Section 5.3. The hydrological and water quality data from these
26 events are analysed and interpreted here along with the qualitative observations.
6.2.1 Em m ock W oods H ydrology
The mean duration was 13.1 hours (range 1.2-32.25), with an average maximum intensity
of 11.7mm/h (range 3-30mm) and a mean Apis of 1.57 (range 0-6.23). Lag time
intensity
/rrftincVTS
tuiui/u;
TJnnnff
Runoff
/__ /L\
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runnff
before
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
%
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Benefit Factor
reduction
(mm/h)
Swale*
Swale*
Swale*
Swale*
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Api5
0/o
Min 1.6 1.2 3 0 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.02 12.5 0.4 47 1.05 0.27 0 1.6 1.63
Max 34.2 32.25 30 6.23 2.8 12.4 7.8 12.3 86.9 36 99.3 9.6 4.78 95 21 29.7
MEAN 10.6 13.1 11.7 1.57 0.75 3.9 3.55 1 44.3 6.53 82.4 4.06 1.6 52.2 9.2 11.6
count 24 24 24 24 12 21 13 22 11 20 10 14 23 12 14 20
* excluding event 18,24 and 25 which did not produce swale runoff
Table 6.8 Summary of Emmock Woods hydrological data - min, max & mean

Initial Runoff Loss (IRL)
A value for IRL has been calculated at Emmock Woods using an average of results from
two methods, and the results shown in Table 6.9:
i) value from regression equation in Figure 6 .8 , for total runoff and total rainfall
ii) mean value of ‘mm rain before runoff commences’ in Table 6 . 8
Location Value (mm)
i) ii) IR L
Road 0.1 0.75 0.4
Swale 6.0 3.9 5.0
Table 6.9 calculation of IRL for Emmock Woods
Figure 6.8 Total Runoff v. Rainfall for Emmock Woods
Figure 6.9 shows ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’ for road and swale runoff plotted
against Apis. The mean values are indicated on the y-axis. The horizontal trendlines for
both road and swale runoff with very low R2 values indicate that the commencement of
runoff is independent of antecedent wetting. The range of values for ‘mm rain before
runoff commences’ (shown in Table 6 .8 ) for road runoff was 2.6mm, whilst swale runoff
had a range of 11.7mm. This shows that the production of runoff from the road was
independent of antecedent conditions, whilst the swale had more variation.

From the 106 events recorded, 104 had a total rainfall of 0.4mm or more (IRL for road).
The monitoring equipment for the road runoff was operational for 33 of these events.
However, as the IRL for the road was 0.4mm it can be assumed that virtually all of these
104 rainfall events produced runoff from the road. Only 52 of the rainfall events produced
runoff from the swale i.e. the swale prevented runoff from 50% of all rainfall events that
produced runoff from the road.
Percentage Runoff
For each event that did produce runoff from the swale, the total depth of the runoff was
significantly less for the swale than the road, expressed at Percentage Runoff. Runoff from
the road was an average of 44.3% of the rainfall, whilst runoff from the swale was 6.53%.
The range of values for Percentage Runoff from the road was 74.4, whilst from the swale
the range was 35.6. However, as can be seen on Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11, there were
two values for swale runoff that were larger than most of the others (36% and 21.5%) and
with these two values excluded from the dataset the range was only 9.6. Figure 6.10 shows
Percentage Runoff plotted against Apis, from which it is evident there is no relationship.
Figure 6.11 shows Percentage Runoff plotted against total rainfall, for which there is no
relationship for the road runoff, and a very weak relationship for the swale indicating that
percentage runoff was higher in larger events. The swale always produced a low
percentage of rainfall as runoff, unlike the road which produced a varying percentage
runoff which was always greater than from the swale.

% Runoff v. Total R ainfall
X X y = 0.5919x + 40.098
R 2 = 0.0126
10 20 30 40
mm Rainfall
x road • s w ale
Figure 6.10 % Runoff v. Api5 for EW Figure 6.11 % Runoff v. Total Rainfall for EW
Benefit Factor
The term ‘Benefit Factor’ (BF) is introduced in Section 3.7. The mean BF at Emmock
Woods was 82.4%, with a range of 47% to 99.3%. Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13 show
plots of BF against Apis and Total Rainfall respectively. Events 17 and 23 are not
included because there was no Apis and rainfall data for these two events. The plots show
that BF is independent of Apis, and there is a weak relationship with Total Rainfall
suggesting that BF was largest in smaller rainfall events.
Benefit Factor v. Api 5 Benefit Factor v. Total R ainfall
♦ Benefit Factor
Figure 6.12 Benefit Factor v. Api5 for EW Figure 6.13 Benefit Factor v. Total Rainfall for EW
Peak Flow Reduction

Inspection of the data shows that the swale reduced the peak runoff rate. The statistics are
shown in Table 6 .8 . The mean peak intensity from the road runoff was 4.06mm/h (range
1.05 to 9.6) and from the swale runoff was 1.6mm/h (range 0.27 to 4.78). The mean
reduction was 52.2%, ranging from 0 to 95%.

Lag Tim e
Lag time at the swale was only marginally longer than lag time for road runoff. The
statistics are shown in Table 6.8. Mean lag time for the road was 9.2 minutes (range 1.6 to
21 minutes) and for the swale was 11.6 minutes (range 1.63 to 29.7 minutes). Inspection
showed there was no relationship with Apis.
6.2.2 E m m ock W oods W ater Q uality
Water quality data from a total of four events were collected, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.
Three events had sonde data and one event had a manual sample analysed for determinands
from the sanitary suite. These results are discussed under the heading o f physical and
chemical determinands. No samples were analysed for metals or hydrocarbons. Some
visible evidence of pollutants is discussed in Section 6.2.3.
Physical and Chem ical Determ inands
Table 6.10 shows a summary of the sonde data gathered at Emmock Woods and Table 6.11
shows the results of the single manual sample taken for analysis. The values from which
these summaries are extracted are shown in Appendix 6.2, Table 8 and 9.
Sonde w ater quality values (3 events)
Parameter Temp pH Cond DO0 Ammon.
Unit °c pS % ppm
Average § Road 8.28 69.05 0.43
Swale 8.28 83.54 68.6
Range of Road 4.95 - 5.72 8.2-8.37 60.7-77.4 0.37-0.5
EMCs Swale 4.3-13.4 8.18-8.54 65.3-103.97 68.6
EMC Red./ Inc. (-/+)* -0.225° 0 +6.3%
0 From only one event
Table 6.10 Summary of Emmock Woods sonde data
M anual Sam ple - sanitary suite (1 sample from 1 event)

Parameter PH Cond. TSS BOD o-phos Ammon.
Unit pS/cm mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Value Road 7.6 292 1057 2.4 0.28 1.11
Swale 7.41 167 299 2.4 0 1.21
EMC Red./ Inc. (-/+) -0.19 -43% -71.7% 0% -100% +9%
Table 6.11 Summary of Emmock Woods manual sample data

The event mean reduction of temperature was -0.225°C. However, this does not reflect
the insulating effect of the swale. For individual events the range of temperature for the
swale runoff was very small compared to the road runoff, with an average range of 0.26°C
compared to 4°C (see Appendix 6.2, Table 8). The pH values for the road and swale
runoff are very similar, although the values from the sondes are higher than those from the
manual sample. The values are within the range of excellent river quality in Scotland (see
Appendix 3.2, Table 2). Conductivity results from the sondes show a slight increase of
+6.3%, and the averages concur with this. However, the manual sample shows a decrease
of 43%. The values are well within the EC Drinking Water Directive (Appendix 3.2, Table
2). Data for dissolved oxygen is available for only the swale runoff from one event,
showing an EMC of 68.6% (ranging from 60.3% to 81.4%), which is near the classification
of excellent river quality in Scotland.
The manual sample showed a 71.7% reduction of TSS in the swale runoff. The reduction
of sediment is discussed further in Section 6.2.3. The levels were within the expected
range for urban runoff (see Appendix 3.2, Table 1), and greatly exceeded water quality
standards for the EC Surface Water Directive (Appendix 3.2, Table 2). The concentration
of BOD remained unchanged in the swale runoff, although the levels were lower than
expected for urban runoff and within the limits for excellent river quality in Scotland
(Appendix 3.2, Table 1 and 2). Ortho-phosphate was zero in the swale runoff, giving a
reduction of 100%. The value of 0.28mg/l in the road runoff was in the higher range of
expected urban runoff (Appendix 3.2, Table 1). Ammonium was slightly higher in the
swale runoff sample than the road, with an increase of 9%. The values were higher than
expected in urban runoff, and higher than limits set for EC Surface Water Directive and EC
Drinking Water Directive (Appendix 3.2, Tables 1 and 2).
6.2.3 Qualitative Observations at Emmock Woods

Large amounts of sediment were frequently present during most of the monitoring period.
Appendix 6.3 Plates 6 and 7 show the sediment deposited by the construction vehicles,
which accumulated along the side of the road. This sediment would readily block the
Clearway drainage inlets, as shown in Plates 4.4 and 4.5. The inlets required regular
manual cleaning during the monitoring period to ensure runoff could enter the swale.
The ability of the swale to reduce sediment in the runoff was apparent by visual inspection
of the monitoring equipment. It was always evident there was more sediment on the
tipping bucket monitoring road runoff and its container than that monitoring swale
runoff. The tipping buckets would occasionally seize due to excessive silt in the
mechanism, but this was more frequent in the tipping bucket for the road runoff than the
swale runoff.
Sediment removal was also visibly evident over the course of time by the change in the
base of the swale, which became very uneven over time. This is shown in Plate 6.1 a, b
and c. Plate 6.1a shows the swale at the start of the monitoring period, March 1999,
looking east up the swale. Plate 6.1b shows the swale 10 months later in January 2000,
looking at the same point. Some vegetation had grown and the base of the swale appeared
more uneven. The sediment deposition is more visible in Plate 6.1c which shows the swale
in February 2000 during rainfall, looking west down the swale. The deposits of sediment
can be seen particularly at the inlets.
inlets
a b
Plate 6.1 EW swale in March 1999, Jan 2000 and Feb 2000
This change in the shape of the swale base, along with the rough, natural vegetation,
probably improved the performance of the swale by attenuating flows more effectively.
Some maintenance would be necessary however to prevent complete blockage and
malfunction.
There was periodic evidence of oil/ petrol in the runoff entering the swale, as shown in
Appendix 6.3 Plate 8 . Although no samples were analysed for hydrocarbons at this site, it
was clearly present and would likely have been retained by the swale particularly due to
the fact that the swale prevented runoff from most events and the average percentage
runoff was only 6.5%.

6.3 W EST G RANG E A NALYSIS A N D IN TER PR ETA TIO N
A total of 104 rainfall events were recorded at West Grange (WG) and 27 of them
examined in detail, as discussed in Section 5.4. The hydrological and water quality results
from these 27 events are analysed and interpreted here along with the qualitative
observations.
6.3.1 W est G range H ydrology
The mean duration was 11.6 hours (range 1 to 46), with an average maximum intensity of
9.7mm/h (range 1.2 to 48) and a mean Apis of 1.31 (range 0 to 7.3). The drainage
arrangement was modified for this monitoring (see Section 4.3.1), and subsequently
returned to the original design, whence additional monitoring was then carried out (Bryce,
2001). The last part of this Section 6.3.1 briefly discusses the affect that this had on the
hydrology.
Lag time
(mincVTS
mtenf y
(mm/h)
Runoff
Riinnff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
reduction
(mm/h)
Swale*
Swale*
Swale*
Swale*
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Api5
Min 0.6 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.6 0.15 0.06 25 5 4 (-61) 0.42 0.16 -90 -74 -70
Max 23.8 46 48 7.3 1.4 2.2 12.56 12.8 93 95 80.5 13 7.2 62 77 87
MEAN 6.7 9.7 1.31 0.4 1.09 4.36 2.97 53.1 36.7 (32.5)
11.6 44.6 3.9 3.1 1.2 3.7 14.3
count 26 26 26 27 25 22 27 23 26 22 20 (23) 27 23 23 27 24
* excluding event 3 which did not produce swale runoff
f figures in brackets are values with three possible outliers included in the dataset
Table 6.12 Summary of West Grange hydrological data - min, max & mean
Initial R unoff Loss (IRL)
A value for IRL has been calculated at NATS using an average of results from two
methods, and the results shown in Table 6.13:

i) value from regression equation in Figure 6.14, for total runoff and total rainfall
ii) mean value of ‘mm rain before runoff commences’ in Table 6.12
Location Value (mm)

i) ii) IR L
Road 0.16 0.4 0.3
Swale 1.3 1.09 1.2
Table 6.13 calculation of IRL for West Grange
Figure 6.14 Total runoff v. Rainfall for West Grange
Figure 6.15 shows ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’ for road and swale runoff
plotted against Apis. The mean values are indicated on the y-axis. The points for event 16
have been removed as they were outliers (see Appendix 6.1 Table 3 for values), although it
is unclear why they were outliers. The horizontal trendline for the road runoff with a very
low R2 indicates that the commencement of runoff is independent of antecedent wetting.
There is a weak relationship for the swale runoff suggesting that the depth of rainfall
required to produce runoff is inversely related to Apis. The depth required for road runoff
to commence was less than that for swale, but the range was very similar with 1.2mm
range for the road and 1.6mm for the swale. This similar range is due to one event (event
21) for which the depth of rain that fell before road runoff commenced was 1.4mm, which
was significantly higher than all the other events for road runoff (also see Appendix 6.1,
Table 3). The value for the swale for this event was 1.6mm. Apis for this event was zero
but event 14, which also had zero Api5, did not result in a similar high road value.

Figure 6.15 'mm rain before runoff commences' v. Api5 for West Grange

From the 104 events recorded, 98 had a total rainfall of 0.3mm or more (IRL for road).
The monitoring equipment for the road runoff was operational for all these events, and all
events resulted in road runoff. 62 of these events resulted in swale runoff that was
recorded, however during another 16 events the monitoring equipment for the swale was
not operational. As the IRL for the swale is 1.2mm it can be assumed that the 10 of those
events with rainfall totalling 1.2mm or more, did produce runoff. The total number of
events resulting in swale runoff is therefore 72 i.e. the swale prevented runoff from 27% of
the rainfall events that produced mnoff from the road.
Percentage Runoff
For each event that did produce runoff from the swale, the total depth of the runoff was on
average slightly less for the swale than the road, and is expressed as Percentage Runoff.
Runoff from the road was an average of 53.1% of the rainfall, whilst runoff from the swale
was 36.7%. The Percentage Runoff varied more for the swale than the road, with ranges of
90 and 68 respectively. Figure 6.16 shows Percentage Runoff plotted against Apis (with
event 16 removed, as discussed in section on IRL), from which it is evident there is no
relationship. Figure 6.17 shows Percentage Runoff plotted against Total Rainfall for which
there is a very weak relationship, with similar trendlines for the road and swale, but
showing the swale % runoff is lower than the road.

Figure 6.16 % Runoff v. Api5for WG Figure 6.17 % Runoff v. Total Rainfall for WG
Benefit Factor
The term Benefit Factor (BF) is introduced in Section 3.7. The dataset included three
events (11, 12 and 17) when the swale produced more runoff than the road i.e. a negative
BF. Table 6.12 shows minimum, maximum and mean both with and without these three
events. The values with the events included are shown in brackets. The mean BF without
the negative values was 44.6%.
Figure 6.18 and Figure 6.19 show plots of BF against Apis and Total Rainfall respectively.
The three outlier negative values are shown, but are not included in the trendlines and
regression equations. The plots shows that BF is independent of Apis and Total Rainfall.
Figure 6.18 Benefit Factor v. Api5 for WG Figure 6.19 Benefit Factor v. Total Rainfall for WG
Peak Flow Reduction

Inspection of the data shows that the swale sometimes reduced peak flow intensity, but it
sometimes increased it. In 13 events the intensity was reduced by between zero and 62%,
and in 10 events it was increased by between 10 and 90%. The mean peak runoff intensity

from the road was 3.9mm/h (range 0.42 to 13) and from the swale was 3.1mm/h (range
0.16 to 7.2). The mean reduction was 1.2%.
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the drainage arrangement at WG was modified for this
monitoring, and included the installation of a pipe to direct flow from the swale to the
monitoring equipment. This is likely to be the reason for the increased peak flow intensity
at the swale.
L ag Tim e
Lag time at the swale was slightly longer than lag time for road runoff. The statistics are
shown in Table 6.12. Mean lag time for the road was 3.7 minutes (range -74 to 77
minutes) and for the swale was 14.3 minutes (range -70 to 87 minutes). On several
occasions the peak flow from the road and the swale was before the centroid of the total
rainfall, resulting in a negative value. Inspection showed lag time was independent of
Api5.
H ydrological E ffect o f C hanging D rainage A rrangem ent
The drainage arrangement for excess runoff from the swale at West Grange was modified
for the monitoring, as discussed in Section 4.3.1. For the latter part of this research the
drainage arrangement was returned to the original design, and further monitoring was
carried out (Bryce, 2001). The results of 24 monitored events are shown in Appendix 6.1
Table 4 (listed as 4a - x’). Table 6.14 shows the minimum, maximum and mean values of
the data from this further monitoring. Returning the drainage arrangement to its original
design had an effect on the hydrology, which is briefly discussed here.
Event w and x both had anomalous values for road runoff (more road runoff than rainfall
and an extremely high peak runoff intensity). Also, events b, j, 1 and t show anomalous
values for various parameters. These events have been counted as outliers for the relevant
sections. The values in brackets in Table 6.14 are with outliers included.

Runoff*
vi e®
Runoff
. 4.
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
lmm>
sl
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
%
s £
Benefit Factor*
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
reduction
*
(mm/h)
Swale*
Swale*
Swale*
JL>
Road
Road
Road
Road
Api5
m£
%
Min 0.8 0.44 1 1.5 0.02 0 1.4 0.002 5.2 31.2 0.45 0.07 20.57
0.047 (+209.3) (+80.9)
Max 46.6 40 24 7.03 3 5.8 (74.3) 8.87 98.5
2.66 (+59) 17.6 99.96 (87.9) 3.25 95.91
9.09
(99.9)
2.5
MEAN 10.22 15.9 8.9 2.19 0.67 3.18 (7.04) 0.59 33.8 80.1 2.6 65
6.3 (58.4) (9.8) 1.16 (47.1)
(23)
count 24 24 24 24 23 20 21 (23) 20 19 (23) 20 17(19) 21 (23) 20 16 (19)
t* figures
excluding events c, h &j which did not produce swale runoff
in brackets are values with outliers included in the dataset
Table 6.14 Summary of WG additional hydrological data, with drainage arrangement returned to original
design
Table 6.15 shows a comparison of the mean values for indicators of hydraulic performance
from Table 6.14 with those from the monitoring of the swale with the modified drainage
arrangement (from Table 6.12). This comparison indicates several aspects of note.
intensity
(mm/h)
Runoff
Runoff
runoff
runoff
before
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Total Rain (mm)
Benefit Factor
reduction
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Api5
Design Mean 10.2 2.19 0.67 3.18 2.5 0.59 33.8 6.3 80.1 2.6 1.16 65
(WG)
Modified
(WG)
Mean 6.7 1.31 0.4 1.09 4.36 2.97 53.1 36.7 44.6 3.9 3.1 1.2
Table 6.15 Summary of WG hydrological data - with original drainage design and modified arrangement
■ mm rain before runoff: the original design was almost three times that of the
modified arrangement, indicating it took longer before runoff occured. The values for
the road were similar.
■ Total runoff: the original design was almost 80% less than the modified arrangement.
However, the value for the road was approximately 50% less than the modified
arrangement. This indicates there was, on average, less runoff entering the swale,
which would suggest that less rain fell during the ‘design’ monitoring period. Table
6.15 however shows this is not the case

■ % Runoff: the original design is approximately 83% less than the modified
arrangement, showing that significantly more runoff is stored for infiltration and
evaporation.
■ Benefit Factor: the original design is almost twice the value of the modified
arrangement, indicating that it is significantly more effective.
■ Peak runoff intensity: the original design results in a significantly lower peak runoff
intensity than the modified arrangement - the mean value is approximately 66% less.
The percentage reduction per event is notably improved, with 65% compared to 1.2%.
In summary, the hydraulic performance of the swale with the modified drainage
arrangement was not as effective as with the arrangement originally designed for the swale.
The arrangement was modified to permit a direct comparison of the West Grange swale
with the Emmock Woods swale, and thus examine the effect of the gravel layer and slope.
As discussed further in Section 9.1, the hydraulic performance of the swale with the
original design of drainage arrangement is similar to the performance of Emmock Woods.
6.3.2 W est Grange W ater Q uality
Water quality data from 14 events events were collected. Section 5.4.2 provides more
detail on the data used, and graphs of individual events are shown there and in Appendix
5.3C. Some visible evidence of pollutants is discussed in Section 6.3.3
Physical and C hem ical Determ inands
Table 6.16 shows a summary of the sonde data gathered at WG. The EPIC sanitary suite
results are summarised in Table 6.17, with loads are summarised in Table 6.18. The values
from which these summaries are extracted are shown in Appendix 6.2, Tables 10-12.
Sonde w ater quality values (7 events)
Parameter Temp PH Cond DO Turbid.
Unit •c pS % NTU
Average § Road 7.8 108.5 57.7 88
Swale 7.56 69.2 68 62.9
Range of Road 10.7-18.9 7.47-7.86 58.5-298.9 23.2-73.1 55-104
EMCs Swale 13.96-19.1 7.3-7.76 33.6-140.25 53.9-80.3 31.5-91
EMC Red./Inc. (-/+)* +0.08 -0.1 -9.6% +6.1 % -25.3%
Table 6.16 Summary of West Grange sonde data
EPIC water quality - SANITARY (3 events & 4 manual samples)
Parameter pH Cond. TSS BOD Amm. TON o-phos Chlor.
Unit gS/ cm mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Average§ Road 7.61 155 332.8 5.4 0.42 0.5 0.11 14.6
Swale 7.48 154 92.5 4.5 0.21 0.27 0.11 7.7
Range of Road 7.17-8.1 93.1-253.8 29.4-957 1.65-19.6 0.056-1.96 0.164-0.85 0.07-0.19 2.2-39.2
EMCs Swale 7.1-7.85 53.1-426.1 21.5-156.5 1.75-7.3 0.015-0.75 0.07-0.61 0.042-0.16 0.05-16.3
EMC Red./Inc. (-/+)* -0.13 +13.4% -54.5% +14.3% -33.6% -45% +7.7% -46.2%
Table 6.17 Summary of West Grange EPIC sanitary suite data (concentration)
EPIC water quality - SANITARY LOADS (3 events & 4 manual samples)

Parameter TSS BOD Amm.N TON o-phos Chlor.
Unit mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2 mg/m2
Average§ Road 1570 24.4 3.43 2.25 0.8 56.3
Swale 983.4 28.2 3.28 0.46 0.86 20.5
Range Road 46.7-6039 7.5-67.8 0.04-20.4 03-5.6 0.06-1.99 6.5-179.6
Swale 53.9-2003 4.3-59.5 0.06-9.6 0.3-0.63 0.077-0.44 7.36-33.7
Red./ Inc. (-/+)* -30.3% +41.6% +39% -12.5% -6.3% -34%
§ calculated for each event
Table 6.18 Summary of West Grange EPIC sanitary suite data (load)
The event mean increase of temperature was +0.08°C, however this does not reflect the
slightly insulating effect of the swale. Inspection of the data for individual events showed
that during each event the range of temperature for the swale runoff was smaller than for
the road runoff, with an average range of 1.7°C compared to 2.4°C. The pH values for the
swale and road runoff were very similar, with the values from both the sonde and the EPIC
samples in agreement. pH for the swale runoff was marginally lower than the road runoff.
The values were within the range of excellent river quality in Scotland (Appendix 3.2
Table 2). Conductivity results from the sondes show a slight decrease of -9.6, and the
averages also show a decrease. Results from the EPIC samples show an EMC increase of
+13.4%, and the averages are the same. This would indicate that there was no real change,
just varying increases or reductions during individual events that were not shown through
statistical analysis. The varying results for individual events are shown in Appendix 6.2,
Table 10 and 11. The values were well within the EC Drinking Water Directive limits
(Appendix 3.2, Table 2). The EMC for DO shows a slight increase at the swale, with the
average also slightly higher. The swale runoff was in the category of ‘fair’ river quality in
Scotland, and whilst the road runoff was not in that category it was within the limit for
‘good’ water in the EC Surface Water Directive (Appendix 3.2 Table 2).

The EMC reduction of turbidity was -25.3% from the sondes, and -54.5% from the EPIC
samples. The load per m was -30.3% lower from the swale than the road. As mentioned
in Section 6.3.3, the sediment load in the containers for the tipping buckets was notably
different. Compared to expected TSS concentration values in urban runoff shown in
Appendix 3.2 Table 1, the levels for both the road and the swale were within the expected
range, and exceed the limit for the EC Surface Water Directive (Appendix 3.2 Table 2).
The World Health Organisation drinking water guide value for turbidity is 5NTU, which
was exceeded by both the road and the swale runoff.
The EMC reduction of Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN) was -33.6%, and the average
values concur. The load per m shows an EMC increase of +39%, whilst the average
figure shows a slight reduction. As can be seen in Appendix 6.2 Table 12 that these
summary values are primarily due to event 12 (manual sample) when the swale load was
247% greater than the road. Without this figure the EMC load per m2 is reduced by -30%.
Typical values for AmmN in urban runoff (Appendix 3.2 Table 1) indicates that the levels
in both the road and swale runoff at West Grange were on the lower side of what would be
expected. When compared with water quality standards for river classifications in
Scotland (Appendix 3.2 Table 2), the average level for the swale runoff complied with
limits for ‘excellent’ water quality, whilst the road complied with ‘fair’ water quality. The
range of EMCs was closer to the ‘fair’ water quality than ‘excellent’.
The EMC increase of BOD was +14.3%, although the average shows a reduction. As
shown in Appendix 6.2 Table 11, this summary EMC value was primarily due to event 11
when the swale BOD was 189% higher than the road. Without this value the EMC
reduction was 21%. The load per m2 also shows an increase of +41.6% at the swale,
although with the figure for event 11 removed this becomes a reduction of 26.5%. The
average BOD values for the road and swale were within the limits for ‘fair’ water quality
in the river classification scheme for Scotland, but the range of EMCs was outwith that
classification. The values were within the lower range of expected values for urban runoff
(Appendix 3.2 Table 1).
The EMC reduction of TON was -45%, and the average values concur. The load per m2
also concurs. The values were lower than the values for expected urban runoff in
Appendix 3.2 Table 1. No water quality standards were available for TON.
There was an EMC increase of +7.7% for o-phos, although the average values are the
same (0.11mg/l). The load per m2 shows a decrease of -6.3%, and the average values
show an increase. This would indicate there was no real change, with the EMC increase or
reduction varying between events as shown in Appendix 6.2, Table 11 and 12. The values
were within the expected range for urban runoff (Appendix 3.2 Table 1).
The EMC reduction of chloride was -46.2%, with an average of 14.6mg/l at the road and
7.7mg/l at the swale. The load per m was also reduced, by a similar percentage and the
average values concur. The levels were well within the expected range for urban runoff
(Appendix 3.2 Table 1), and were below the limit set in the EC Drinking Water Directive
(Appendix 3.2 Table 2).
Table 2.3 and 2.4 in the review of literature shows percentage reductions for loads and
concentrations for a range of sites. TSS values are shown in there which generally concur
with the reduction found in this study except for some studies that found negative removal
efficiencies or no statistical difference.
Metals
Table 6.19 shows a summary of the EPIC samples from the one event analysed for metals,
whilst the load per m is summarised in Table 6.20. The values from which these
summaries are extracted are shown in Appendix 6.2, Table 13.
_________ (1 event for metals, 3 events for hydrocarbons)_________
Parameter Cd® Pb® Cu® Cr® Ni® Zn® Hydrocarb
Unit hg/1 Hg/I hg/1 Pg/1 Pg/1 gg/1 mg/1
Average§ Road 0.17 8.15 28 5.4 6.3 82.1 1.36
Swale 0.89 4.64 51.8 2.83 3.1 93.7 0.87
Range of Road 0.17 8.15 28 5.4 6.3 82.1 1.22-1.47
EMCs Swale 0.89 4.64 51.8 2.83 3.1 93.7 0.6-1.2
EMC RedJ Inc. (-/+)* +423% -43% +85% -47.6% -50.1% +14% -35.7%
Table 6.19 Summaiy of West Grange EPIC metals & hydrocarbons data (concentration)
EPIC water quality - METALS & HYDROCARBONS LOADS (pg/m2)

_________________(1 event for metals, 3 events for hydrocarbons)_______ _________
Parameter Cd® Pb® Cu® Cr® Ni® Zn® Hydrocarb
Unit pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 pg/m2 mg/m2
Average§ Road 0.255 12.2 42 8.1 9.45 123.1 3.83
Swale 0.44 2.32 25.9 1.41 1.55 46.8 1.8
Range Road j 0.255 12.2 42 8.1 9.45 123.1 1.28.75
Swale | 0.44 2.32 25.9 1.41 1.55 46.8 0.5-4.35
Red./ Inc. (-/+)* |+72.5% -81% -38% -82% -83.5% -62% -57.4%
§ calculated from each event
Table 6.20 Summary of West Grange EPIC metals & hydrocarbons data (load)
The EMC reduction / increase shows that Cd, Cu and Zn increased in the swale runoff and
Pb, Cr and Ni were reduced. The load per m2 for all metals was reduced at the swale
except for Cd, which increased by +72.5%. This is from only one event however. The
values for both the road and swale runoff were less than the water quality standards from
various sources (Appendix 3.2 Table 2), and were in the lower range of the expected range
for urban runoff (Appendix 3.2 Table 1).
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 in the review of literature show the percentage reductions for loads and
concentrations for a range of sites. The results for Pb concentration and Cu loads concur.
The increase for Cd, Cu and Zn found in this study was not found in previous studies,
although some studies did show no statistical difference for Cu and Zn. The reduction in
loads for Pb and Zn were similar to previous studies, although some of the previous studies
also showed an increase.
Hydrocarbons
Table 6.19 shows a summaiy of the EPIC samples analysed for hydrocarbons, whilst the
loads are summarised in Table 6.20. The values from which these summaries are
extracted are shown Appendix 6.2, Tables 14 and 15. Visual evidence of hydrocarbons is
discussed in Section 6.3.3.
The results show that for the 3 events sampled, the EMC reduction was -35.7%, and the
averages were 1.36mg/l for the road runoff and 0.87mg/l for the swale. The load per m
was also reduced, and the average values concur. The range of EMC values was in the
lower range expected to be found in urban runoff (Appendix 3.2 Table 1), and higher than
the limits set for the EC Surface Water Directive and EC Drinking Water Directive.
6.3.3 Qualitative Observations at West Grange

Oil/ petrol was periodically evident in the inlets to the swale, as shown in Appendix 6.3
Plate 9. It appeared to be attached to some of the sediment in the inlets, and when the
inlets were manually cleaned out during wet weather the release of oil was clearly visible.
The reduction of TSS by the swale at this site was evident, not only from the monitoring
results, but also from the visual inspection of the tipping bucket containers. The tipping
buckets would periodically be removed from the container for maintenance etc. and the
sediment in the base of the containers observed. An example is shown in Appendix 6.3
Plate 10, with the container for road runoff on the left, and the swale on the right. The road
produced more small silty sediment, and only coarser sediment was found in the container
for swale runoff.
Several issues related to swale design were also observed. The main problem of the
drainage inlets was that they blocked - this was also found at Emmock Woods as discussed
in Section 6.2.3. The West Grange swale during rainfall is shown in Appendix 6.3 Plates
11 and 12. Plate 11 was taken when the inlet was blocked, and Plate 12 after it was
cleared. It is evident in Plate 11 that the road runoff is passing over the inlet and not
entering, as it does in Plate 12. This has significant implications on the performance of the
swale linked to maintenance.
The observations on site clearly show that attention to detail during construction of the site
is vital. The swales off the main road in the site, mostly in the front gardens of the houses,
had dip kerbs instead of the Clearway drainage inlets, which let road runoff flow into the
swale. However, at some of the swales the tarmac on the road was slightly raised around
the dip in the kerb, which although not noticeable when the road was dry, a test using
tracer dye during rainfall made it obvious. In Appendix 6.3, Plate 13 shows the tracer dye
completely bypassing the entrance to the swale due to the raised tarmac on the road.
Another issue indicating the importance of attention to detail was the observation, again
during rainfall, of the installation of some of the Clearway drainage inlets. The pipe from
the inlet which goes through the kerb and into the swale should run slightly downhill, or at
least be horizontal. It was observed that some of them had a slight upward inclination
however, which meant that the runoff would not always run into the swale. It meant that
when there was only small quantities of runoff, it sometime would not enter the swale for
this reason.
There were many small swales at West Grange, mostly with dip kerbs, which provided
many notable points of interest to design and performance. A swale in which the turf was
laid too high to let runoff enter is shown in Appendix 6.3 Plate 14. In Appendix 6.3, Plate
15 shows a swale where the inlet was placed below the head of the swale i.e there is a
wasted section of swale where no runoff will enter. This occurred on several of the swales.
It was also apparent that each of the smaller swales with dip kerbs were constructed in a
somewhat individual manner, and resulted in a variety of shapes. An example of a swale
that is much deeper and less even in shape than some of the others is shown in Appendix
6.3 Plate 16. In Appendix 6.3, Plate 17 shows a swale with a dip kerb in the front
garden of one of the houses, which appeared to work very effectively. When it rained the
runoff entered, it was attenuated and stored till it drained away or evaporated, and any
excess spilled over into the positive drainage system.
One of the swales on the main road during snow is shown in Appendix 6.3 Plate 18.
Whilst not much monitoring has been carried out of the swales during snow, one possible
advantage may be the use of the swale as a storage location for snow being ploughed off
the road. When it melted in the swale it would either infiltrate (if the ground was in a
suitable condition) or drain to the positive drainage system.
6.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The performance of SUDS at each site has been examined in this chapter using the
monitoring results provided in Chapter 5. All three SUD systems performed favourably.
Table 6.21 provides a summary of the key hydraulic performance data discussed
throughout this chapter. A comparison between the three sites is discussed in Section 9.2,
and Table 9.7 shows a summary of the water quality results for the three sites.
T/R ‘ tarmac/ road Initial Runoff No. of % outflow/ Benefit Peak Runoff Intensity Lag Time
P/S = porous/ Loss (mm) events runoff Factor (mm/h) (min)
swale T/R P/S retained T/R P/S T/R P/S % reduction T/R P/S
(%)
NATS 0.8 5.6 60 48.2 22.17 75 5.2 1.93 76.8 9.59 180
Mean
EW 0.4 5 50 44.3 6.53 82.4 4.06 1.6 52.2 9.2 11.6

WG 0.3 1.2 27 53.1 36.7 44.6 3.9 3.1 1.2 3.7 14.3
Table 6.21 Summary of key hydraulic performance data for porous paving and swales (mean values)
At NATS from 153 events monitored, 35 were examined in detail. As shown in Table
6.21 the porous car park performed very favourably. IRL was significantly higher at the
porous, indicating that porous outflow will occur later than tarmac runoff. The porous
paving system prevented runoff from 60% of events which resulted in tarmac runoff, and
for those events which did produce porous outflow the percentage outflow was less than
half that from the tarmac. The Benefit Factor was 75% based on volume of outflow/
runoff from the two areas. Peak runoff intensity was reduced by almost 77% compared to
the tarmac. Lag time at the tarmac was almost 10 minutes compared to 3 hours at the
porous. Analysis of these hydraulic performance determinands also showed that all the
determinands, except the porous lag time, were independent of antecedent wetting.
Analysis also showed that for total rainfall: total runoff had a strong relationship; %
outflow for the porous was independent; % runoff for the tarmac had a weak
relationship with the highest % runoff in larger rainfall events; and BF had a weak
relationship with a larger BF in smaller events.
Water quality from 20 events was collected, and the results show an overall improvement
in the quality of porous exit water compared to tarmac runoff, although not for all
determinands. This is important to assess effluent quality and also to determine the
processes occurring within the system. The porous car park has an insulating effect on
temperature and pH of the outflow is always slightly alkaline. TSS, BOD, metals (except
chromium) and hydrocarbons are reduced. Conductivity is higher in the porous exit water
as is ammonium, AmmN, TON, ortho-phosphates, dissolved solids and chloride - but
remain within or below expected levels for urban runoff. DO is similar for the porous exit
water and tarmac runoff. The porous exit water and tarmac runoff comply with most of the
water quality standards shown in Appendix 3.2 Table 2, except turbidity (in some cases),
ammonium (in some cases) and hydrocarbons which exceed guideline levels. When
compared to expected values for urban runoff water quality taken from various sources
(Appendix 3.2, Table 1), TSS, AmmN, BOD, ortho-phosphate and hydrocarbons are all
lower, ammonium is higher, and TON, chloride and metals are within the expected range.
It is evident that the runoff from this site has generally low pollutant levels. The results
indicate that the processes occurring within the porous system may include filtering, and
bio-remediation with a bacterial biofilm in the sub-base. There may also be leaching from
soil and plant decomposition. The larger particles of TSS are removed, potentially with
attached metal particles, whilst filtering through the system, and nutrient and conductivity
levels increase due to the biological activity occurring within the system.
The porous system appears to be capable of performing under extreme events as
demonstrated during a severe flood event in April 2000, during which the monitoring
equipment was flooded and hence no data was collected. It was subsequently confirmed
the porous car park was the only area with no standing water although the surrounding area
had flooded and manholes had surcharged. Additional qualitative observations made
during the periods of data collection at the site showed that pollutant sources included oil/
petrol and leaf litter, yet the porous car park mitigated the effects of these whilst the tarmac
runoff was directly affected.
At Emmock Woods from 106 events monitored, 26 were examined in detail. The
summary results in Table 6.21 show the swale performed very favourably. IRL was
significantly higher than at the road, indicating the runoff from the swale will occur

notably later than from the road. The swale prevented runoff from 50% of events for
which road runoff occurred. For those events that did result in swale runoff, the
percentage runoff was a fraction of that from the road. The Benefit was 82.4%, indicating
a very sizeable benefit gained from installing the swale. Peak runoff intensity was reduced
by over 50% during events. Lag time was very similar for the road and swale runoff, but
this is partially due to the fact that for those few events when swale runoff did occur, the
peak runoff was near the start of the hydrograph whereas the peak of the road runoff
commenced further into the hydrograph. Analysis of these hydraulic performance
determinands also showed that all the determinands were independent of antecedent
wetting. Analysis also showed that for total rainfall: total runoff had a relationship; %
runoff for the road was independent; % runoff for the swale had a weak relationship with
the highest % runoff in larger rainfall events; and BF had a weak relationship with a larger
BF in smaller events.
Water quality from four events was collected at Emmock Woods, and the results show
very little difference between the swale and road runoff. This is partly due to the very low
number of samples, and also perhaps due to the low levels of pollutants which occurred in
the runoff from the site. The swale does provide an insulating effect, and would appear to
reduce TSS. However, the significant beneficial effect of the hydrology at Emmock
Woods would reduce the total load of all pollutants exiting the swale.
Observations made at the site during the period of data collection showed that the drainage
inlets blocked very frequently in part due to the site construction upstream of the swale.
The large quantity of sediment occurring in the catchment resulted in very marked visible
evidence, in several aspects, that the swale reduced sediment in the runoff. In addition, oil/
petrol was periodically observed entering the swale and although no samples were
analysed for hydrocarbons, it was never noted in the swale or the small and infrequent
volumes of runoff from the swale.
At West Grange from 104 events monitored, 27 were examined in detail. The results in
Table 6.21 show the swale did have a beneficial effect although the modified drainage
arrangement, discussed in Section 4.3.1, did reduce the potential benefit. IRL at the swale
was higher than the road, and the swale prevented runoff from 27% of events for which
road runoff occurred. For those events which resulted in swale runoff the percentage
runoff was less than for the road. The overall BF was 44.6%. Peak runoff intensity was
slightly less at the swale on average, but for some individual events it was higher than
at the road. This was due to the modified drainage arrangement. The average lag time at
the swale was four times that of the road. Analysis of these hydraulic performance
determinands also showed that all the determinands, except the ‘mm rain before runoff
commences’ at the swale, were independent of antecedent wetting. Analysis also showed
that for total rainfall: total runoff had a strong relationship; % runoff had a weak
relationship with the highest % runoff in larger rainfall events; and BF was independent.
The performance of the swale at West Grange was significantly improved when the
drainage arrangement was returned to its original design, as discussed in the latter part of
Section 6.3.1. This is further examined in Section 9.1.
Water quality from 14 events were collected at West Grange, and the results show a slight
improvement in quality of the swale runoff when compared to the road runoff. This
suburban site had generally low pollutant levels in the runoff. The swale had a slight
insulating effect and DO was slightly higher. TSS, AmmN, BOD, TON, Cl and
hydrocarbons were reduced and there was a negligible change in pH, conductivity and
ortho-phosphates. In the one event analysed for metals, the concentration of Pb, Cr and Ni
were lower in the swale whilst Cd, Cu and Zn were higher, however all loads were reduced
at the swale except Cd. When compared with expected values for urban runoff, all the
values for both the road and swale runoff were either in the lower range or below the
expected range (see Appendix 3.2 Table 1). Values for determinands for which water
quality standards were available (see Appendix 3.2 Table 2) were in the approximate range
of the values in the road and swale runoff, except for TSS, turbidity and hydrocarbons
which were higher in the study than in any of the water quality standard limits.
Observations made at the site during the period of data collection confirmed the water
quality benefit of the swale, with regard to hydrocarbons and sediment, and also indicated
some significant design and construction issues. These issues included: raised tarmac on
the road at the entry to a dip kerb; Clearway drainage inlets installed with the inlet pipe
slightly inclined; turf laid too thick at a dip kerb and the inlet below the head of a swale.

CHAPTER 7 APPLYING ERWIN MODELS TO STUDY SITES
The software model Erwin was used to build models for two of the SUD systems, NATS
and West Grange, which were calibrated using the monitoring data. A model was built for
each SUD system and also for the relevant impervious surface system (tarmac car park or
road runoff), so that the Benefit Factor could be calculated for the models to compare with
the Benefit Factor observed on site. These calibrated models are used in Chapter 8 to
compare both SUD systems and to develop improved design for these systems. The
process of modelling each of the SUD systems enabled a further understanding of the
processes of source control and provided a tool for determining improved rules for design
and analysis of SUD systems.
This chapter commences with a short description of the Erwin software. For each site
there is a description of the elements and specifications used to build the model, sensitivity
analysis, the calibration and verification process, and the difference between single event
and long term simulation. This has been carried out for the SUD system and its relevant
impervious system. The Benefit Factor from the models for each site is examined,
followed by a discussion with a summaiy of the results indicating the performance and
accuracy of the model.
The description of the NATS model includes details of how the model was built, processes
involved etc. Details for the West Grange model are more brief as many details are the
same.
7.1 ERWIN MODEL SOFTWARE

Erwin is a German designed software model, adopted and updated in collaboration with the
University of Abertay Dundee. It is an icon driven rainfall-runoff model for urban drainage
with all the modules needed for designing and evaluating the performance of SUDS.
Conventional urban storm water management elements are also supported. The software
does not deal with water quality. The drainage system is built graphically on screen,
selecting suitable elements from the element box. Rainfall-runoff routing is about changes
in storage, and the storage occurs in the elements. Elements available include: road &
highway runoff systems; roof drainage; pond; swale; soakaway; channels and pipes;
receiving watercourse; and treatment plant. There is a routing procedure for each element.
For the trench-trough element, which is used for the NATS porous car park model, the
Chapter 7 Applying Erwin Models to Study Sites 136
routing occurs through three distinct components: trough; soil storage; and trench
soakaway. The flow from trough to soil storage will vary according to the depth,
infiltration rate and area of the trough. In the soil storage, the storage of water and
continuing flow will depend on the depth and soil type, and in the trench soakaway the
depth and porosity of the fill material combined with the infiltration rate of the surrounding
soil or geotextile material will determine the storage, continuing flow and when/ if there is
any surcharging to the previous components. For the swale element routing is simpler with
storage and infiltration occurring in the swale unit which is described with dimensions,
infiltration rate and the details of the outflow system.
An example of a system on screen is shown in Figure 7.1, and is the screen for the NATS
model:
The system is set up by inputting the relevant value into dialogue boxes instead of going
through editor masks. The dialogue boxes are accessed on screen by double clicking the
element.
7.1.1 Rainfall and Runoff Model Elements

The selection of rainfall and runoff modelling elements was the same for the models at
both sites. Rainfall input to the model was via the cloud element which incorporates onsite
recorded rain data. The data was available in two-minute interval ASCII format files
which was not compatible with the Erwin Mass Data Format, hence a translation software

was written to transfer the rain data from ASCII to Mass Data Format
(Ingenieurgesellschaft fur Stadthydrology, 1997).
Erwin has a choice of three runoff modelling elements: ‘Road & Highway’; ‘R oof; and
‘Catchment’. The Roof element is the simplest of the three with only three input
parameters, and is used to model runoff from steep impermeable surfaces, which have a
quick response to rainfall. The Road & Highway element is mainly used to model runoff
from flat impermeable surfaces, and enables a much better modification of the runoff
process than the roof element since it separates between initial and final runoff
coefficients. Losses are taken into account using two parameters - initial loss and
depression storage. The Catchment element is the most complex of the three and can
incorporate larger catchments with both permeable and impermeable surfaces.
7.2 TH E N A TS M O D EL
A model for both the porous and tarmac car parks was built for NATS. A description of
how each model was built is given with an outline of the sensitivity analysis, the
calibration and verification process, and the difference between single event and long term
simulation. Results from both models are then compared to provide a Benefit Factor to
compare to that obtained from the observed data.
7.2.1 Porous C ar Park M odel
The assembled model built for NATS porous car park is shown as Figure 7.1. The Road &
Highway element was selected to simulate runoff to the car park. The trench-trough
element was selected to represent the porous car park system, with the soakaway element
for the soakaway manhole. The output data which was examined was the volume in the
manhole. The volume was used because this was the data that was measured on site and
would therefore exclude possible unknown errors (from the process of equating volume
into flow rate as described in Appendix 4.2) which could not be accounted for in the model
calibration. The selected elements are discussed below:
Trench-Trough Elem ent

Since there is no porous pavement element in Erwin, the trench-trough element was used
as it has three distinct layers which can represent the porous car park at NATS. The
‘trough’ represents the porous blocks. The ‘soil storage’ represents the 50mm layer of
clean stone as described in section 4.1.1. The ‘trench soakaway’ represents the sub-base
layer of the porous car park, with a perforated pipe. The geotextile layer between the clean
stone and sub-base is not considered in this element however, so this has been accounted
for by reducing the infiltration rate in the trench element.
The values used for this element are shown in Table 7.1. For the ‘trench soakaway’ the
infiltration rate is that of the surrounding soil. Soil at the NATS site is a mixture of light
sandy and dark brown clay, the hydraulic conductivity of which are (Ferguson, 1994):
Light Sandy Clay, k = 3.33 x 10'7 mm/s
Dark Brown Clay, k = 1.67 x 10"7 mm/s
Trench-Trough Elem ent
Parameter Unit Value Source
„2 Site specific
X area m 1401
o
u depth m Site specific
o 0.08
XH
infiltration rate mm/s 0.001 calibrated
w
depth m 0.05 Site specific
, o
usable capacity mm/10cm 10
o £
oo O
H coarse pore Calibrated value
%vol 10
proportion
>< depth m 0.35 Site specific
Porosity % 20 Calibrated value
Hq
if) infiltration rate mm/s 2 .5 x l0 7 book
Table 7.1 Trench-trough element data for NATS porous model
Trial runs using each of the soil values showed that with the dark brown clay more exit
water was produced in the manhole (i.e. less infiltration to the surrounding soil) than with
the light sandy clay. In the final model a value for a combination of both soil values was
n
used (2.5 x 10" mm/s).
The excess water from the base of the porous car park is conveyed via a 110mm perforated
pipe to the soakaway manhole, and this pipe is represented in the ‘trench soakaway’. The
pipe full flow rate was taken from Hydraulic tables (Barr, 1998) as 3.71/s assuming the
roughness (ks) as 3mm.

Soakaway Elem ent
The soakaway manhole in the porous car park is represented in Erwin by the soakaway
element. Table 7.2 shows the values used for the parameters. The stage-overflow values
were determined using the equation for discharge via the outlet pipe that was calculated in
the laboratory (see Appendix 4.2, Figure 2). The water stage was adjusted so that overflow
occurred at 0.515m instead of the real value of 0.615m. This was because in reality there
is a 0.1m permanent depth of water in the manhole which cannot be accounted for in the
model.
Soakaw ay Elem ent
Diameter mm 1040 Site specific
Exfiltration m/s 4 x 10 s Calibrated
Overflow 1/s 0 at 0.515m up to 18.38 at 0.7m Site specific
Table 7.2 Soakaway element data for NATS porous model
7.2.2 Sensitivity A nalysis o f Porous M odel

Sensitivity analysis holds all parameters constant except one, to determine the effect that a
particular parameter has on the model. All parameters were examined and seven were
found to have a noticeable effect on the output. The values for each of these seven
parameters were altered and the output observed. Table 7.3 shows the seven parameters
which were altered. Adjusting each parameter affects the output hydrograph in one of
three ways: volume; shape; or volume & shape, and is also shown in Table 7.3. The
graphs for each parameter are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 1 to 7, with the volume for
each shown in brackets in the legend.
Parameter Aspect of hydrograph Run No.
affected 1 2 3 4
1 V = volume, S = shape
A depression storage V 0 0.5 1
B final runoff coefficient | V&S 0.85 0.7 1
C trough infiltration rate V 0.001 0.0001 0.000001
D soil usable field capacity V&S 9.5 14 7
E trench infiltration rate I V&S 3.3 x 10'7 1 x 10'7 4.5 x 10’7 1.67 xlO '7
F trench porosity S 20 40 60 10
G soakaway infiltration rate S 5 x 10'5 1 x 10"4 3 x 10'5 4 x 10'5
at sides
Table 7.3 Sensitivity analysis parameters and values for NATS porous model
The sensitivity analysis results are used in determining a model with improved detailing in
Section 8.3.
7.2.3 C alibration and V erification o f Porous M odel
Model calibration consists of adjusting parameters until the simulated data output agrees
with the recorded (observed) data. This involves both volume and peak flow and should be
carried out for not less than three events (ASCE, 1992). The verification uses the same
procedure as the calibration but for a different set of events. The purpose of verification is
to prove that the model is capable of simulating the system behaviour.
Seven events were used for calibration of this model and a further seven for verification.
The events used are listed in Table 7.4, and also shows data for the tarmac model. The
event numbers correspond to the rest of this report (see Appendix 6.1, Table 1). The first
event used for calibration was event 7, and the other six events were selected because they
were different size events and from different seasons.
in manhole
(observed):
(observed):
TARMAC
Event No.
POROUS
Total vol.
total vol.
Rainfall
(mm)
Total
Date
(m3)
(m5)
3* 11-12.5.98 8.8 0.58 2.05
5 12-13.7.98 33.4 10.53 10.7
6* 7-8.8.98 15 2.24 3.82
7* 1.10.98 9.2 1.12 2.95
8 4-5.10.98 16 5.36 4.47
9 9.10.98 7 1.32 1.89
10* 16-17.10.98 29.8 21.43 /
13 26-28.10.98 12.8 2.75 2.92
14 28.11.98 4.4 0.39 0.498
15 24-27.12.98 23.8 11.36 7.32
16* 27-28.2.99 9.8 5.45 1.96
18 28-29.2.00 6.6 0.54 0.73
21* 11-12.4.00 16.6 5.77 2.26
23* 16-17.5.00 10 2.99 /
* = event used for calibration
Table 7.4 Events used for calibration and verification of NATS porous and tarmac models
Table 7.5 shows the comparison of observed and simulated data for the seven calibration
events.

O = observed CALIBRATION EVENTS - NATS porous
S = simulated
plus sign (+) denotes the Event no.
simulated data was more 3 6 7 10 16 21 23
than the observed
Total rainfall (mm) 8.8 15 9.2 29.8 9.8 16.6 10
O 0.58 2.24 1.12 21.43 5.45 5.77 2.99
total vol (m3) s 1.04 3.32 1.51 14.5 1.4 2.55 1.1
+ 79% + 48% + 35% - 32% - 74% - 56% -63%
o 3:14 21:48 6:24 8:28 9:14 8:02 4:40
start of flow s 2:00 21:56 6:36 8:04 11:30 9:54 4:36
74 mins 12 mins 12 mins 24 mins early
136 mins 112 mins 4 mins
early late late late late early
o 4:16 22:46 7:46 9:00 & 7:14 12:42 12:30 6:10
time of peak s 4:04 23:16 7:52 9:36 & 6:40 13:22 13:10 6:26
12 mins 30 mins 12 mins 36 mins late & 40 mins 40 mins 16 mins
early late late 34 mins early late late late
peak volume
o 0.42 0.44 0.445 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.45
s 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44
(m3) + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.005 same + 0.01 +0.01 -0.01
(+4.8%) (+2.3%) (+1.1%) (+2.3%) (+2.3%) (-2.3%)
duration of o 200 380 260 876 & 458 360 408 164
peak (min) s 200 554 294 822 & 458 266 380 192
same + 174 + 34 -94
- 54 & same -28 +28
Table 7.5 Calibration events - comparison of observed and simulated data for NATS porous model
The hydrograph for event 7 used for calibration is shown in Figure 7.2. The simulated
flow starts and peaks 12 minutes later than the observed data, the peak volume is 0.005m3
(1.1%) more, the duration of the peak is 34 minutes longer and volume is 35% greater.
Event 7
0
.2o 2—
JZc
«E
<o
o> 10I
122
14
CM T- T- CM V- T- CM
T im e
■ ■ ■ rainfall (mnVh) observed ---- simulated
Figure 7.2 hydrograph of observed & simulated data for calibration at NATS porous (event 7)
Not all the calibration events show this pattern however. Hydrographs of the other six
events used for calibration are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 8 to 13. The differences
between observed and simulated data vary, as detailed in Table 7.5. The model was
calibrated using these seven events to minimise this difference.

The seven events used for verification of the model are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 14
to 20. Details of the comparison between the observed and simulated data are also shown
in Appendix 7.1, Table 1. As with the calibration events, the differences between observed
and simulated data vary. Two of the smallest events (events 14 and 18) did not produce
any runoff in the simulation run.
A summary table of the calibration results combined with the verification data is shown in
section 7.2.10, Table 7.11. This shows that on average the simulated data resulted in a
smaller total volume than the observed data, the start of the flow and the time of peak was
later, the peak volume was less and the duration of the peak shorter.
7.2.4 Single Event and Long Term Simulation for the Porous Model
The calibration and verification of the model was undertaken using individual rainfall
events i.e. single event simulation was carried out. Erwin is also capable of long term
simulation which will take into account the time since the last rainfall, ground saturation,
water levels remaining in the manhole etc., instead of just isolating the event and
considering the start conditions to always be the same. Tests were carried out to determine
the differences and similarities between single event and long term simulation for this
NATS porous model, using the month of October 1998.
The month of October 1998 had seven distinct rainfall events. All these events were
monitored on site, and are referenced in Appendix 6.1, Table 1, as events 7 to 13. Results
of the long term simulation for the full month are shown in Figure 7.3 with the observed
data. The event number is also indicated.
Figure 7.3 Hydrograph of October 1998 for long term simulation and observed data at NATS porous
C hapter 7 A pplying Erw in M odels to Study Sites 143

The two events which most clearly differ to the observed data are events 9 and 11. Event 9
in the long term simulation is significantly smaller than the observed data and event 11 is
significantly larger and delayed. Details of the comparison between the long term
simulation data and the observed data are shown in Appendix 7.1, Table 2. When
compared to the observed data the overall pattern for the long term simulation is that, for
individual events, the difference between the simulation and observed data increases as the
simulation progresses. It also appears that the simulation understimates volume at the start
of the run and overestimates by the end.
The seven events from the long term simulation were also compared to the single event
simulations, shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 21 to 27. As can be observed visually from
the graphs in Appendix 7.1, the single event and long term simulations for events 7 to 10
are very similar but notably different for events 11 to 13. Details of the comparison
between the data are shown in Table 7.6.
SE ^single event COMPARISON OF SINGLE EVENT & LONG TERM
LT - long term SIMULATION - NATS porous
plus sign (+) denotes the
long termdata was more DATE (& event no.)
than the single event1 1st (7) 4th (8) 9th (9) 16th (10) 20th (11) 24th (12) 27th (13)
Total rainfall (mm) 9.2 16 7 29.8 6.6 8.4 12.8
total vol SE 1.51 3.5 0.3 14.5 0 0.541 2.27
(m3) LT 1.08 3.5 0.3 16.29 1.33 2.83 3.73
-0.43 same same +12.3% / +423% +64.3%
SE 6:36 23:00 11:34 8:04 / 11:06 8:44
start of LT 6:50 23:00 11:34 7:44 4:16 9:00 0:36
flow 14 min same same 20 min early / 126 min 488 mins early
late early
SE 7:52 3:30 15:22 9:36 & 6:40 / 17:40 14:54 & 23:40
time of LT 8:20 3:30 15:22 8:40 & 6:34 3:44 10:16 9:04 & 23:34
peak 28 min same same 56 min early / 444 mins 354 min early
late & 6 min early early & 6 min early
peak SE 0.45 0.44 0.166 0.45 / 0.29 0.44 & 0.44
volume LT 0.42 0.44 0.166 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 & 0.44
(m3) -0.03 same same same / +0.16 +0.01 (+2.3%) &
(-6.7%) (+55.2%) same
duration SE 294 500 90 822 & 458 / 24 180 & 240
of peak LT 234 500 92 868 & 480 250 494 502 & 266
(min) -60 same +2 +46 & +22 / +470 +322 & +26
Table 7.6 Comparison of single event and long term simulated data at NATS porous model
Events 8 and 9 are almost identical for single and long term, and events 7 and 10 are
slightly different with the long term simulation closer to the observed data with regard to
volume and the single event closer with regard to timing. The single event simulation for
event 11 resulted in no flow, and the long term simulation was quite different to the
observed data. For event 12, the long term simulation is closer to the observed data than
the single event is, but simulates too much volume and the timing is too early. For event
13 the start of the single and long term simulations are very different although they finish
the same. The long term starts too early and the single event is too late, but the single
event is slightly closer to the observed data in volume. This indicates that neither is
conclusively more similar to the observed data than the other.
7.2.5 Tarmac Car Park Model

The tarmac model was built primarily to investigate the Benefit Factor in comparison with
the observed data. The model was assembled using two main elements - the Catchment
element and the Receiving Water element. The Receiving Water element was used as an
output source. The output data that was examined was flow in 1/s, as this was what was
measured by the tipping bucket on site.
The Catchment element was the only variable in the model. It was used in preference to
the Road & Highway element because trial runs showed the road element was too
sensitive. Figure 7.4 shows the runoff for both elements compared to the observed data,
with the volumes shown in brackets in the legend box. Whilst the Catchment element did
not reach the peak runoff of the observed data, it was significantly more accurate than the
Road element.
o O O oo <ooSi CooO oo•sr o o o o o o o oo oo

CCoM
OO UoT) ©o oN CoO o6 ) oo To— r_
CM TC"O~
time
■ ■ ■ rainfall -------- Road (2.37 HI3)
-------- Observed (2.95 m 3) Catchment (2.57 m 3)
Figure 7.4 Comparison of runoff modelling elements for NATS tarmac model
The runoff element was used to simulate the behaviour of the completely impervious area
of the tarmac car park, and adjustment of the parameters influences the shape and volume
of the hydrograph. A value of 100% impervious was used, and test runs showed that the
percentage pervious affected the hydrograph by reducing volume not adjusting shape.
Table 7.7 gives details of the values used.

Parameter Area Initial Loss Depression Initial Runoff Final Runoff
Storage coefficient coefficient
Ha mm mm - -
values 0.0442 0.4 1.8 0.25 0.85
Source Site specific Calibrated Standard Standard value Standard value
value
Table 7.7 Catchment element data used in NATS tarmac model
7.2.6 Sensitivity Analysis of Tarmac Model

As discussed in section 7.2.2, sensitivity analysis is used to determine the effect that
individual parameters have on the model. Sensitivity analysis is not detailed here. Most of
the parameters were standard values.
7.2.7 Calibration and Verification of Tarmac Model

Model calibration and verification was carried out using the same events as those used for
the porous car park model, except the calibration events 10 and 23 were not used because
there was no observed tarmac data. The events used are detailed in Table 7.4, and the
event numbers are those referenced in Appendix 6.1, Table 1.
Table 7.8 shows the comparison of observed and simulated data for the seven calibration
events.
O = observed CALIBRATION EVENT - NATS tarmac
S = simulated Event no.
simulated data was more 3 6 7 16 21
thanthe observed
Total rainfall (mm) 8.8 15 9.2 9.8 16.6
o 2.05 3.82 2.95 1.96 2.26
total vol (m3) s 2.29 3.99 2.57 2.57 3.88
+11.7% +4.4% -12.9% +31.1% +71.7%
o 20:16 13:44 00:14 6:40 8:46
start of flow s 21:46 13:26
90 min late 18 min 16 min
23:56 4:50 (20:24 extra!)
110 min early
9:06
20 min late
early early
o 2:16 22:20 7:10 11:30 & 13:00 10:30 & 13:22
time of peak s 2:14 22:02
2 min early 18 min
7:08 11:02 & 12:32 10:38 & 13:24
2 min 28 & 28 min early 8 min late & 2
early early min late
o 0.493 0.36 1.44 0.36 & 0.61 0.26 & 0.26
peak flow (1/s) s 0.371 0.36
same
0.42 0.4 & 0.32 0.07 & 0.34
-1.02 +0.04 (+11.1%) & -0.19 (-73%) &
-0.122
(-24.7%) (-70.8%) -0.29 (-47.5%) +0.08 (+30.7%)
Table 7.8 Calibration events - comparison of observed and simulated data at NATS tarmac model
The hydrograph for event 7, used for calibration, is shown in Figure 7.5. The simulated
flow during event 7 starts 16 minutes earlier than the observed data, the volume is slightly
less and the peak flow is almost 71% less.
Event 7
30th Sep - 1st Oct 1998
1.6
1.4
|T 1-2
t 0.8
° 0.6
t§ 0.4
0.2
0o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
ocoo-^CNico^LQ
o o o o o o ocbrôocrio^csico
o o o o o o o
■ ■ ■ Rainfall - — — observed — — simulated
Figure 7.5 Hydrograph of observed & simulated data for calibration at tarmac (Event 7)
Not all the calibration events show this pattern however. Hydrographs of the other four
events used for calibration are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 28 to 31. All the other
calibration events show the simulation resulted in more total volume, unlike event 7, but
the other characteristics were varied.
The seven events used for verification of the model are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 32
to 38. Details of the comparison between the observed and simulated data are also shown
in Appendix 7.1, Table 3. As with the calibration events, the differences between observed
and simulated data vary - but the peak flow is always less than for the observed data.
Event 14 showed the model simulation produces a response to a second peak of rainfall
when there is no response in the observed data.
A summary table of the calibration results combined with the verification data is shown in
larger total volume of runoff than the observed data, the start of the flow and the time of
peak was early, and the peak flow was less.
7.2.8 Single Event and Long Term Simulation for the Tarmac Model
Tests were carried out to determine the differences and similarities between single event
and long term simulation for this NATS tarmac model, using the month of October 1998 as
this was the month used for the same test in the porous model. Figure 7.6 shows the results
of the long term simulation with the observed data. No observed data was available for
the tarmac car park between the 13th and 23rdhowever. The event number is also indicated.
October 1998
Time
rainfall----- observed (l/s) simulated (long term)
Figure 7.6 Hydrograph of October 1998 for long term simulation and observed data at NATS tarmac
The most evident discrepancy is that the peak flow of the simulated runoff is less than the
observed data. Details of the comparison between the long term simulation and the
observed data are shown in Appendix 7.1, Table 4. As with the porous car park model, the
long term simulation appears to underestimate the total volume at the start of the run and
progresses to overestimation by the end of the run.
Events 7, 8, 9 and 13 from the long term simulation were compared to the single event
simulations and are shown in Appendix 7.1, Figures 39 to 42. In three of the events the
long term simulation results in more volume than the single event and the timing is earlier.
Details of the comparison between the single event and long term simulation data are
shown in Table 7.9.
SE ^single event COMPARISON OF SINGLE EVENT & LONG TERM
LT = long term SIMULATION - NATS tarmac
long term data was more DATE (& event no.)
than the single event 1st (7) 4th (8) 9th(9) 27th (13)
Total rainfall (mm) 9.2 16 7 12.8
total vol SE 2.57 4.22 1.8 3.34
(m3) LT 2.29 4.27 1.87 3.5
-10.9% +1.2% +3.9% +4.8%
start of SE 23:56 5:08 9:52 23:04
flow LT 3:06 5:06 9:50 23:02
190 mins later 2 mins early 2 mins early 2 mins early
time of SE 7:08 5:46 11:02 8:52 & 13:08
peak LT 6:56 5:30 10:46 8:36 & 12:52
12 mins earlier 16 mins early 16 mins early 16 mins early & 16
mins early
peak flow SE 0.42 0.45 0.42 0.28 & 0.24
(l/s) LT 0.65 0.71 0.396 0.49 & 0.5
+0.23 (+54.7%) +0.26 (+58%) -0.024 (-6%) +0.21 (+75%) &
+0.26 (+108%)
Table 7.9 Comparison of single event and long term simulated data at NATS tarmac model
C hapter 7 A pplying E rw in M odels to Study Sites 148
For events 7 and 13, the data from the single event simulation is slightly closer to that of
the observed data than the long term simulation is. For events 8 and 9 the single and long
term simulations are very similar, but the volume of the long term simulations is slightly
closer to that of the observed data than the single event simulation is.
7.2.9 NATS Model Benefit Factor

The concept of Benefit Factor (BF) is introduced in section 3.7. BF for the porous and
tarmac models has been calculated to compare the BF between the simulated and observed
data. Section 6 .1.1 discusses the BF at NATS. The mean BF for the observed data was
75%, with three outlier events (events 16 ,17 and 21) removed from the dataset.
From the porous and tarmac models there are 10 events for which it is possible to calculate
BF. These are detailed in Table 7.10, showing both the observed and simulated data for
the porous and tarmac car parks. Two of the outlier events from the observed data, events
16 and 21, are included in this table. One column shows the BF calculated for each event
for the observed data on one row and the simulated data on the row below. The column to
the right of it shows the difference for each event of the BF for the observed and simulated.
In some cases the BF was more for the simulated data and in some cases it was less.
The mean BF for the observed data detailed in Table 7.10 is 74% (excluding events 16 and
21 ), which is only 1% less than the overall figure from all the analysed results (see section
6 .1.1) which was 75%. The mean BF for the simulated data, with events 16 and 21
removed, was 74.4%. Although in reality events 16 and 21 were taken as outliers, it would
appear that the model is producing a more statistically accurate BF value for them, as the
values of 83% and 79.3% are what would be expected according to the mean value for the
observed data (75% with a range of 51.2 - 91.2%). The inclusion of that data results in a
mean BF for the simulated data of 75.7% which is only 0.7% more than the BF calculated
from all the observed data in section 6 .1.1. In summary it would appear that the models
produce a very accurate BF. It can be seen from some of the graphs that the match of the
observed and simulated data for some aspects, e.g. peak flow or time of peak, is not always
so accurate. The BF is accurate due to volume. It is a cumulative index which irons out
the short term differences.

BENEFIT FACTOR (BF) FOR NATS
O = observed
S = simulated Total Runoff (mm) Benefit Difference
COMMENTS
Note: plus sign (+) between
denotes the simulated Factor observed &
data was more than Porous Tarmac (B F ) simulated
the observed
11-12/5/98 (3)c O 0.41 4.64 91.2 -5.5
s 0.74 5.18 85.7
12-13/7/98 (5)v O 7.5 24.3 69.1
13 23.5 44.7
OA A
s '
7-8/8/98 (6)c o 1.6 8.6 81.4
s 2.37 9.03 73.7 -1.1
1/10/98 (7)c o 0.8 6.67 88
s 1.08 5.81 81.4
(& event no.)
-6 .6
4/10/98 (8)v o 3.8 10.1 62.4 +11.3

s 2.5 9.5 73.7
9/10/98 (9)v o 0.94 4.3 78.1 +17
s 0.2 4.1 95.1
27/10/98 (13)v o 1.96 6.6 70.3 iOdZ
1.58 7.5 78.9 '
DATE
s
24-27/12/98 o 8.1 16.6 51.2 +10.2
(is y s 6.6 17.1 61.4
27-28/2/99 o 3.9 4.4 11.4 JExceptionally low BF for
(16)° +71.6 j observed. Removed as outlier
s 0.99 5.81 83 Ifrom main data
11-13/4/00 o 4.12 4.68 12 j Exceptionally low BF for
(21)c +67 3 j observed. Removed as outlier
s 1.82 8.78 79.3 j from main data
73.9 JFigure in brackets is with outlier
(61.5) +/- 12.86 J| events (16 & 21) included.
M EAN o
B E N E F IT Overall figure for observed data
FACTOR 74.4 (+■ /- 3.13) | from all analysed results (i.e.
(RMS) s
(75.7) jnot just those used for
| simulation) is 75%
c= event used for calibration
v= event used for verification
RMS = root mean square
Table 7.10 Comparison of Benefit Factor for observed and simulated data at NATS
7.2.10 Discussion of NATS Models
The Erwin models built for both the porous and tarmac car parks at NATS appear to
simulate reasonably accurately, and the resultant Benefit Factor is very similar to that of
the observed data. Table 7.11 shows a summaiy of the differences between the observed
and simulated data for both the porous and tarmac car park models, including data from the
calibration and verification events.
The porous model slightly underpredicts volume, on average, whilst the tarmac model
slightly overpredicts. The start of flow and time of peak is, on average, slightly late in the
porous model and slightly early in the tarmac, and both models slightly underpredict the

peak volume/ peak flow although this is more so for the tarmac model. The mean BF for
the simulated data is 75.7% and for the observed data, as discussed in section 6.1.1 using
all analysed events not just the 12 used for simulation in this section, the mean is 75%.
The range of BF for the simulated and observed data is almost identical with a range of
44.7% - 95.1% and 51.2% - 91.2% respectively.

Difference (A) between Observed & Simulated Data (all events - calibration & verification)
Note: plus sign (+) denotes the POROUS (12 events) TARMAC (12 events)
simulated data was more than the Min A Max A Mean A notes® Min A Max A Mean A notes®
Cs=O observed
3 8*+
3 total vol (m3) -77.5% +79% -11.7% 4*+
8*. -12.9% +80.8% +22.62% 4*_
74 mins 258 mins 45late mins 5* early 110 mins 90 mins 16 mins 10*early
Chapter 7 Applying Erwin Models to Study Sites
start of flow early late 7*late early late early 2*late

time of peak 154 min 250 mins 50late mins 3*early 30 mins 54 mins 2 mins 10*early
early
CL early late ll*late early late 7*late
3' peak volume (m3)/ -0.274 m3 +0.02 m3 -0.015 m3 7*+ -1.65 1/s +0.08 1/s -0.28 1/s 2*+
3- peak flow (1/s) (-62.3%) (+4.8%) 2*-
(-3.4%) 4* same (-79%) (+30.7%) (-33.6%) l*same 14*-
CO
-35 5*+
duration of peak (min) -434 +434 7*-
2*same
Mean BF for simulated data is 75.7% (range 44.7 - 95.1), and for observed data (from all
analysed results, not just those used here for simulation) is 75%. 2 of the events used for the
simulation (events 16 and 21) had an exceptionally low BF (11 & 12%) for the observed data and
BENEFIT FACTOR (BF) these BF values have been removed as outliers from the main data. The BF values for the
simulated data for those 2 events were similar to the expected values. The BF for observed data
fromjust the events used in this simulation is 61.5% (range 11.4 - 91.2) including the 2 events
with exceptionally low BF, and 74% (range 51.2-91.2) excluding them.
® = the notes provides information on the number of events where the model resulted in increased or decreased data e.g. an entry of ‘4*+’ for the
porous total volume row means there were four events for which the simulated run resulted in an increased volume compared to the observed data
S.
GO
152
7.3 THE WEST GRANGE MODEL
A model for both the swale and for the road runoff was built for West Grange. A brief
description of how each model was built is given with an outline of the sensitivity analysis,
the calibration and verification process, and the difference between single event and long
term simulation. Results from both models are then compared to provide a Benefit Factor
to compare to that obtained from the observed data. The details are more summarised than
the description for NATS because many of the details are the same. The swale model was
built and calibrated etc. according to the design with the modified drainage arrangement, as
discussed in section 4.3.1.
7.3.1 Swale Model

The swale model was built with the Catchment element to simulate the runoff, and the
Swale element.
The Swale element is a simple swale design which allows the user to input the length,
width and depth of the swale, the infltration rate to the surrounding soil, and the stage-
overflow values. There is no provision for the longitudinal slope. The trench-trough
element was an option, as it consists of a swale (trough) and soakaway (trench) below.
This was unnecessarily complicated for the simple design at West Grange, but would
perhaps be the preferred option for a design such as that at Emmock Woods where the
300mm gravel layer below the swale has a considerable effect on the performance.
The values used for the Swale element are shown in Table 7.12.
Swale Element
Infiltration rate m/s 0.000005 Calibrated
Overflow 1/s 0 at 0m, 0.4 at 0.02m Calibrated
Table 7.12 Swale element data used for West Grange swale model
7.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Swale Model

Sensitivity analysis was carried out, and five parameters were found to have a noticeable
effect on the output. Table 7.13 shows the five parameters which were altered. The graphs
are shown in Appendix 7.2, Figures 1 to 5, with the volume for each shown in brackets in
the legend.
Parameter Run No.
1 2 3
A initial runoff coefficient 0.25 0 1
B degree of depression filling 0 1
C infiltration rate 5x 1C6 1 x 10'5 1 x 10’7
D stage 0.02 0.1 0.001
E overflow 0.4 0.1 0.7
Table 7.13 Sensitivity analysis parameters and values for West Grange swale model
The initial runoff coefficient and the degree of depression filling affect the beginning of the
hydrograph. An increase in the initial runoff coefficient delays the start of the hydrograph
and increases the peak flow. An increase in the degree of depression filling, which in long
term simulation is only effective for the first rainfall event, increases the flow at the start of
the event. Increase infiltration rate results in reduced runoff, but the shape of the
hydrograph stays the same. Stage is the depth at which runoff exits the swale. Increasing
this depth reduces the volume of runoff and smooths the hydrograph. Overflow is the flow
of runoff occurring at a given stage. Increasing overflow increases the volume of runoff
and the peak flows. Run 2 had the smallest overflow level at 0.1 1/s, and it can be seen in
Appendix 7.2 Figure 5 that the hydrograph flattens out and is extended at this level i.e. this
value is set as a maximum limit and the model will not simulate flow over this amount.
7.3.3 Calibration and Verification of Swale Model

Six events were used for calibration of this model and a further six for verification. The
events used are listed in Table 7.14, and also shows data for the road runoff model. The
event numbers correspond to the rest of this report (see Appendix 6.1, Table 3). The first
event used for calibration was event 5.

(observed):
(observed):
Event No.
Total vol.
total vol.
SWALE
Rainfall
ROAD
Total
(mm)
Date
(m3)
(m3)
5* 27-28.11.99 10.4 1.91 0.34
6 8.12.99 4.2 0.454 0.18
7* 11.12.99 15.2 1.89 0.56
9 17.2.00 5 0.796 0.136
15* 27.5.00 16 4.32 0.5
19* 22.6.00 1.2 0.027 0.015
22 31.7.00 3.6 0.232 0.075
23 14.8.00 10.8 1.425 0.39
24* 27.8.00 3.6 0.28 0.049
25 31.8-1.9.00 12.4 1.39 0.312
26 6.9.00 13 3.19 0.6
27* 10-11.9.00 6.6 1.33 0.195
* = event used for calibration
Table 7.14 Events used for calibration and verificiation of West Grange swale and road models
Table 7.15 shows the comparison of observed and simulated data for the six calibration
events.
O = observed CALIBRATION EVENT - West Grange swale
S = simulated Event no.
plus sign (+) denotes the 5 7 15 19 24 27
simulated data was more
than the observed
Total rainfall (mm) 10.4 15.2 16 1.2 3.6 6.6
O 1.91 1.89 4.32 0.027 0.278 1.326
total vol (m3) s 2.14 3.22 2.75 0.012 0.46 1.33
+12% +70% -36% -56% +65% +0.3%
o 5:24 6:52 1:30 3:02 17:10 1:58
start of flow s 4:40 2:02
6:30 1:14 16:52 1:38
44 mins 32 mins 16 mins 60 mins 18 mins 20 mins
early early early early early early
o 6:22 7:44 11:12 3:04 17:10 2:38
time of peak s 6:46 7:50 11:20 4:28 18:28 2:52
late late late late late late
o 0.398 0.352 0.188 0.02 0.226 0.398
peak flow (1/s) s 0.247 0.167 0.154 0.006 0.138 0.324
-0.151 -0.185 -0.034 -0.014 -0.088 -0.074
(-38%)(-52%) (-18%) (-70%) (-39%) (-19%)
Table 7.15 Calibration events - comparison of observed and simulated data at West Grange swale model
The hydrograph for event 5 is shown in Figure 7.7. The simulated flow during event 5
starts 44 minutes before the observed flow, but this starts as a very small flow which
responds quickly to the rainfall. The main flow starts only 4 minutes early. The volume of
the simulated flow is 0.23m3 (12%) more than the observed, the peak flow is 24 minutes
late and 0.151 1/s (38%) less. Overall, the shape of the simulated flow is good but the
peaks are too small and it simulates low flows from small amounts of rainfall which don’t

occur in the observed data.
Event 5
27th - 28th Nov 1999
0.5
0.4
II I I ! 1 2JeZ
0
0.3 3
0.2 ^75
0.1 5=
0 Ininini'iiiiiiiiifi'itininmTifiiriimiiini!
(O CO O (N
time”
i Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) observed (1 .91 m 3)
-sim ulated (2 .1 4 m3)
Figure 7.7 Hydrograph of observed & simulated data for calibration at swale (Event 5)
The other five events used for calibration are shown in Appendix 7.2, Figures 6 to 10.
These other events also show that overall the shape of the simulation hydrograph is quite
good, but with the peak flows too small and low flows occurring from small amounts of
rainfall when they don’t occur with the observed data. The flow always starts too early
and the time of peak flow is always late. The volumes from the simulations are greater for
three events, smaller for two and for event 27 the volume is almost exactly the same.
The six events used for verification of the model are shown in Appendix 7.2 Figures 11 to
16. Details of the comparison between the observed and simulated data are also shown
Appendix 7.2, Table 1. The differences between the observed and simulated data vary.
The difference in volume varies from -74% to +120%. Simulated flow always starts a
little early and time of peak is late, except event 26. In event 26 there are two main peaks
in the hydrographs and in the observed data the second peak is the maximum whilst in the
simulated data it is the first one. Peak flow is usually less, except for events 23 and 25.
Events 23 and 25 are notable because both have very high peak rainfall intensities (18
mm/h and 48 mm/h) which result in a simulated peak runoff intensity greater than the
observed. As noted with the calibration data the model is a little too sensitive to small
pulses of rainfall and hence low flows occur from small amounts of rainfall when they
don’t occur with the observed data.
A summary of the calibration results combined with the verification data is shown in
larger total volume than the observed data, the start of flow was early, time of peak late
and the peak flow is less.

7.3.4 S in gle E ven t an d L o n g T erm S im u la tio n for the S w ale M od el
Tests were carried out to determine the differences and similarities between single event
and long term simulation for this West Grange swale model, using the period 13th August
to 11th September 2000. Results of the long term simulation for the period are shown in
Figure 7.8 with the observed data for that period. There were ten distinct events, marked
with a blue dot. There are monitoring results for five of these events, analysed in detail
and labelled as events 23 to 27 (see Appendix 6.1, Table 3). The duration of these five
events are indicated with a yellow line on the x-axis.
13th Aug - 11th S ep 2000
1.4 f 0
1.2 1" ■ 'll
r ' T1 T5
10
1 15
ur
e.0.8 20
26 25
1 0.6 23 30
S o, 35
25 | 27 40
0.2 L __ _____1 1
45
| , U 24 J O
0 oooooooooogooooooooogogooooocooooooog50ÔTg)OTg)g>g)g)a>g>
..iiiifriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiimiiiiiiiiffmiiiiiiii.. 50
r-i-T —■<—t- t—C\J<MC\JCMCMC\lC\ICNC\iC\|COCO
date t—t-
rainfall intensity (mrrVh) observed (l/s) simulated long term (l/s)
Figure 7.8 Hydrograph for long term simulation and observed data at WG swale, Aug - Sep 2000
Details of the comparison between the long term simulation data and the observed data are
shown in Appendix 7.2, Table 2. The long term simulated data produces more volume of
runoff than observed, but the percentage increase decreases towards the end of the
simulation. The start of the flow is always early and the time of peak late. The peak flow
varies between -45% and +154%.
The long term and single event simulations were compared, as shown in Appendix 7.2
figures 17 to 21. Details of the comparison between the data are shown in Table 7.16. As
can be seen visually from the graphs in Appendix 7.2, the events are very similar. Only
events 23 and 24 show a notable difference, in the peak flows. As shown in Table 7.16,
the times for start of flow and time of peak are all the same, and total volumes and peak
flows are more for the long term simulation than the single event. Event 24 displays the
biggest difference, whilst event 25 is almost identical. The single event simulations are
very slightly closer to the observed data than the long term simulations are. The difference

between the long term and single event simulations is very small however.
SE = single event COMPARISON OF SINGLE EVENT & LONG TERM
LT = long term SIMULATION —West Grange swale
long term data was more DATE (& event no.)
than the single event 14th Aug(23) 27th Aug (24) 31st Aug (25) 6th Sep (26) 10th Sep (27)
Total rainfa11(mm) 10.8 3.6 12.4 13 6.6
total vol SE 3.13 0.46 2.55 3.58 1.33
(m3) LT 3.19 0.546 2.55 3.64 1.35
+2% +19% same +2% +1.5%
start o f SE 0:32 16:52 7:56 4:10 1:38
flow LT 0:32 16:52 7:56 4:10 1:38
same same same same same
time o f SE 1:24 18:28 3:42 6:00 2:52
peak LT 1:24 18:28 3:42 6:00 2:52
same same same same same
peak flow SE 0.778 0.138 1.19 0.486 0.324
LT 0.803 0.152 1.191 0.491 0.327
m +0.025 (+3%) +0.014 (+10%) + 0 .0 01 (+0.08%) +0.005 (+1%) +0.003 (+1%)
Table 7.16 Comparison of single event and long term simulated data at WG swale model (Aug - Sep 2000)
7.3.5 Road Runoff Model

The model for road runoff was built primarily to investigate the Benefit Factor in
comparison with the observed data. The model was assembled using the Catchment
element and the Receiving Water element. The Catchment element was the only variable
in the model. It was used in preference to the Road & Highway and Roof elements
because trial runs showed these elements were too sensitive. Figure 7.9 shows the
simulated data with all three runoff elements compared to the observed data, with the
values shown in brackets in the legend box.
0.09
0.08
0.07
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
time
Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) roof (0.719 m 3)
road (0.52 m 3) catchment (0.52 m )
observed (0.5628 m3)
Figure 7.9 Comparison of runoff modelling elements for West Grange road runoff model

Table 7.17 gives details of the values used for the Catchment element in the model.
P a ra m eter A rea Initial L oss D epression Initial R u n off Final R u n off
Storage coefficien t coefficien t
ha mm mm -- -
v a lu es 0.005 0.4 1.8 0.25 0.85
S ou rce Site specific Calibrated Standard value Standard value Standard value
Table 7.17 Catchment element data as used in West Grange road runoff model
7.3.6 Sensitivity Analysis of Road Runoff Model

As discussed in section 7.2.2, sensitivity analysis is used to determine the effect that
individual parameters have on the model. Sensitivity analysis is not detailed here. Most of
the parameters were standard values.
7.3.7 Calibration and Verification of Road Runoff Model

Model calibration and verification was carried out using the same twelve events used for
the swale model. The events are detailed in Table 7.14, and the event numbers are those
referenced in Appendix 6.1, Table 3.
Table 7.18 shows the comparison of observed and simulated data for the six calibration
events.
O = observed
S = simulated CALIBRATION EVENT - West Grange road runoff
Event no.
5 7 15 19 24 27
Total rainfall (mm) 10.4 15.2 16 1.2 3.6 6.6
O 0.34 0.56 0.5 0.015 0.049 0.195
total vol (m3) s 0.315 0.52 0.459 0.008 0.065 0.181
-7% -7% -8% -47% +33% -7%
o 21:12 6:22 1:12 2:34 17:02 22:12
start of flow s 0:14 6:28 1:22 2:56 17:08 00:18
182 mins 6 mins 10 mins 22 mins 6 mins late 126 mins
late late late late late
o 13:12 6:50 1:58 2:34 17:06 2:26
time of peak s 6:38 22:40 11:12 4:30 18:12 2:46
early late late late late late
o 0.023 0.023 0.0175 0.0058 0.0525 0.041
peak flow (1/s) s 0.084 0.029 0.0227 0.0033 0.0268
+0.061 +0.006 +0.0052 -0.0025 -0.0257
0.044
+0.003
(+265%) (+26%) (+30%) (-43%) (-49%) (+7%)
Table 7.18 Calibration events - comparison o f observed and simulated data at road runoff model
The hydrograph of event 5 used for calibration is shown as Figure 7.10. The simulated
flow during event 5 starts 182 minutes later than the observed, the volume is slightly less
and the peak flow is 265% greater, and is in an earlier part of the hydrograph than the peak
flow of the observed data.
Event 5
27th - 28th Nov 1999
time
i Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) observed (0 .3 4 m 3)
simulated (0 .3 1 5 m 3)
Figure 7.10 Hydrograph of observed and simulated data for calibration of road runoff model (Event 5)
Hydrographs for the other five calibration events are shown in Appendix 7.2, Figures 22 to
27. All the simulations started later than the observed data and the peak was later. For
events 7 and 15 the peak flow was in a different part of the hydrograph. The peak flow
was higher for the simulated flow except events 19 and 24 which had a small depth of
rainfall. The volumes produced by the simulation was less than the observed data except
for event 24.
The six events used for verification of the model are shown in Appendix 7.2 Figures 27 to
32. The details of the comparison between the observed and simulated data are also shown
in Appendix 7.2, Table 3. The results are similar to the calibration events with start of
flow and time of peak for the simulated data being later than the observed and the total
volume of flow is less, except for one event. The peak flow for the simulated flow is less
than the observed, except for event 25, unlike the calibration events where the peak flow
was usually bigger.
A summary of the calibration results combined with the verification data is shown in
smaller total volume than the observed data, the start of flow and time of peak was late and
the peak flow was less.

7.3.8 Single Event and Long Term Simulation for the Road Runoff Model
The differences and similarities between single event and long term simulation were tested
for this West Grange road runoff model, using the same period as for the swale model -
13th August to 11th September 2000.
Results of the long term simulation are shown in Figure 7.11 with the observed data for
that period. There were ten distinct events, marked with a blue asterisk. There are
monitoring results for five of these events, analysed in detail and labelled as event 23 to 27
(see Appendix 6.1, Table 3). The duration of these five events are indicated with a yellow
line on the x-axis.
Details of the comparison between the long term simulation data and the observed data are
shown in Appendix 7.2, Table 4. The most evident discrepancy is that the simulated flow
starts late and the time of peak flow is also late, except for event 26. The total volumes
and peak flows decrease for three events and increase for two, but the increases and
decreases are in different events.
Figure 7.11 Hydrograph for long term simulation and observed data for WG road runoff, Aug - Sep 2000
The long term and single event simulations were compared, as shown in Appendix 7.2
figures 33 to 37. Details of the comparison between the data are shown in Table 7.19. As
can be seen from the graphs in Appendix 7.2, the events are very similar and event 24 is
the only one that shows a difference visually. As shown in Table 7.19 the start of flow and
time of peak for the long term and single event simulations are the same, except event 25
where the long term simulation starts 2 minutes early. The volumes from the long term
simulations are greater than the single event, and the peak flows for three events were
C hapter 7 A pplying E rw in M odels to Study Sites 161
greater.
SE = single event COMPARISON OF SINGLE EVENT & LONG TERM
LT = long term SIMULATION - West Grange road runoff
DATE (& event no.)
14thAug(23) 27th Aug (24) 31st Aug (25) 6th Sep (26) 10th Sep (27)
Total rainfall (mm) I 10.8 3.6 12.4 13 6.6
total vol SE 0.362 0.065 0.344 0.436 0.181
(m3) LT 0.37 0.075 0.345 0.44 0.183
+2% +15% +0.3% +1% +1%
start of SE 0:46 17:08 8:06 4:10 0:18
flow LT 0:46 17:08 8:04 4:10 0:18
1 same same 2 mins early same same
time of SE 1:20 18:12 3:36 5:58 2:46
peak LT 1:20 18:12 3:36 5:58 2:46
| same same same same same
peak flow SE 0.118 0.0268 0.219 0.062 0.044
LT 0.1211 0.0297 0.219 0.063 0.044
m 1+0.0031 (+3%) t-0.0029 (+11%) same +0.001 (+2%) same
Table 7.19 Comparison of observed & long term simulated data for road runoff model, Aug - Sep 2000
Overall, the long term simulations are very slightly closer to the observed data than the
single event simulations are. The difference between the long term and single event
simulations is very small however.
7.3.9 West Grange Model Benefit Factor

As discussed in section 7.2.9, the Benefit Factor (BF) for the swale and road runoff models
has been calculated to compare the BF of the simulated data with the observed data.
Section 6.3.1 discusses the BF at WG. The mean BF for the observed data was 44.6% with
three outlier events (events 11,12 and 17) removed from the dataset. There are 12 events
for which it is possible to calculate BF for the swale and road runoff models. These are
detailed in Table 7.20, showing both the observed and simulated data.
The mean BF for the 12 events of observed data detailed in Table 7.20 is 47% with a range
of 4 to 80%. This mean figure is only 2.4% less than the overall figure from all the
recorded results, which was 44.6% (see section 6.3.1). The mean BF for the simulated data
was 32%, with a range of 3 to 83%. The difference of the BF for observed and simulated
data for each event ranges from -56 to +30, with a mean difference of + /- 27.8. The BF
for the simulated data is less because in general the swale model overpredicts volume
whilst the road runoff underpredicts. In summary it would appear that the models produce
a reasonably accurate BF.

BENEFI1" FAC TO R (BF) FO R W EST GRANG E
O = observed Difference
S = simulated
COMMENTS
Total Runoff (mm) Benefit between
Note: plus sign (+) denotes Factor observed
the simulated data was more &
than the observed Swale Road (BF) simulated
27-28/11/99 (5)c O 4.28 6.8 37 -13
s 4.79 6.3 24
8/12/99 (6)v o 1.02 3.6 71.7 -37.7
s 1.06 1.6 34
11/12/99(7)° o 4.25 11.2 62 -32
s 7.24 10.4 30
17/2/00 (9) v o 1.79 2.73 34 +10
s 1.03 1.85 44
27/5/00 (15)° o 9.7 10.1 4
DATE (& event no.)
s 6.17 9.3 34 +30

22/6/00 (19)° o 0.06 0.3 80 +3
s 0.027 0.16 83
31/7/00 (22)v o 0.5 1.5 67 +7
s 0.13 0.5 74
14/8/00 (23)v o 3.2 7.8 59 -56
s 7.03 7.24 3
27/8/00 (24)° o 0.63 0.98 36 -16
s 1.04 1.3 20
31/8-1/9/00 (25) v o 3.12 6.25 50 -33
s 5.72 6.89 17
6/9/00 (26) v o 7.2 12.1 41 -33
s 8.08 8.79 8
10-11/9/00(27)° o 3 3.9 23 -6
s 3.009 3.62 17
Overall figure for
MEAN BENEFIT o 47 observed data from all
analysed results (i.e.
FACTOR +/- 27.8 not just those used for
(RMS) s 32 simulations) is 44.6%.
See Table 6.10.
c = event used for calibration
v = event used for verification
RMS = root mean square
Table 7.20 Comparison of Benefit Factor for observed and simulated data at West Grange
7.3.10 Discussion of West Grange Models

The Erwin models built for the swale and road runoff at West Grange appear to simulate
reasonably accurately. Table 7.21 shows a summary of the differences between the
observed and simulated data for the swale and road runoff models.
The model for the swale slightly overestimates the volume whilst the model for the road
runoff slightly underestimates, therefore the BF is slightly less than for the observed data.
The start of flow is early for the swale model and late for the road, but both models are late
for the time of peak, more so the road model. Both models underpredict the peak flow,
although this is more so for the swale model with an average of 0.0641/s less which is and
average of 26.6%. For the road runoff model the average underprediction is 0.00761/s,
although when the average of the percentages is calculated this gives an overprediction of
4.4%, thus indicating that the road runoff model will overpredict as likely as underpredict.
The mean BF for the simulated data is 32% and for the observed data, as shown in section
6.3.1 using all analysed events not just the 12 used for simulation, the mean is 44.6%. This
difference may partly be due to the overprediction of total flow by the swale model and
underprediction by the road runoff model. The ranges are almost identical for the
simulated and observed data with a range of 3-83% and 4-80.5% respectively.

Difference (A) between Observed & Simulated Data (all events - calibration & verification)
Note: plus sign (+) denotes the SWALE 12 events) ROAD RUNOFF (12 events)
simulated data was more than the Min A Max A Mean A notes® Min A Max A Mean A notes®
observed
total vol (m3) -74% +120% +13.2% 4*+ -565% +33% -60.9% 2*+
8*- 10*-
Chapter 7 Applying Erwin Models to Study Sites
start o f flow 70 mins 14 mins 33.8 mins 12* early 4 mins early 182 mins 37.8 mins l*early
early early early late late ll*late
time o f peak 160 mins 84 mins 8 mins late l*early 274 mins 950 mins 110.2 mins 2*early
early late ll*late early late late 10*late
peak flow (1/s) -0.401 +0.722 -0.064 2*+ -0.119 +0.091 -0.0076 5*+
(-86%) (+154%) (-26.6%) 10*- (-66%0 (+265%) (+4.4% 7*-
Mean BF for the simulated data is 32% (range 3-83%), and for observed data (for all events
BENEFIT FACTOR (BF) analysed, not just those used for simulation) is 44.6% (range 4-80.5%). For individual events the
BF for simulated was an average of 14.7 less than the observed data, with a range o f-56 to +30.
<8>= the notes provides information on the number of events where the model resulted in increased or decreased data e.g. an entry of ‘4*+’ for the
swale total volume row means there were four events for which the simulated run resulted in an increased volume compared to the observed data
0
(ro1o
On
7.4 SUMMARY OF ERWIN MODEL APPLICATION TO THE STUDY SITES
In this chapter the building of Erwin models for the NATS porous paving and West Grange
swale sites have been detailed and discussed. For each site the SUD system and relevant
impervious surface system was modelled, thus enabling the Benefit Factor at each site to
be calculated from the simulated data and compared to the observed data. The resultant
models are reasonably accurate, and the Benefit Factor for simulated and observed data are
very similar.
At NATS the porous model, on average, slightly underpredicted total and peak volume,
and the timing was late. The tarmac model, on average, slightly overpredicted total
volume, underpredicted the peak flow, and the timing was slightly early. However, for
both these models there was no set pattern and for each event there was a variety of
increases/ decreases etc. although usually within acceptable limits. The Benefit Factor for
the simulated data was 75.7%, and 75% for the observed data, and the range is almost
identical.
At West Grange the swale model, on average, slightly overpredicted total volume,
underpredicted peak flow, the start of flow was early and the time of peak late. The road
runoff model underpredicted total volume and peak flow, and the timing was late. As with
the NATS models there was no set pattern and for each event there was a variety of
increases/ decreases etc. except the start of flow for the swale model was always early.
The Benefit Factor for the simulated data was 32%, and 44.6% for the observed data, but
the range of values is almost identical.
These models are tools for further examining the porous paving and swale designs at
NATS and West Grange, to discover which system is more effective and also the
performance of the systems in a variety of design storms, and to determine improved
design detailing. This is described and discussed in Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 8 SUD SYSTEMS AN ALYSIS & D EVELO PM EN T OF
IM PRO VED D E T A ILIN G
The time and effort spent building calibrated models is recouped in knowledge and
understanding as the model is used in theoretical scenarios and detail changes that cannot
easily be determined in the field. The models described in Chapter 7 have been examined
further and then used to indicate improved detailing for both systems. This is discussed in
this chapter in three main sections.
Firstly, the calibrated SUDS models were compared using the same rainfall events to
examine the relative performance of each system. Design storms were then used to
indicate the size of event each system can deal with before the hydraulic capacity is
exceeded (hydraulic exceedence). Finally the calibrated models were modified to indicate
the performance improvement to be obtained by improved detailing, and tested for
hydraulic exceedence using design storms.
8.1 P E R F O R M A N C E C O M P A R IS O N O F T H E M O D E L S
The calibrated SUDS models for NATS (hereafter termed ‘porous’) and West Grange
(termed ‘swale’) were compared using specific rainfall events to enable a comparison of
the performance of each SUD system. This cannot be done using the observed data
because the two sites are in different locations receiving different weather conditions and
rainfall patterns. Eight rainfall events were used from actual rainfall recorded at Emmock
Woods, with a range of characteristics as shown in Table 8.1.
Total Rainfall
Event No.
Duration
in
Intensity
(mm/h)
(mm)
Max.
(hrs)
Date
1 27-28.2.99 16.6 25 6 0.81

2 13.3.99 1.6 5.75 6 2.36
3 20-21.4.99 34.2 15 6 3.67
4 5.6.99 9.6 6.75 30 4.35
5 27.6.99 12.2 7 12 0.38
6 5.7.99 6.5 5 18 0.95
7 11-12.2.00 3.2 14 19.2 1.17
8 9.8.00 8.2 7.75 12 0.96
Table 8.1 Events used for performance comparison of NATS and West Grange models
Chapter 8 SUD Systems Analysis & Development of Improved Design Detailing 167
Table 8.2 shows the comparison of the simulated data for the porous and swale models
using the eight events. The total depth of outflow/ runoff is shown instead of total volum e
(m ) because the two sites have different catchment areas. To enable a direct comparison
with the runoff from the swale model (1/s) the output data examined for the porous model
was the inflow to the soakaway manhole (1/s), although during calibration of the porous
model in Chapter 7 the volume in the manhole was examined as this was more suitable (as
discussed in section 7.3.1). Thus in Table 8.2 the peak volume (m3) is also shown for the
porous model to enable a basic cross-check with the tests carried out on the porous model
in section 7.3.
As shown in Table 7.11 and 7.21 the porous model on average slightly underpredicts the
quantity of exit water produced whilst the swale model on average slightly overpredicts.
This will slightly exaggerate the results shown in Table 8.2.
P = porous model P E R F O R M A N C E C O M P A R IS O N O F P O R O U S & S W A L E
S = swale model M ODELS
NOTE: plus sign (+) Event no.
denotes the swale data was
more than the porous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total rainfall (mm) 16.6 1.6 34.2 9.6 12.2 6.5 3.2 8.2
Total outflow/ Ps 4.36
9.9
0
0.2
14.9
24.2
0.68
4.67
2.27
7.5
0
2.4
0
0.87
0
3.26
runoff (mm) +127% / +62.4% +586% +230.4% / / /
% outflow/ p 26.3 0 43.6 7.1 18.6 0 0 0
runoff s 59.6 12.5 70.7 48.6 61.5 36.9 27.2 39.7
+33.3 / +27.1 +41.5 +42.9 / / /
p 7:22 / 14:36 18:54 5:50 / / /
s 19:42 4:44 10:04 15:56 3:58 13:36 12:36 7:28
start of flow 700 / 272 mins 178 mins 112 mins / / /
mins earlier earlier earlier
earlier
p 10:54 / 0:40 20:08 6:52 / / /
s 7:46 5:54 0:28 16:22 7:08 14:32 0:46 12:26
time of peak 188 / 12 mins 226 mins 16 mins / / /
mins earlier earlier later
earlier
p 0.339 / 0.059 0.059 0.224 / / /
peak flow 1/s (0.457m3) (0.465m3) (0.443m3) (0.454m3)
(and porous vol. in s 0.33 0.068 0.478 0.776 0.529 0.356 0.06 0.279
m3) -0.009 / +0.419 +0.717 +0.305 / / /
(-2.6%) (+710%) (+1215%) (+136%)
Table 8.2 Comparison of simulated data for the porous and swale models
The hydrograph for event 1 is shown as Figure 8.1. The swale model produces 127% more
runoff per m2 than the porous model. The percentage runoff for the swale model is 33.3%
higher than the percentage outflow for the porous model. Runoff from the swale model
begins 700 minutes earlier and peaks 188 minutes earlier than the porous model. The peak
flow produced by the swale model is 0.0091/s less than the porous model, which is
2.6% less. In summary for this event the swale model produced more runoff than the
porous model, it attenuated the flow less effectively, and the peak flow occurred before the
porous model, but the swale model produced a slightly lower peak flow.
Event 1
oo O
O oo O O OO o o
CN CO oCM oo o o66 o<Si o<b ooCM
time 'r"
M l Intensity (m m/h) porous (l/s ) ----------- s w a le (l/s )
Figure 8.1 hydrograph of simulated data for porous and swale model for event 1
Graphs for the other seven events are shown in Appendix 8.1. The other seven events
follow a similar pattern to event 1, except the porous model does not produce any runoff
for events 2, 6, 7 and 8, i.e. events below 8.2mm rainfall. Examination of the observed
data discussed in section 6.1 shows the minimum size of rainfall event which produced exit
water from the porous car park was 4.4mm (see Appendix 5.1, Table 1, event 14). The
other three events that have runoff from both the porous and swale models (events 3, 4 and
5) show the swale model produced more runoff than the porous model per m and the
percentage runoff was more. It also attenuated the flow less effectively and the peak flow
occurred before the porous model, except in event 5 when it occurred 16 minutes later.
Unlike event 1, the peak flow for the swale model was significantly more than the peak
flow from the porous model.
For the four events that produced no outflow from the porous model, the percentage runoff
for the swale model was slightly less than it was for the other four events.
Table 8.3 shows a summary of the differences between the porous and swale models, using
just the four events for which the porous model produced outflow. The models clearly
indicate that the porous car park system performs better than the swale system with regards
to reduction of runoff and peak, and flow attenuation. The calibrated models are
reasonably similar to the observed data, although the porous model usually slightly
underpredicts volume whilst the swale model usually slightly overpredicts. The data used
for the calibration of the swale model were the data collected with the drainage
C hapter 8 SU D System s A nalysis & D evelopm ent o f Im proved D esign D etailing 169
arrangement modified (see section 4.3.1). The swale performed better when the drainage
arrangement was returned to its original design however, as discussed in section 6.3.1, and
this is considered further in section 8.3.
Difference (A) between porous & swale models (for events 1 ,3 ,4 & 5)
Note: plus sign (+) denotes the swale Min A Max A Mean A notes®
data was more than the porous
Total outflow/ runoff (mm) +127% +586% +251% 4*+
% outflow/ runoff +27 +42.9 +36.2 4*+
start of flow 700 mins 112 mins 315.5 mins 4*early

earlier earlier earlier
time of peak 226 mins 16 mins 102.5 mins 3*earlier
earlier later earlier l*later
peak flow 1/s -0.009 +0.77 +0.358 1*-
(and porous vol. in m3) (-2.6%) (+1215%) (+515%) 3*+
® = the notes provides information on the number of events where the model resulted in increased or decreased data
e.g. an entry of ‘4*+’ for the total outflow/ runoff means there were four events for which the swale model resulted
in an increased total outflow compared to the porous model
Table 8.3 Summary of differences between porous and swale models
8.2 HYDRAULIC EXCEEDENCE OF THE SUD SYSTEMS

An important use of a calibrated model is to examine the response of the system to design
storms. The model can be run with design storms to determine the frequency and duration
of storm that can be dealt with before the hydraulic exceedence occurs.
Design storms were derived for the return period (M) 1 to 100 with the duration (D) 5 mins
to 24 hours. The results show that design exceedence of both models occurs during high
return period storms, but not the same ones. At the porous the sub-base will be full
(‘system overflow’) by the M20, M50 and M l00 longer duration storms. The swale will
fill with water and overtop for the M50 and M l00 medium duration (30 to 240 min)
storms. This is because of the different processes in each system. At the swale the
medium duration storms have a higher intensity and therefore the runoff simply does not
drain from the swale quickly enough. At the porous there is a lot more storage due to the
sub-base and soakaway manhole hence the ‘system overflow’ (i.e. the sub-base filling) is
more affected by the overall quantity of rainfall and hence it is the longer duration storms
that are the problem despite the lower intensity.
8.2.1 Design Storms at NATS
The total rainfall depths (mm) for the range of design storms, Ml-5min to M l 00-24 (1440
mins), calculated for NATS are shown in Table 8.4.
Total Depth (mm) and System Performance for Design Storms - NATS
Duration (mins) 5 10 15 30 60 120 240 360 720 1440
Ml 2.6 3.9 5.1 6 .8 M >24 >6.1| 18.9 >44 fe24
M2 3.2 4.5 6.1 tu 14.6 [19.2 >24 [29.2
M3 3.5 5.3 M M >24 M 24.4 fey mi
Return Period
m
M4 3.8 5.7 [7.4 9 .8 >3 M >24 133.5 >34
M5 4 6 >04 >34 M 23.3; >74 344 444
M10 4.5 M M [11.9 M 20.6 3U 40 5U
M20 5.2 74 !«4 >M >4.3 [31.21 >54 574
M50 6.2 JM 12.4 16.9 22-8 ><M 37.8| >3-4 54.6 684
M100 M 14-3! I'm 26.6 fey >34 52.4 b y
Xs l .
x mm —partial fill in manhole (some exit water flowing from porous system)
x mm = overflow from manhole (sufficient exit water to fill manhole and overflow into watercourse)
Xmm} = system overflow (hydraulic capacity is exceeded i.e. sub base filled with water)
Table 8.4 Design storm rainfall depth (mm) and resultant system performance at NATS porous car park
Table 8.4 also indicates the performance of the porous car park system with these design
storms. For the design storms that resulted in no exit water from the porous car park into
the soakaway manhole, the cells are uncoloured. For those events that resulted in exit
water flowing from the porous car park into the soakaway manhole, partially filling it but
not overflowing into the receiving watercourse, the cells are shaded blue. Events that
resulted in the manhole filling and overflowing to the watercourse, have the cells shaded
green. The large events where the hydraulic exceedence of the whole porous car park
system occurred are shown with the cells shaded red.
The table shows that for the one year return period storm there is no exit water flowing
from the porous car park into the soakaway manhole until the 30 minute duration storm,
and storms of longer duration for the M l storm overflow the manhole and enter the
receiving watercourse. The porous system can handle these design storms. The M2 to
M10 storms are similar, with partial fill of the manhole occurring with a slightly shorter
duration storm. The M20-360min storm, of depth 36mm, is the first design storm to result
in system overflow i.e. design exceedence occurs. The M20-1440min storm does not
result in system overflow however. The M50 and M l00 storms result in hydraulic
exceedence with storms longer than 120 min.
8.2.2 Design Storms at West Grange
The total rainfall depths (mm) for the range of design storms, Ml-5min to Ml 00-24 (1440
mins), calculated for West Grange are shown in Table 8.5.
Total Depth (mm) for Design Storm s - W est Grange
Duration (mins) 5 10 15 30 60 120 240 360 720 1440
Ml 3 4.6 5.8 7.9 10.6 14.2 18.7 22 29.1 38.1
M2 3.7 5.6 7.1 9.5 12.8 17 22.1 26 33.9 44.2
-oo M3 4.1 6.2 7.9 10.5 14 18.6 24.2 28.1 36.7 47.3
sJ0) M4 4.4 6.6 8.5 11.3 15 19.6 25.8 30 38.7 49.8
Pm
M5 4.6 6.9 8.8 11.8 15.8 20.7 26.9 31.3 40.3 51.8
us
S3
5.2 8 10.2 13.8 18.4 24 31 35.9 45.9 58.6
M10
<y M20 6 9.2 11.9 16 21.4 27.9 35.7 41.2 52.2 66.1
P4
M50 7.2 11.1 14.4 19.6 26.2 33.9 43 49.4 62 77.7
M100 8.2 12.9 16.7 22.8 30.5 39.2 49.6 56.6 70.6 87.7
Table 8.5 Design storm rainfall depth (mm) for West Grange swale
The volume of the swale is 5.17m , with a depth of 0.26m. The model will simulate to a
maximum depth of 0.26m, which is the depth of the swale. Therefore, when the results
data shows that water in the swale has reached a depth of 0.26m, and remains at that depth
for a period, then it is assumed that the water would in reality have overtopped the sides of
the swale. For each design storm the maximum depth of water that occurred in the swale is
shown in Table 8.6. The events where the depth reached 0.26m highlighted in red, and the
length of time (mins) for which it stayed at that depth is shown in brackets.
System Performance for Design Storms at West Grange -
max depth (m) of water in swale
Duration 5 10 15 30 60 120 240 360 720 1440
(mins)
Ml 0.012 0.022 0.031 0.043 0.052 0.049 0.036 0.029 0.018 0.012
M2 0.016 0.029 0.041 0.056 0.068 0.063 0.045 0.035 0.022 0.014
’O M3 0.020 0.034 0.048 0.066 0.083 0.077 0.051 0.038 0.024 0.015
JO M4
*C 0.021 0.038 0.052 0.077 0.095 0.087 0.055 0.042 0.025 0.016
P
m
o
M5 0.022 0.041 0.056 0.084 0.105 0.099 0.058 0.044 0.027 0.017
&
u M10 0.027 0.05 0.072 0.113 0.143 0.139 0.084 0.052 0.031 0.019
1 M20 0.034 0.061 0.095 0.148 0.19 0.189 0.128 0.066 0.036 0.022
P4 M50 0.044 0.088 0.135 0.208 0.26 0.26 0.211 0.124 0.044 0.027
(10 mins) (15 mins)
M100 0.053 0.114 0.174 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.197 0.051 0.031
(15 mins) (20 mins) (25 mins) (25 mins)
Table 8.6 System performance with design storms at West Grange swale
Only the M50 and M l00 storms, between 30 and 240 minutes, resulted in the swale
C hapter 8 SU D System s Analysis & D evelopm ent o f Im proved D esign D etailing 172
overtopping. For longer durations the intensity would be less and hence the water would
have time to drain away and the swale would therefore not overtop.
8.3 IMPROVED DETAILING

The calibrated models built using the data from NATS porous car park and West Grange
swale were modified to improve performance. This process gives a better understanding,
and some hypothetical proof, as to the improved performance that can be achieved by
improved detailing. Each model is discussed separately, and the relevant calibration events
from section 7.2 and 7.3 used to examine the improved performance. The ‘improved’
models are then tested with the design storms from section 8.2 to examine what, if any,
change of hydraulic exceedence has occurred due to the improved detailing.
8.3.1 Improved Porous Car Park Model

The porous model was improved in two aspects. The process of improving the design of
the system using the model was restricted because the model uses the trench-trough
element due to there being no porous paving element available. This means that many of
the values and parameters used in the calibrated model are only determined through the
calibration and sensitivity analysis process, and changes to the design are not easily made
because there is not necessarily a corresponding identifiable value or parameter to adjust.
The two aspects used to improve the design were:
■ increase the depth of the clean stone layer between the porous bricks and the sub-base,
from 50mm to 60mm
■ increase the area of storage in the sub-base by raising the perforated pipe. Also
increasing the depth of the sub-base from 350mm to 400mm permits an extra area of
storage. The pipe was raised to be 150mm from the bottom of the sub-base.
Another option to improve the design would be to use a higher porosity sub-base material.
As this may be structurally weaker, and therefore less suitable, this option has not been
considered here. Further research would be required to determine a structurally suitable
higher porosity material.
Figure 8.2 shows how the changes affected the performance of the porous model. Three
model options were used (a-c), and the resultant total volumes for each are shown in
brackets in the legend:
a = increasing the clean stone layer beneath the porous bricks from 50mm to 60mm
(increase ‘soil storage depth’ on model)
b = option ‘a’ plus raising height of perforated pipe in sub-base so it is 100mm
from the base and 140mm from the top.
c = option ‘b’ plus increasing depth of sub-base to 400mm and maintaining
perforated pipe at 140mm below the top of the sub-base, therefore increasing the
area of storage beneath the pipe to 150mm.
The observed and calibrated data are from the values used for calibration in section 7.2.
Figure 8.2 Effects of improved detailing to porous model
Model c is used as the ‘improved design model’ for this section. The calibration events
(same as those used in section 7.2.3) were run on the improved model. Table 8.7 shows
the comparison of the data from the calibrated model and the improved detailing model.
Graphs of the comparisons are shown in Appendix 8.2, Figures 1 to 6 (event 3 is shown as
Figure 8.2).
Table 8.7 and the figures in Appendix 8.2 show that the improved model significantly
improves the performance of the porous car park. The volume is reduced, flow starts later,
time of peak is delayed longer, the peak volume is smaller and the duration of the peak is
less. Event 10, with the greatest depth of rainfall, is the only one that does not show such a
significant difference, although all aspects of the performance are still improved except the
peak volume is the same as the calibrated model.
C hapter 8 SU D System s A nalysis & D evelopm ent o f Im proved D esign D etailing 174
C = calibrated COMPARISON OF CALIBRATED MODEL & IMPROVED
I = improved DESIGN MODEL - porous car park
NOTE: plus sign (+) denotes Event no.
the improved datawas more
than the calibrated 3 6 7 10 16 21 23
Total rainfall (mm) 8 .8 15 9 .2 2 9 .8 9 .8 1 6 .6 10
C 1 .0 4 3 .3 2 1 .5 1 1 4 .5 1 .4 2 .5 5 1 .1
t o t a l v o l ( m 3) I 0 .1 0 1 0 .7 3 1 0 .2 3 4 5 .5 9 0 .2 0 1 0 .5 0 1 0 .1 1 7
-9 0 % -7 8 % -8 5 % -6 1 % -8 6 % -8 0 % -8 9 %
c 2 :0 0 2 1 :5 6 6 :3 6 8 :0 4 1 1 :3 0 9 :5 4 4 :3 6
I 2 :2 8 2 2 :2 8 6 :5 4 8 :3 0 1 2 :2 6 1 1 :2 8 5 :0 8
s ta rt o f flo w
2 8 m in s 3 2 m in s 1 8 m in s 2 6 m in s 5 6 m in s 9 4 m in s 3 2 m in s
la te r la te r la te r la te r la te r la te r la te r
c 4 :0 4 2 3 :1 6
6 :1 4
7 :5 2 9 :3 6 & 6 :4 0 1 3 :2 2 1 3 :1 0 6 :2 6
I 7 :4 0 1 1 :5 6 1 2 :2 4 & 1 7 :3 0 1 8 :0 0 1 0 :1 0
tim e o f p e a k 7 :3 2
2 1 6 m in s 4 1 8 m in s 2 4 4 m in s 168 & 52 2 4 8 m in s 2 9 0 m in s 2 2 4 m in s
la te r la te r la te r m in s la te r la te r la te r la te r
p e a k v o lu m e
c
I 1
0 .4 4
0 .0 4 6 7
0 .4 5
0 .2 8 9
0 .4 5 0 .4 5 0 .4 5 0 .4 5 0 .4 4
0 .1 0 8 0 .4 5 0 .0 9 3 0 .2 3 7 0 .0 5 4
( m 3) -0 .3 9 3 -0 .1 6 1 -0 .3 4 2 sam e -0 .3 5 7 -0 .2 1 3 -0 .3 8 6
I (-89%) (-36%) (-76%) (-79%) (-47%) (-88%)
c 200 554 294 822 & 458 266 380 192
I 10 14 64 840 & 330 104 96 132
d u ra tio n o f
p e a k (m in ) 1 9 0 m in s 5 4 0 m in s 2 3 0 m in s 1 8 m in s 1 6 0 m in s 2 8 4 m in s 6 0 m in s
| le s s le s s le s s m o re & 128 le s s le s s le s s
m in s le s s
T a b l e 8 .7 C o m p a r is o n o f d a ta fr o m c a lib r a te d a n d im p r o v e d d e ta iln g p o r o u s m o d e ls
Table 8.8 shows the summary of the differences between the calibrated and improved
porous models.
Difference (A) between data for Calibrated and Improved
Porous Models
N o te : p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s th e
im p ro v e d m o d e l d a ta w a s M in A M ax A M ean A n o te s ®
m o re th a n th e c a lib ra te d J
t o t a l v o l ( m 3) -6 1 % -9 0 % - 6 9 .7 % 7*-
x . „„ I 18 m in s 9 4 m in s 4 1 m in s
s ta rt o f flo w , . 7 * la te
J la te r la te r la te r
,.
tim e o f p e a k
i S 5 2 m in s
jater
4 1 8 m in s 2 3 2 .5 m in s
8 * la te
la te r la te r
-0 .3 9 3 -0 .2 6 5 6*-
p e a k v o l u m e ( m 3) |
(-89%) (-48%) l* s a m e
5 4 0 m in s 2 0 1 m in s
d u ra tio n o f p e a k (m in ) j ^ j ^ ns 7 * le s s
le s s le s s
® = the notes provides information on the number of events where the model resulted in increased or
decreased data e.g. an entry of ‘7*-’ for the total volume means there were seven events for which
the improved model resulted in a decreased volume compared to the calibrated model
T a b l e 8 .8 S u m m a ry o f d a ta fr o m c a lib ra te d a n d im p ro v e d m o d e ls fo r p o r o u s c a r p a r k
Overall this shows a significant improvement with a reduction of volume and flow, and
timings are later and shorter. The mean difference for the time of peak for the improved
model is 232.5 minutes later than the calibrated one, and although the minimum is 52
minutes the range without this low value is 168 to 418 minutes later, as the 52 minute
value comes from the second peak of the hydrograph in event 10. The duration of the peak
is a mean of 201 minutes less than the calibrated model and the range is 18 to 540 minutes
less, although the low value of 18 minutes comes from the first peak in the hydrograph for
event 10.
8.3.2 Improved Swale Model

The swale model was improved by raising the outlet, to a height of approximately 5cm.
The calibrated swale model is a model based on the West Grange swale with the drainage
arrangement modified (see section 4.3.1). The original design for that swale had a raised
outlet of approximately 5cm, thus allowing storage in the swale. The beneficial
hydrological effect of returning the drainage arrangement to its original design is discussed
in section 6.3.1, where the results are examined from additional monitoring carried out
after the outlet was returned to its original design. The improved swale model uses the
dimensions of the outlet as originally designed as a template for a realistic improvement.
The calibration events used in section 7.3 were run on the improved model. Figure 8.3
shows the hydrograph for event 5 with the observed data and the results from the calibrated
model and the improved model. The improved model has reduced the volume of flow,
attenuated it and reduced the peak flow.
Event 5
0.5
27th-28th Nov 1999
0.4 II i i P ' JC
" 0.3
4
23Ee
0.2 *5
5£
0.1 62
0 o■mwi
iiaTiw
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
TTSF"--
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
doidc\i^(bo odrjt(bcodoi
CN CM
tim e
,.T— T— T— T— T— C\| CN
■ Rainfall Intensify (mnVh) observed (1.91 m3)
— calibrated (2.14 m3) improved (0.946 m3)
F i g u r e 8 .3 C o m p a r is o n o f im p r o v e d s w a le m o d e l w ih o b s e r v e d d a ta a n d c a lib r a te d m o d e l ( e v e n t 5 )
Graphs for the other five events are shown in Appendix 8.2, Figures 7 to 11. Table 8.9
shows the comparison of the data from the calibrated model and the improved model. The
percentage runoff is also shown to enable a comparison to results shown in Table 6.14
which summarises the hydrological data with the drainage arrangement returned to its
original design.
COMPARISON OF CALIBRATED MODEL &
C = c a lib ra te d
IMPROVED DESIGN MODEL - swale
I im p ro v e d
Event no.
5 7 15 19 24 27
Total rainfall (mm) 1 0 .4 1 5 .2 16 1 .2 3 .6 6 .6
C 2 .1 4 3 .2 2 2 .7 5 0 .0 1 2 0 .4 6 1 .3 3
t o t a l v o l ( m 3) I 0 .9 4 6 1 .7 4 1 .6 5 0 0 .0 6 3 0 .5 2 9
-5 6 % -4 6 % -4 0 % / -8 6 % -6 0 %
C 4 :4 0 6 :3 0 1 :1 4 2 :0 2 1 6 :5 2 1 :3 8
s ta rt o f flo w I 4 :4 0 6 :3 0 1 :1 4 / 1 6 :5 2 1 :3 8
sam e sam e sam e / sam e sam e
c 6 :4 6 7 :5 0 1 1 :2 0 4 :2 8 1 8 :2 8 2 :5 2
tim e o f p e a k I 1 4 :0 2 1 6 :0 8 7 :1 2 / 1 8 :4 8 3 :2 2
4 3 6 m in s 4 9 8 m in s 2 4 8 m in s / 2 0 m in s 3 0 m in s
la te r la te r e a rlie r la te r la te r
c 0 .2 4 7 0 .1 6 7 0 .1 5 4 0 .0 0 6 0 .1 3 8 0 .3 2 4
p e a k f lo w (1 /s) I 0 .0 9 6 0 .0 7 9 0 .0 8 6 / 0 .0 0 6 8 0 .0 8 2
-0 .1 5 1 -0 .0 8 8 -0 .0 6 8 / -0 .1 3 1 2 -0 .2 4 2
(-61%) (-53%) (-4 4 % ) (-95%) (-75%)
c 46 47 3 8 .7 5 2 .5 2 8 .6 45
% ru n o ff I 2 0 .5 2 5 .6 23 0 3 .9 1 8 .2
- 2 5 .5 - 2 1 .4 -1 5 .7 5 / - 2 4 .7 - 2 6 .8
T a b l e 8 .9 C o m p a r is o n o f d a ta f r o m c a lib r a te d a n d im p r o v e d d e ta ilin g s w a le m o d e ls
The improved detailing significantly improves the performance of the swale. The volume
is reduced, time of peak is delayed longer (except event 15), peak flow is reduced and the
percentage runoff is less. In event 19, with a total rainfall of 1.2mm, there was no runoff
produced from the improved model. In event 15 the peak runoff occurred earlier than it
did in the calibrated model, but the hydrograph for this event shows many ‘spikes’, and the
peak one for the calibrated model was later than the peak one for the improved model.
Table 8.10 shows the summary of the difference between the calibrated and improved
swale models, for the five events which resulted in runoff. Overall this shows a significant
improvement with reduced volume, flow and percentage runoff, and the time of peak is
delayed. The start of the flow is the same for both the calibrated and improved models, but
as shown in the graphs in Appendix 8.2, Figures 7 to 11, the flow for the calibrated model
increases more rapidly.
Difference (A) between data foi*Calibrated and Improved
Swale Models 5 events)
N o t e : plus sign (+) denotes the
improved model datawas more Min A Max A Mean A notes®
thanthe calibrated
total vol (m3) -4 0 % -8 6 % - 5 7 .6 % 5*-
start of flow / / sam e 5*sam e
time of peak 2 4 8 m in s
e a rly
4 9 8 m in s
la te
1 4 7 m in s
la te
4 * la te
1 * e a rly
peak flow (1/s) -0 .0 8 8

(-44%)
-0 .2 4 2
(-95%)
-0 .1 3 6
(-65.6%) 5*-
% runoff - 1 5 .7 5 -2 6 .8 - 2 2 .8 5 * le s s
® = the notes provides information on the number of events where the model resulted in increased or
decreased data e.g. an entry of ‘5*-’ for the total volume means there were five events for which
the improved model resulted in a decreased volume compared to the calibrated model
T a b l e 8 .1 0 S u m m a ry o f d a ta fro m c a lib ra te d a n d im p ro v e d m o d e ls f o r s w a le
The improved model was based on the drainage arrangement for the West Grange swale as
originally designed, not as modified for the main period of monitoring. The results from
the monitoring period after the drainage arrangement was returned to its original design
with a raised outlet, approximately 5cm high, is shown in Table 6.14. This shows the
mean percentage runoff for the swale was 6.3% with a range of 0.047 to 17.6%. The mean
percentage runoff for the improved swale model was 18.2% with a range of 3.9 to 25.6%.
The improved model does not perform as well as the real swale (with drainage
arrangement returned to its original design), as this would require calibration, however it
gives an indication of the improvement to be had by raising the outlet.
8.3.3 Hydraulic Exceedence of Porous Model with Improved Detailing

The design storms used in section 8.2.1 for the porous model were run on the improved
porous model. The results are shown in Table 8.11, in the same format as the results for
the ordinary calibrated model shown in Table 8.4 to permit easy comparison.
In summary the system performance for the improved model has improved markedly
compared to the calibrated model (Table 8.4). The key improvement is that for all these
design storms the porous system functions without ‘system overflow’, i.e. the design
exceedence does not occur. Also, for each of the return period storms the duration to
which the porous system functions without any exit water even entering the soakaway
manhole (‘partial fill in manhole’) has increased compared to the calibrated model. This is
the same for the storm durations for overflow occurring from the manhole. All this would
be in keeping with the fact that the improved model has had the depth of clean stone
layer increased and the volume o f storage in the sub-base increased. These adjustments to
the detailing would cost very little extra, and be highly unlikely to be associated with
spatial issues, and yet would significantly enhance the hydraulic performance o f the
system.
Rainfall Depth (mm) & System Perform ance for Design Storm s - Im proved
D etailing Porous M odel
Duration (mins) 5 10 15 30 60 120 240 360 720 1440
Ml 2.6 3.9 5.1 6.8 9.2 12.2 16.1 18.9 24.9 32.7
M2 3.2 4.5 6.1 8.2 ftl 14.6 19.2 22.3 29.2 38
M3 3.5 5.3 6.8 9.1 12.2 16 21 24.4 31.6 41
Return Period
M4 3.8 5.7 7.4 9.8 13 17 22.2 26 33.5 43.2

M5 4 6 7.6 10.2 13.7 18 23.3 27.1 34.9 44.9
M10 4.5 6.9 8.9 11.9 16 20.9 27 31.2 40 |l
M20 5.2 7.9 10.2 13.8 18.6 24.3 31.2 36 45.7 57.9
M50 6.2 9.6 12.4 16.9 22.8 29.6 37.8 43.4 54.6 68.4
M100 7.1 | l 14.3 19.6 26.6 34.4 43.7 50 62.4 77.6
Key
x m m = partial fill in manhole ( s o m e e x i t w a t e r f l o w i n g f r o m p o r o u s s y s t e m )
x m m = overflow from manhole ( s u f f i c i e n t e x i t w a t e r t o f i l l m a n h o l e a n d o v e r f l o w i n t o w a t e r c o u r s e )
T a b l e 8 .1 1 R e s u l ta n t s y s te m p e r f o r m a n c e o f im p r o v e d d e t a i l i n g p o r o u s m o d e l
8.3.4 H ydraulic Exceedence o f Swale M odel w ith Im proved D etailing
The design storms used in section 8.2.2 for the swale model were run on the improved
swale model. The results are shown in Table 8.12, in the same format as the results for the
ordinary calibrated model shown in Table 8.6 to permit easy comparison.
System Perform ance for Design Storm s for Im proved D etailing Sw ale M odel -
m ax depth (m) of w ater in swale
Duration 5 10 15 30 60 120 240 360 720 1440
(mins)
Ml 0.026 0.047 0.063 0.09 0.129 0.163 0.172 0.185 0.149 0.079
M2 0.036 0.059 0.079 0.118 0.169 0.212 0.238 0.241 0.207 0.114
M3 0.045 0.068 0.093 0.136 0.191 0.241 0.26 0.26 0.239 0.143
(25 mins) (40 mins)
M4 0.046 0.073 0.102 0.151 0.209 0.259 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.165
Return Period
(40mins) (55 mins) (25 mins)

M5 0.048 0.078 0.109 0.16 0.225 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.181
(25 mins) (45 mins) (60 mins) (55 mins)
M10 0.056 0.095 0.134 0.198 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25
(10 mins) (45 mins) (65 mins) (85 mins) (105 mins)
M20 0.066 0.117 0.165 0.242 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
(25 mins) (50 mins) (85 mins) (105 mins) (180 mins) (180 mins)
M50 0.083 0.152 0.214 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
(20 mins) (30 mins) (60 mins) (105 mins) 135 mins) (210 mins) (265 mins)
M100 0.1 0.185 0.259 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
(20 mins) (35 mins) (65 mins) (120 mins) (150 mins) (230 mins) (350 mins)
T a b l e 8 .1 2 R e s u lta n t s y s te m p e r f o r m a n c e o f im p r o v e d d e ta ilin g s w a le m o d e l
For each design storm the maximum depth of water that occurred in the swale is shown.
The events where the depth reached 0.26m is highlighted in red, and the length of time
(mins) for which it stayed at that depth is shown in brackets.
When compared to the calibrated model (Table 8.6) it would appear that the performance
of the swale system in the improved model is not as good as the ordinary calibrated model.
Table 8.12 shows that the swale will be full and overtop for storms as small as M3-240min.
However, the reason for this is that the swale system in the improved model has been
improved to retain more water in the swale and thus reduce the flow and quantity exiting
via the outlet. This means that the swale will fill up faster because the flow exiting has
been reduced. The improved model is therefore better for the low return period and short
duration storms, but will result in flow outside the swale for longer duration and higher
return period storms. Depending on the overall site layout this may be acceptable, but not
if it would result in flooding of private property or draining to the positive drainage system
which may result in increased CSO flows.
8.4 SUMMARY OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS & IMPROVED DETAILING

The aim of this chapter was to examine the porous and swale systems further using the
calibrated models, and also to determine improved design detailing for both systems.
When both calibrated models were compared using the same eight rainfall events, the
results showed the porous car park system performed significantly better than the swale
system with regards to reduction of runoff and peak flow, and flow attenuation. The
porous car park produced no exit water for four of the events, whilst the swale produced
runoff for all eight. For the four events that did result in porous car park exit water, the
swale produced on average 251% more runoff, the percentage runoff was 36.2 more and
the peak flow was 0.358 1/s (515%) more, with the start of flow and time of peak markedly
earlier. The porous model does slightly underestimate flow, and the swale model slightly
overestimates, but even allowing for this the porous car park system performs significantly
more effectively than the swale for the same rainfall events.
Using design storms (M l - M l 00, D5min —D24hour), the capacity of each system was also
tested. For the porous system the sub-base was full (‘system overflow’) by the M20, 50
and 100 long duration storms. The swale system was filled and overtopped for the M50
and 100 medium duration storms. This is due to the different processes in each system.
The porous system has significantly more storage available than the swale, and because the
performance of the swale is more directly linked to the capacity of the outlet pipe it is
sensitive to the higher intensity storms (in this case the 60 and 120 minute duration
storms).
The models were modified to improve the performance. The porous model was improved
by increasing the depth of the clean stone layer and increasing the storage in the sub-base
with a deeper sub-base and raised perforated pipe. The performance was significantly
improved compared to the calibrated model, with less volume and flow and the timings
later and shorter. When run with the design storms, there was also a significant
improvement compared to the calibrated model. No ‘system overflow’ occurred, unlike
the calibrated model, and it took a longer duration storm before there was any exit water
resulting in ‘partial fill’ of the manhole.
The swale model was improved by raising the outlet, based on the dimensions of the West
Grange swale as originally designed. The model performance improved, with reduced
volume and flow, and attenuated peak flow. There was even one event when the improved
model did not produce any runoff and the calibrated model had. The improved model,
although based on the dimensions of the original design of the West Grange swale, did not
perform as well as the real swale (according to monitoring results in Table 6.14), as this
would require calibration, however it gives an indication of the scale of improvement to be
had by raising the outlet. When the improved model was run with the design storms, the
swale filled and overtopped much more frequently than the calibrated model, with storms
as low as the M3-240min (lowest for calibrated was the M50-60min). This is because the
outlet in the improved model is designed to encourage storage in the swale. The improved
model system will therefore prevent runoff for more storms than the calibrated model,
attenuate flow longer and reduce volume and peak flow. However, the improved model
system will also result in overflow from the over the top of the swale more often than the
calibrated model, and this may or may not be acceptable depending on the overall site
layout as there may be flooding of private property or increased CSO flows if the overflow
enters the sewer system.
Overall the results discussed in this chapter show that the calibrated porous model system
performs more effectively than the calibrated swale model system. Also, the different
process occurring in the systems result in the capacity of the porous system being exceeded
(‘system overflow’) for high return period long duration storms, whilst the swale system
fills and overtops for high return period medium duration storms, i.e. with the higher mean
intensity. The porous system detailing can be modified in a way that would cost very little
extra, and be unlikely to be associated with spatial issues, and yet would significantly
enhance the hydraulic performance of the system. The swale system detailing can be
modified to encourage storage in the swale which will result in runoff occurring for fewer
events, and increased attenuation, reduced volumes and peak flows for events that do result
in runoff, but this change in detailing will also result in the swale filling and overtopping
more frequently which. Site layout and local circumstances would determine if this would
be acceptable.
CHAPTER 9 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS
A comparison between the SUD systems is presented in this chapter. The data and
information collected during the research have been analysed and interpreted on both a
site-by-site basis (individual investigation) and as a comparison between sites (collective
investigation). The individual investigations have been considered in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and
8. The collective investigations are considered in this chapter and part of Chapter 8. The
key elements involved are shown in Figure 1.1.
The performance of the swale sites are compared first. The design differences are
summarised, the overall summary statistics reviewed, and performance during specific
similar rainfall events examined. For the West Grange swale a further performance
comparison is made with the outlet arrangement as designed and modified. The
performance of all three SUDS sites are then compared, including results from the
calibrated and improved SUDS models built in Erwin as discussed in Chapter 8.
9.1 COMPARISON OF SWALES

The swales at Emmock Woods and West Grange are compared to show the merits of
various design parameters and performance considerations. The two swales are in sites
with similar soils, climate and land use, but with the following differences:
Emmock Woods West Grange
■ 300mm layer of gravel under the ■ turfed with no gravel layer
surface soil ■ slope = 5%
■ surface not properly finished, natural ■ length = 15.4m
vegetation established, base of the ■ regular maintenance
swale became very uneven over time
■ slope = 2%
■ length = 23.9m
■ no maintenance
Both swales have Clearway drainage inlets in the kerb (see Plate 4.4). The outlet at WG
was modified so the outlets were the same, thus enabling a comparison of the two key
differences - slope and the gravel layer. EW swale had a gravel layer and is longer than
WG with a shallower slope. EW and WG swales are approximately 30% and 20% of Vt
respectively, and are therefore under-designed for extended detention. The contributing
areas to EW and WG swales are 440m and 445m respectively.
Chapter 9 Comparison of Systems 183
The key indicators of hydraulic performance at each swale (discussed fully in Chapter 6)
are summarised in Table 9.1.
In itia l R u n o f f N o. o f % ru n o ff B e n e fit P e a k R u n o f f In te n s ity (m m /h ) L a g T im e
L o s s (m m ) e v e n ts F a c to r (m in )
ro a d s w a le r e ta in e d (% ) ro a d s w a le ro a d s w a le % re d u c tio n ro a d s w a le
E m m ock M in 1 2 .5 0 .4 47 1 .0 5 0 .2 7 0 1 .6 1 .6 3
M ax 8 6 .9 36 9 9 .3 9 .6 4 .7 8 95 21 2 9 .7
M ean 0 .4 5 50 4 4 .3 6 .5 3 8 2 .4 4 .0 6 1 .6 5 2 .2 9 .2 1 1 .6
W est M in 25 5 4 0 .4 2 0 .1 6 -9 0 -7 4 -7 0
G ra n g e M ax 93 95 8 0 .5 13 7 .2 62 77 87
M ean 0 .3 1 .2 27 5 3 .1 3 6 .7 4 4 .6 3 .9 3 .1 1 .2 3 .7 1 4 .3
T a b l e 9 .1 C o m p a r is o n o f h y d r o lo g ic a l d a ta f o r E W a n d W G s w a le s
These summary statistics show the swale at EW was more effective in flow attenuation and
reduction than the swale at WG with the modified outlet arrangement. The Benefit Factor
at EW was 82.4% compared to 44.6%. Mean peak flow reduction was 1.2% at WG with
almost half the events resulting in a higher peak runoff from the swale than the road (see
Section 6.3.1), whilst at EW the mean reduction was 52.2% and the swale always produced
a lower peak flow than the road.
A comparison of five events was also undertaken to draw out specific issues, and the
details are shown in Table 9.2. The five comparisons, listed as a-e, cover the following
five basic rainfall event characteristics:
a - high total rainfall, long duration
b - medium total rainfall, long duration
c - medium total rainfall, short duration
d - low total rainfall, long duration
e - low total rainfall, short duration
For each of the five rainfall events the event number for EW and WG is given in the third
column of Table 9.2, which refers to the event numbers shown in Appendix 6.1, and the
hydrographs for each can be examined in Appendix 5.2B (EW) and 5.2C (WG).
For comparison ‘a’ the events for EW and WG were from 27.2.99 and 11.12.99
respectively i.e. both winter events. The event at WG was 1.8mm less and Apis was 0.4
more. Comparison of the data shows that WG required less ‘mm rain before runoff, had a
slightly larger total runoff, slightly larger percent runoff and higher peak runoff intensity
than EW. At WG, peak runoff intensity at the swale was higher than the road runoff. WG
road runoff had a higher percent runoff than at EW, hence the Benefit Factor at WG was
higher at WG than EW despite the percent runoff being better at EW.

M a x . I n te n s ity (m m /h )
in te n s ity
(m m /h )
R u n o ff
R u n o ff
ru n o ff
ru n o ff
b e fo re
(m m )
T o ta l
Peak
R a in
Mm
T o ta l R a in (m m )
%
D u ra tio n (h rs)
B e n e fit F a c to r
A p p e n d i x 6 .1 )
E v e n t n o . (se e
re d u c tio n
S w a le
S w a le
S w a le
S w a le
R oad
R oad
R oad
R oad
A p i5
%
EW 1 1 6 .6 25 6 0 .8 1 0 .8 4 6 .8 3 .6 41 2 1 .5 47 2 2 0
a
W G 7 1 5 .2 24 6 1 .2 1 0 .4 1 .2 1 1 .2 4 .2 5 74 28 62 1 .6 8 2 .8 4 +69
EW 10 1 3 .8 2 6 .7 6 0 .6 7 0 .8 4 .4 7 .8 1 1 .0 1 57 7 87 3 .1 1 1 .3 4 57
b
W G 5 1 0 .4 25 6 1 .6 2 0 .2 1 .4 6 .8 4 .2 8 65 41 37 1 .6 8 3 .2 +90
EW 25 1 1 .2 4 18 1 .3 6 0 .4 / 5 .1 0 4 5 .5 0 / 9 .6 0 /
c
W G 23 1 0 .8 4 18 1 .3 7 0 .4 1 7 .8 3 .2 72 30 59 1 1 .3 4 .8 57
EW 18 4 .2 1 8 .2 6 0 .4 1 0 .2 / 3 .6 0 8 5 .7 0 / 3 .1 1 0 /
d
W G 10 3 .8 16 3 1 .1 0 .7 1 1 .9 7 1 .3 3 52 35 33 2 .1 1 .9 5 7
EW 14 6 .5 5 18 0 .9 5 N /A 2 .4 N /A 0 .1 5 N /A 2 .3 N /A N /A 3 .7 6 /
e
W G 12 7 4 .5 6 1 .0 7 0 .6 1 3 .9 6 6 .3 8 56 91 +61 2 .5 2 4 .6 7 +85
T a b l e 9 .2 C o m p a r is o n o f E W a n d W G s w a le s u s in g in d iv id u a l e v e n ts
Comparison ‘b’ uses events of medium total and long duration. WG swale performed less
well than EW. The percent road runoff at both sites was similar. The Benefit factor for
EW was 87% compared to 37% at WG.
For comparisons ‘c’ and cd’ no excess runoff was produced from the swale at EW i.e. all
runoff that entered the swale was retained. The swale at WG did not perform so well and
produced 30% and 35% runoff respectively.
For comparison ‘e’ there was no road runoff data was available at EW due to equipment
failure. The swale at EW performed considerably better than WG with a percent runoff of
2.3% compared to 91% at WG.
It is clear from examination of these five pairs of events and the summary statistics that the
swale at EW performed better than the swale at WG. This poorer performance at WG
indicates the beneficial effect of the shallower slope and the gravel layer at EW.
9.1.1 West Grange Swale with Original Outlet Design

To permit the comparison between the swales at EW and WG the outlet arrangement at

WG had been modified to be the same as at EW (see Section 4.3.1). Subsequent to the
main period of monitoring at WG the drainage arrangement was returned to its original
design (raised outlet) and additional monitoring carried out. A comparison of the results
for the modified and designed drainage arrangements shows the hydrological benefit of the
raised outlet. This is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.1. A summary of the results (mean
values) is shown in Table 9.3, and includes the EW data.
Also shown in Table 9.3 are the mean values for the rainfall events, showing that during
the restored, or ‘design’ monitoring period the rainfall consisted of, on average, larger
rainfall events of longer duration and with a higher Api5 than during the ‘modified’
monitoring period, indicating a period that would be expected to result in increased runoff.
in te n s ity
M a x . In te n s ity (m m /h )
(m m /h )
R u n o ff
R u n o ff
ru n o ff
ru n o ff
b e fo re
(m m )
T o ta l
Peak
R a in
Mm
T o ta l R a in (m m )
%
D u ra tio n (h rs)
B e n e fit F a c to r
re d u c tio n
S w a le
S w a le
S w a le
S w a le
R oad
R oad
R oad
R oad
A p i5
%
D e sig n
M e a n 1 0 .2 1 5 .9 8 .9 2 .1 9 0 .6 7 3 .1 8 2 .5 0 .5 9 3 3 .8 6 .3 8 0 .1 2 .6 1 .1 6 65
(W G )
M o d ifie d
M ean 6 .7 1 1 .6 9 .7 1 .3 1 0 .4 1 .0 9 4 .3 6 2 .9 7 5 3 .1 3 6 .7 4 4 .6 3 .9 3 .1 1 .2
(W G )
E m m ock
M e a n 1 0 . 6 1 3 .1 1 1 .7 1 .5 7 0 .7 5 3 .9 3 .5 5 1 4 4 .3 6 .5 3 8 2 .4 4 .0 6 1 .6 5 2 .2
W oods
T a b l e 9 .3 H y d r o lo g ic a l d a ta a t W G s w a le w ith d r a in a g e a r r a n g e m e n t r e tu r n e d to o r ig in a l d e s ig n c o m p a r e d
to th e m o d ifie d a rr a n g e m e n t a n d E W
The summary results in Table 9.3 show the improved performance of the swale with the
raised outlet. Mean values for EW are included in Table 9.3 to show that the performance
of the swale at WG with the raised outlet was very similar to the performance of the swale
atEW.
9.1.2 Comparison of Swale Water Quality

The water quality results from EW and WG were reasonably similar. The comparison is
tentative because the pollutant levels at both sites were very low and not many samples
were collected at EW (see section 5.3.2). The exception to low pollutant levels was the
amount of suspended solids at EW due to the construction being carried out upstream of
the monitored swale. To summarise:

■ insulating effect at both
■ turbidity and TSS reduced at both
■ pH remains unchanged at both
■ AmmN decreased at WG and ammonium increased at EW
In summary, the comparisons indicate that implementation of a gravel layer below the soil,
a shallower slope and a raised outlet enhance performance. There is a slight improvement
in water quality at both sites although pollutant levels entering the swales were low.
9.2 COMPARISON OF POROUS PAVING AND SWALES

A comparison of the porous paving and swales was undertaken since both are source
control systems with similarities and differences. Both systems result in infiltration to the
surrounding soil. The porous paving and the swale at EW have an element of storage due
to the sub-base and gravel layer respectively, while WG does not. The excess runoff
monitored from the porous paving comes from near the base of the system whilst the
excess runoff from both swales comes from the surface.
9.2.1 Performance Data

The key hydraulic performance indicators for the porous paving, EW swale and WG swale
with drainage arrangement as originally designed (discussed fully in Chapter 6) are
summarised in Table 9.4.
T/R= tarmac/ mm rain before No. of %outflow/ runoff Benefit Peak Runoff Intensity Lag Time
road runoff events Factor (mm/h) (min)
P/S = porous/ T/R P/S retained T/R P/S T/R P/S %reduction T/R P/S
swale (%)
NATS Min 0 2.6 21.4 2.3 51.2 0.93 0.05 23.7 -158 29
porous Max 2.6 17.2 72.8 66 91.2 17 9.8 98.4 123 600
paving Mean 0.76 7.29 60 48.2 22.17 75 5.2 1.93 76.8 9.59 180
EW MaxMin 0.2 0.7 12.5 0.4 47 1.05 0.27 0 1.6 1.63
swale Mean 2.8 12.4 86.9 36 99.3 9.6 4.78 95 21 29.7
0.75 3.9 50 44.3 6.53 82.4 4.06 1.6 52.2 9.2 11.6
WG Min 0 1.4 5.2 0.047 31.2 0.45 0.07 20.57
‘design’ Max 3 5.8 98.5 17.6 99.96 9.09 3.25 95.91
swale Mean 0.67 3.18 33.8 6.3 80.1 2.6 1.16 65
T a b l e 9 .4 C o m p a r is o n o f h y d r o lo g ic a l d a ta f o r p o r o u s p a v in g a n d s w a le s
The results in Table 9.4 show that, in general, all three sites are equally effective. At
NATS the ‘mm rain before runoff is higher than the swales and the lag time is greater, but
the % runoff at the swales is less than at NATS although the Benefit Factor is similar. This
comparison of mean values indicates that the porous paving will prevent runoff from the

smaller events and attenuate flow longer than the swale due to the design with the sub-base
and perforated pipe near the base, but that once the flow of exit water does commence the
percent outflow/ runoff and peak runoff intensity was slightly better at the swale. The
biggest difference between the two is the lag time, which is due to the outflow occurring at
the base of the porous paving and the surface at the swale.
Six sets of individual events were also examined for NATS and EW, with the details
shown in Table 9.5. For simplicity, WG with the original outlet design is not included
because it has been established the performance is similar to EW. The six comparisons,
listed as a-f, cover the following basic rainfall events:
a - very high total rainfall, long duration
b - high total rainfall, long duration
c - medium total rainfall, long duration
d - medium total rainfall, short duration
e - medium/low total rainfall, medium duration
f - low total rainfall, short duration
T/R=tarmac/ road
P/S=porous/ swale
Outflow/
Outflow/
intensity
(mm/hi
Runoff
runoff
runoff
UC1UIc
3
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Total Rain (mm)
3
% <
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Benefit Factor
Appendix 6.1)
Event no. (see
reduction
(mm/h)
oo
Api5
T/R
T/R
T/R
T/R
a;
P/S
P/S
___
%
NATS 5 33.4 27.2 12 1.13 0.4 17.2 24.3 7.5 72.8 22.5 69.1 11 2.76 75
a
EW 7 34.2 15 6 3.67 N/A 1.2 N/A 12.3 N/A 36 / N/A 4.78 /
NATS 8 16 31.2 12 1.12 0.6 7.6 10.1 3.8 63 23.75 62.4 17 1.2 93
b
EW 1 16.6 25 6 0.81 0.8 4 6.8 3.6 41.2 21.5 47 2 2 0
NATS 13 12.8 31.2 18 2.19 1.4 4.8 6.6 1.96 51.6 15.3 70.3
4.85 0.51 89.5
c
EW 10 13.8 26.7 6 0.67 0.8 4.4 7.81 1.01 57 7 3.11 1.34
87 57
NATS 32 10.4 4 24 3.4 N/A 8.7 N/A 2.69 N/A 25.9 N/A 3.95
/ /
d
EW 25 11.2 4 18 1.36 0.4 / 5.1 0 45.5 0 / 9.6 0 /
NATS 3 8.8 8 6 0.72 0.4 8.6 4.64 0.41 52.7 4.7 91.2 4 0.47 88.2
e
EW 24 8.2 7.75 12 0.96 0.4 / 7.12 0 86.9 0 / 7.63 0 /
NATS 14 4.4 10 9 1.26 0.8 3.6 1.13 0.28 25.3 6.4 75.2 1.3 0.11 91.5
f
EW 2 4.6 8 7.2 4.73 0.4 4 1.09 0.34 24 7.5 69 1.05 0.68 35
T a b l e 9 .5 C o m p a ris o n o f p o r o u s p a v in g a n d E W s w a le u s in g in d iv id u a l e v e n ts
For comparison ‘a’ the duration of the event at EW was less than at NATS and the Apis
was higher. With approximately the same total rainfall over a shorter duration and on
wetter soils it would be expected that EW swale would not perform as well as NATS, and
this was the case.
For comparison ‘b’ the performance of the swale and porous paving were similar.
However, the porous paving reduced peak runoff intensity by 93% whilst at EW the swale
peak runoff intensity was the same as the road.
The events for comparison ‘c’ were from 26.10.98 at NATS and 2.6.99 at EW. The event
at EW occurred during the summer and although there was slightly more rain than at
NATS and over a slightly shorter duration, the Apis was much less and this was reflected in
the slightly better performance. However, peak runoff intensity at NATS was less than at
EW.
For comparisons ‘d’ and ‘e’ the rainfall events occurred during the summer. There was no
excess runoff produced at EW whilst at NATS the porous paving produced as small
percentage outflow.
For comparison T the event at EW has a much higher Apis than at NATS, yet the results
are very similar. As with other events, the peak runoff intensity was less from the porous
paving than the swale.
The comparison of these six pairs of events shows that the porous paving sometimes
performs more effectively than the swale and sometimes vice versa. The porous paving at
NATS appeared to be slightly more effective during some large rainfall events, and there
was less difference during the smaller events. Essentially they are equally effective.
9.2.2 Comparison Using Erwin Models

Calibrated Erwin models for NATS porous paving and West Grange swale, with modified
drainage arrangement, are discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. The porous model usually
slightly underestimated volume whilst the swale model usually slightly overestimated. The
calibrated models show that NATS porous paving performs more effectively than WG
swale with the modified drainage arrangement.
The improved swale model (WG) discussed in section 8.3.2 was based on WG swale with
the outlet arrangement returned to its original design. The results showed it wasn’t quite as
effective as the real swale with the outlet arrangement as originally designed. As the real
swale with designed outlet performs similar to NATS porous paving then it would be
expected that the improved swale model would not be quite as effective as the calibrated
porous model. Table 9.6 shows some basic results for the calibrated porous model and the
improved swale model, using the events 1 to 8 that were used in section 8.1 to compare the
two calibrated models. The eight rainfall events used are shown in Table 8.1. As
expected, results showed the improved swale system was not quite as effective as the
calibrated porous system.
C P = c a lib ra te d p o ro u s
m odel PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF CALIBRATED
IS = im p ro v e d s w a le
m odel POROUS & IMPROVED SWALE MODELS
NOTE: plus sign (+)
denotes the improved
swale datawas more than 1 E vent no.
the porous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T o ta l ra in fa ll (m m ) 1 6 .6 1 .6 3 4 .2 9 .6 1 2 .2 6 .5 3 .2 8 .2
C P 4 . 3 6 0 1 4 . 9 0 . 6 8 2 . 2 7 0 0 0
T o ta l o u tflo w /
IS 7 .7 3 0.011 2 1 . 4 2 .7 4 5 .6 4 0 .5 5 0 .1 0 3 1 .0 6
ru n o ff (m m )
| +77% / +43% +302% +148% / / /
% o u tflo w /
C P 2 6 .3 0 4 3 .6 7 .1 1 8 .6 0 0 0
IS 4 6 .6 0 .7 6 2 .6 2 8 .5 4 6 .2 8 .5 3 .2 1 2 .9
ru n o ff
+ 2 0 .3 / +19 + 2 1 .4 + 2 7 .6 / / /
C P 0 .3 3 9 / 0 .0 5 9 0 .0 5 9 0 .2 2 4 / / /
p e a k f l o w 1/s (0.457m3) (0.465m3) (0.443m3) (0.454m3)
(andporousvol. in I S I 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 2 8 0 .2 0 3 0 .3 1 4 0 .0 3 2 0 .0 0 6 0 .1 0 6
m3) -0 .0 7 9 / + 0 .2 2 1 +144 + 0 .0 9 / / /
(-23%) (+374%) (+244%) (+40%)
T a b l e 9 .6 C o m p a ris o n o f s im u la te d d a ta f o r th e c a lib ra te d p o r o u s a n d im p ro v e d s w a le m o d e ls
The performance of the calibrated porous model was enhanced by increasing the depth of
the clean stone layer and increasing the area of storage in the sub-base. This ‘improved
porous model’ (see section 8.3.1) would perform significantly more effectively than the
improved swale model.
In summary the hydraulic performance of porous paving and swales can be similar,
depending on design. The performance of EW swale, with a shallow slope and gravel
layer beneath the surface, is in general similar to NATS porous paving, as is the WG swale
with the drainage arrangement returned to its original design of a raised outlet. It is
concluded that a swale with a raised outlet, shallow slope and gravel layer could perform
as well or better than porous paving. The performance of porous paving can be improved
by minor adjustments including increasing the depth of clean stone layer beneath the
bricks, increasing the depth of sub-base and raising the perforated pipe.

9.2.3 Comparison of Water Quality
Water quality results from NATS showed more change in the SUDS runoff than at the
swale sites. The summary results are shown in Table 9.7 for NATS, EW and WG. The
results are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The values for EMC red/ inc shown in
bold in Table 9.7 are those for which the SUD system resulted in a water quality
improvement.
NATS E m m ock W oods W e st G ra n g e
A v e ra g e § A v e ra g e § A v e ra g e §
E M C R e d ./I n c .
E M C R e d ./ In c .
E M C R e d ./I n c .
( - /+ ) *
( - /+ ) *
( - /+ ) *
T arm ac
P o ro u s
S w a le
S w a le
R oad
R oad
P a ra m e te r U n it
pH 6 .7 8 + 1 .3 5 8 .3 8 .3 0 7 .7 7 .5 2 -0 .1 2
C ond p S /c m 60 320 +700% 69 83 +6% 109 69 -9 .6 % n
T u rb id ity NTU 43 220 -2 4 % 88 63 -2 5 %
TSS m g /1 30 19 -3 2 % 1057 299 -7 2 % 3 333 92 -5 4 %
BOD m g /1 4 .8 1 .7 4 -4 9 % 2 .4 2 .4 03 5 .4 4 .5 +14%
A m m o n iu m ppm 0 .6 8 1 .5 7 +602%
Am m N m g /1 0 .2 0 .3 2 -3 3 % 1 .1 1 1 .2 1 +9% 3 0 .4 2 0 .2 1 -3 4 %
TO N m g /1 0 .6 8 0 .8 6 +165% 0 .5 0 .2 7 -4 5 %
o -p h o s m g /1 0 .0 3 0 .2 +157% 0 .2 8 0 - 1 0 0 % 3 0 .1 1 0 .1 1 +8%
C h lo rid e m g /1 8 .3 2 3 .9 +397% 1 4 .6 7 .7 -4 6 %
C d r g g /1 0 .3 1 .9 1 -4 % 0 .1 7 0 .8 9 +423%
P b r Pgd 2 .7 6 9 .8 -6 6 % 8 .1 5 4 .6 4 -4 3 %
C u Y P g /1 5 .0 5 1 0 .9 - 2 5 .5 % 28 5 1 .8 +85%
C rY P g /1 0 .6 8 5 .7 3 +580% 5 .4 2 .8 3 -4 8 %
N iY P g /1 4 .6 4 3 .7 8 -6 3 % 6 .3 3 .1 -5 0 %
Z n Y p g /1 2 9 .4 42 -4 2 % 8 2 .1 9 3 .7 +14%
H y d ro c arb o n m g /1 1 .0 7 0 .4 7 -6 9 % 1 .3 6 0 .8 7 -3 6 %
§ calculated from EMC for each event (i.e. includes all events with samples)
* calculated from reduction/ increase for individual events (i.e. includes only the events for which samples were
collected from both the traditional and SUD systems)
Cf this is sonde data, the EPIC data is different & is discussed in section 6.3.2
Y WG data & NATS tarmac data for this parameter only from one event
^ from one event
T a b l e 9 .7 S u m m a ry o f w a te r q u a lity r e s u lts f o r N A T S , E W a n d W G
For some parameters in Table 9.7, for example Cu at NATS, the ‘EMC red/ inc’ shows a
reduction whilst the ‘average’ values show an increase. This is because the ‘average’
values are calculated from all the events for which the traditional or SUD systems had
samples (e.g. for Cu at NATS there was one sample for the tarmac and three for the porous
paving, as shown in Table 5.2), whilst the ‘EMC red/ inc’ includes only the events for
which samples were collected from both the traditional and SUD systems (for Cu at NATS
this was one sample).

At all three sites there was an insulating effect on the runoff from the SUDS. Temperature
is not shown in Table 9.7, but is discussed in sections 6.1.2, 6.2.2 and 6.3.2. Turbidity,
TSS and hydrocarbons were reduced at all three sites. pH at NATS porous was always
slightly alkaline whilst the tarmac was always slightly acidic, and at both swale sites there
was very little change in the pH between road and swale runoff. BOD was reduced at
NATS but barely changed at the swales. Conductivity, chloride, ammonium, TON and
ortho-phosphate all increased at NATS porous, but generally decreased at the swales.
Metals at NATS porous were reduced except Chromium, and at WG swale three were
reduced and three increased.
The main differences of water quality between the porous paving and the swales were the
pH, conductivity, chloride and nutrients. The comparison confirms that the processes
affecting the monitored runoff for both types of system are different. At NATS porous the
monitored runoff was from near the base of the system and thus has filtered through the
sub-base, whilst at the swale sites the monitored runoff was from the surface. The
processes occurring within the porous system are more complex than those occurring on
the surface of the swales, probably including filtering, bio-remediation with a bacterial
biofilm and perhaps leaching from soil and plant decomposition. The porous car park exit
water thus undertakes relatively complex processes, beyond simple filtration and
settlement. Runoff from the surface of the swales only receives filtration and settlement,
and this is reflected in the results as the main changes include reduction of solids,
hydrocarbons and some metals, which may be bonded to the solids, as there is less time for
major changes in nutrients.
9.3 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS

In this chapter a comparison was made between the two swales and also between all three
SUDS sites. These comparisons highlight the relative performances of each system, the
processes occurring and also indicates design detail improvements.
The comparison of summaiy statistics and of individual events for both swales showed that
EW swale performed more effectively than WG swale with the modified drainage
arrangement. This shows the benefit of a shallower slope and the presence of a gravel
layer beneath the turf. The results at WG with the modified drainage arrangement were
compared to the results with the drainage returned to its original design, and this showed
an improved performance which was similar to EW swale, thus proving the benefit o f a
raised outlet. Water quality at both sites was reasonably similar with a slight improvement
at both sites although pollutant levels entering the swales were low.
The comparison of summary data for the porous paving and swales, including WG with the
design outlet, showed the performance of the porous paving was as beneficial as the
swales. Lag time and ‘mm rain before runoff were better at the porous paving, whilst
percentage runoff was better at the swales. The comparison of individual events between
NATS and EW shows that they can perform equally well. Improvements to performance
may be obtained by minor adjustments to the design detail for porous paving and swales.
The water quality results from all three sites indicate that a general improvement in water
quality occurred at all three sites although different, more complex processes are occurring
at NATS porous paving as the monitored runoff is from near the base of the system whilst
at the swales the monitored runoff is from the surface.
It is concluded that a swale with a raised outlet, shallow slope and gravel layer would
perform as well or better than porous paving. The hydraulic performance of porous paving
can be improved by minor adjustments including increasing the depth of clean stone layer
beneath the blocks, increasing the depth of sub-base and raising the perforated pipe.

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
For the first time, three in-situ SUDS components have been monitored and modelled in
the UK to obtain performance information and give comparisons. Well founded design
improvements have been recommended as these result from detailed observations and
sensitivity analysis. The aims and objectives detailed in Chapter 1, and shown in Figure
1.1, have been successfully carried out, with the integration of hydrological and water
quality studies together with modelling.
This research has contributed to knowledge via the principal results in the six areas
discussed in Section 1.4. This includes development of the term Benefit Factor, which is
an indicator of the performance advantage of SUDS.
10.1 CONCLUSIONS ON SUDS PERFORMANCE
Overall
This research demonstrates the benefits of porous paving systems and swales. The SUDS
studied for this project were under-designed according to current design guidance (CIRIA,
2000 & CIRIA 2002), and yet they performed very favourably both hydraulically and for
water quality. Current guidance states that the sub-base for porous paving should be no
less than 450mm with a time to half empty of between 24 and 48 hours. NATS porous
paving had a sub-base of 350mm and a time to half empty of approximately 3.5 hours.
Whilst this shorter time will result in less attenuation, it has the benefit of being able to
handle another storm event soon after. The treatment volume (Vt) for the porous paving
equated to an effective depth of only 59mm of the 350mm sub-base.
Current guidance for swales states that for extended detention a swale should be capable of
containing Vt within the swale. The swales at Emmock Woods (EW) and West Grange
(WG) were 30% and 20% of Vt respectively.
Hydraulics
Results showed that the SUDS performed well for all the key hydraulic performance
indicators including initial runoff loss, flow attenuation, runoff reduction, peak runoff
intensity reduction and lag time, and also for water quality improvement. The term
Chapter 10 Conclusions & Recommendations 194
Benefit Factor (see Section 3.7 for definition) has been introduced in this thesis to indicate
the benefit, on a volumetric basis, gained by installation of the SUD system in place of the
traditional drainage system. The higher the percentage, the bigger the benefit. As it is
calculated using only events producing SUDS runoff, it must also be considered in
conjunction with the percentage of events for which the SUD system retains all the rainfall
(see ‘Number of Events Retained’ in Chapter 6). For NATS porous, EW swale and WG
swale (as originally designed) the Benefit Factors were 75%, 82.4% and 80.1%
respectively.
The results of the monitoring and modelling show that the hydraulic performance of
porous paving and swales can be similar depending on design and detailing. The overall
performances of NATS porous, EW swale and WG swale were very similar, with some
variations between parameters. Porous paving prevented runoff from smaller events and
attenuated flow longer than swales, due to storage in the sub-base, but once outflow
commenced the percentage outflow/ runoff and peak runoff intensity were lower at the
swales. The biggest difference between the two types of system was the lag time, which
was significantly greater for the porous system. This is due to the outflow occurring at the
base of the porous paving and the surface at the swale. The comparisons and model
modifications suggest some design improvements which are summarised in Section 10.2.
Testing the porous and swale Erwin models with design storms to determine the size of
event each system can deal with before hydraulic capacity is exceeded, reflected the
different processes occurring in each. Exceedence of the porous system was dependent on
the storage available within the system. For the swale, the outlet design was the major
factor. The modelling showed that a raised outlet, which encouraged more attenuation in
the swale, resulted in the swale filling and overtopping more often. This may or may not
be acceptable depending on specific site conditions, as there may be flooding of private
property or increased CSO flows if the overflow enters the sewer system.
Water Quality
The analysis of water quality at each site was important to assess effluent quality and also
to determine the processes occurring within the system. Water quality at each site was
compared to typical concentrations expected to be found in urban runoff and to a variety of
water quality standards. In general all three sites had a fairly low level of pollution
entering the SUDS and thus little scope for a significant improvement in water quality.
Although the concentrations of pollutants were low and not always significantly
reduced, the fact that the total runoff volume was markedly reduced means that the total
load of pollutants reaching the wider environment was reduced. At all three sites there was
a temperature insulating effect on the runoff from the SUDS. Turbidity, TSS and
hydrocarbons were reduced at all three sites. pH at NATS porous was always slightly
alkaline whilst the tarmac was always slightly acidic, and at both swale sites there was very
little difference in pH between road and swale runoff. BOD was reduced at NATS but
barely changed at the swales. Conductivity, chloride, ammonium, TON and ortho
phosphate all increased at NATS porous, but generally decreased at the swales. Metals at
NATS porous were reduced except Chromium, and at WG swale Pb, Cr and Ni were
reduced, and Cd, Cu and Zn increased.
Although the porous paving and swales studied were all source control systems, different
elements in each of the systems affected hydraulic performance and water quality. For the
porous paving the excess runoff was from the base of the system after filtering through the
sub-base, whilst from the swales it was from the surface after sedimentation. The water
quality results at NATS showed more change in the SUDS runoff than at the swale sites,
and the main differences of water quality between the porous paving and swales were the
pH, conductivity, chloride and nutrients. This is due to the different processes occurring
within each system. Processes were more complex at the porous site than those occurring
on the surface of the swales, and it may be inferred from other studies that filtering, bio
remediation with a bacterial bio-film and perhaps leaching from soil and plant
decomposition may occur. Runoff from the surface of the swales received only filtration
and settlement, and this is reflected in the results as the main changes include reduction of
solids, hydrocarbons and some metals, which may be bonded to the solids, as there is less
time for major changes in nutrients.
10.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Several design recommendations are made to be used in conjunction with the existing
CIRIA SUDS design manuals (CIRIA, 2000 & CIRIA, 2002). In addition, to maximise the
potential effectiveness of SUDS being installed, it is essential that the designers and
contractors must have at least a minimal understanding of their function. This would
prevent accidental errors, particularly in the construction of swales.

Porous Paving
■ Increase depth of stone layer beneath the block surfacing (e.g. by 10mm, from
50mm to 60mm)
■ Increase storage in sub-base with: deeper sub-base (e.g. increase by 50mm); and raise
perforated pipe from base by e.g. 150mm
These modifications would have only minor cost implications, are unlikely to be associated
with issues of space, and yet would significantly enhance hydraulic performance. In this
case the improvements resulted in the capacity of the system not being exceeded with any
of the design storms tested (M l - M l00, D5min - D24hour), whereas the capacity had
been exceeded before.
After evaluating the design improvements in the Erwin models, the CIRIA design manual
for pervious surfaces (CIRIA, 2002) has been published and recommends a minimum sub
base depth of 450mm. A sub-base depth of just 400mm was tested in the Erwin model and
this significantly improved performance compared to the NATS sub-base depth of 350mm,
hence the minimum design guidance of 450mm would be even more effective.
Swale
■ Keep a shallow gradient. A minimum of 2% is recommended in the CIRIA SUDS
manual (CIRIA, 2000). The swale at EW is 2% but at WG is 5%. WG swale (with
outlet modified to be the same as EW) had a significantly poorer performance for all
the hydraulic parameters, with the Benefit Factor at WG half that at EW.
■ Use a gravel layer below the top soil. This increases the storage capacity, particularly
important for swales in soils of low permeability. As discussed in the previous bullet
point, monitoring of WG swale with the modified drainage arrangement showed the
improved performance at EW due to the gravel layer and shallower slope.
■ Install a raised outlet. During the monitoring period the WG swale was modified to
replicate the EW set up and the performance was compromised. However, returning
the drainage arrangement at WG swale to its original design of a raised outlet showed
improved performance. All the hydraulic parameters at WG were then similar to EW,
which had the benefit of the gravel layer and shallower slope.

■ A rough base in swale with natural vegetation probably improves the performance
of the swale, although some maintenance would be necessary to prevent malfunction.
This was discussed at length in Section 6.2.3.
■ Clearway drainage inlets should be discouraged. They block easily thus impeding
or preventing flow of runoff into the swale. Some examples at West Grange showed
they had been installed at a slight incline, not horizontal or slightly downhill.
■ Dip kerbs preferable, although caution must be observed during construction to
ensure flow into the swale is not impeded.
■ Ensure the full length of swale is utilised, i.e. that entry of runoff does not begin
below the head of the swale
10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

During the progress of this research several avenues for study have been apparent, but
were outwith the scope and timescale of this work. All would build on the work presented
here, and further assist with the design, installation and understanding of effective SUDS
in the UK.
Effects of Maintenance on Porous Paving

The issue of maintenance for porous paving systems requires attention. The NATS site
studied for this research had not been vacuumed or jetted (the recommended methods)
since construction, and the performance appeared to be excellent. One option for future
research would be a performance comparison of cleaned and uncleaned sections of porous
car park. Analysis and interpretation of the water quality results for the NATS site
indicated that a range of processes may be occurring within the system, and these may be
less effective after vacuuming or jetting.
Expand Number of Sites Monitored

The monitoring carried out for this research should be repeated at additional source control
sites. It would be highly desirable to accumulate a portfolio of sites with performance data
and develop a better understanding of performance, effectiveness and design. A wide
range of parameters vary from site to site, and this proposal would lead to regional
knowledge and understanding of the performance and operational issues connected with
source control systems.
Replicate the EW Study

The swale studied at Emmock Woods was replaced some time after the data collection
ceased. The replacement swale has dip kerbs instead of Clearway drainage inlets, and the
swale itself is to be completed to a standard for adoption. Further data collection at this
site would be valuable as the catchment of the swale has not changed. As the construction
elsewhere in the area ceases, the overall quantity of sediment on the roads etc. will
decrease, and there may potentially be increased quantities of other pollutants including
those from cars and dog fouling, as the number of inhabitants increase.
More Contaminated Locations

All three sites studied for this research had fairly low pollutant levels, thus leaving little
scope for major water quality improvement by the SUD systems. It would be highly
beneficial to carry out monitoring, similar to that in this research, for SUDS in sites with
greater polluting loads. Whilst understanding of the hydraulic performance of porous
paving and swales has been furthered by this research, an additional study that
concentrated on water quality would add to this significantly.
Continue to Link Work With Broader Studies

It is important that this work continues to be linked with broader studies. Since this
research commenced, several other SUDS sites have been monitored and other SUDS
studies undertaken. Each of these studies is relevant and important in themselves, yet there
is even more information to be gained from bringing them all together. With strong
emphasis on environmental issues at present, available funding should be brought to this
cause e.g. from the EU’s Research Framework Programme (FP6).
Long Term Performance

An important part of understanding the performance of SUDS is how they change over
long periods. The SUDS studied for this research were relatively new. It would be highly
informative to return to these sites in several years and repeat some of the monitoring to

identify any changes in performance, required changes in maintenance or renewal
practices, and assess the lifespan of systems with regard to contaminant build up and loss
of effective performance.
10.4 PRINCIPAL OUTCOMES

This research is the first to provide performance results for in situ porous paving and
swales in the UK with a direct comparison of SUDS and traditional systems at three sites.
The results show that the systems at all three sites performed very favourably, and that the
performance of porous paving and swales can be similar depending on design and
detailing. The design recommendations concluded from this research should be considered
in conjunction with current design guidance. Results from this research have contributed
to the advancement of knowledge in several key areas including development of the term
‘Benefit Factor’, and the timeous provision and presentation of data that has also been
included in the current design guidance manuals. The research presented here directly
assists the improved design, installation and understanding of effective SUDS in the UK.
Key conclusions are:
■ Porous paving and swales are effective for flow attenuation/ reduction and water
quality improvement.
■ Performance of porous paving and swales can be similar depending on design and
detailing.
■ The operation of porous paving and swales is principally hydrological, resulting in the
localisation of contamination in line with Local Agenda 21.
■ Vt is an overestimate for this type of site.

APPENDIX 1.1
REFERENCES
Akan, A.O., (1993). Urban Stormwater Hydrology, a Guide to Engineering Calculations.
Technomic Publishing Company.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (1992). D esign a n d C on stru ction o f U rban
Urban Water Resources Research Council of the ASCE
S torm w ater M anagem ent System s.
and the Water Environment Federation (WEF). ASCE Manuals and Reports of
Engineering Practice No.77. WEF Manual of Practice FD-20. ASCE/ WEF
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (1999). N a tio n a l S to rm w a ter B est
US Environmental Protection Agency. June.
M anagem ent P ractice D atabase.
Anderson, (1982). E valuation o f S w ale D esign. Masters thesis. Dept, of Environmental
Engineering, University of Central Florida. Orlando.
Argue, J.R., (2001). Recent Developments In Australian ‘Source Control’ Technology and
Practice. In: Proc. F irst N a tio n a l C onference on Sustainable D rainage. Pratt, C.J., Davies,
J.W. & Perry, J.L. (eds). 18-19 June. Coventry University, pp. 120-146
Ashley, R.M., Smith, H., Jowitt, P.W., Butler, D., Blackwood, D.J., Davies, J.W., Gilmour,
D. & Foxon, T., (2001). A Multi-criteria Analysis/ Risk Management Tool to Assess the
Relative Sustainability of Water/ Wastewater Systems: SWARD (Sustainable Water
Industry Asset Resource Decisions). In: P roc. F irst N ation al C onference on Su stain able
D rainage. Pratt, C.J., Davies, J.W. & Perry, J.L. (eds). 18-19 June. Coventry University.
pp.221-231
Apostolaki, S., Jefferies, C. & Souter, N., (2001). Assessing the Public Perception of
SUDS at Two Localtions in Eastern Scotland. In: P roc. F irst N a tio n a l C onference on
Sustainable D rainage. Pratt, C.J., Davies, J.W. & Perry, J.L. (eds). 18-19 June. Coventry
University, pp. 28-37
Backstrom, M., (1999). P orou s P avem en t in a C o ld C lim ate. Licentiate thesis,
Department of Environmental Engineering, Division of Sanitary Engineering, Lulea
University of Technology. April
Backstrom, M., (2001). Particle Trapping in Grassed Swales. In: P roc. N O V A T E C H 4 th
Int. Conf. On Innovative T echnologies in U rban Storm D rainage. Lyon, France. 25-27
June, pp.391-397
Balades, J-D., Legret, M. & Madiec, H., (1995). Permeable Pavements: Pollution
Management Tools. W ater Science & Technology. Vol 32 (1), pp. 49-56
Balkema, A., (1998). Sustainability Criteria for the Comparison of Wastewater Treatment
Technologies. In: Proc. 11th E uropean Junior S cientist W orkshop on The M yth o f C ycles
versus Sustainable W ater a n d M aterial Flux M anagem ent. Bolduan, S., Grottker, M. &
Mannebeck, B. (eds). Wildpark Eekholt, Germany, 12-15 February, pp.99-107
Appendix 1.1 1.1-1

References
Barr, D. I. H., (1998). T ables f o r the hydrau lic D esign o f P ipes, S ew ers a n d Channels.
H.R. Wallingford. 7th edition. Vol. 2. London: Thomas Telford
Bell, S. & Morse, S., (1999). Sustain ability In dicators — M easu rin g the Im m easurable.
Earthscan.
Bond, P.C., Pratt, C.J. & Newman, A.P., (1999). A Review Of Stormwater Quantity and
Quality Performance of Permeable Pavements in the UK. In: P roc. 8 th In t Conf. On urban
Storm D rainage. Joliffe, I.B. & Ball, J.E., (eds). August 1999, Sydney, pp.248-255
Braune, M.J. & Wood, A., (1998). Best Management Practices Applied To Urban Runoff
Quantity and Quality Control. In: P roc. T hird Int. Conf. on D iffuse P ollution.
International Association on Water Quality (LAWQ) hosted by SEPA. 31st Aug - 4th Sep.
Brown, W. & Schueler, T., (1997). N ation al P ollu tan t R em oval P erform an ce D a ta b a se
f o r S torm w ater B M P s - a N ation al E xam ination o f P ollu tan t R em oval C apability. Center
for Watershed Protection. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Contsortium Inc. Aug.
Bryce, L., (2001). A S tu dy o f A R oadside S w ale in D undee. Honours Project, University
of Abertay Dundee.
Buchan, N., (1994). Source Control Techniques for the Disposal of Stormwater. In: P roc.
Vol 10. 9th Dec.
S tan din g Conf. on S torm w ater Source C on trol Q uantity a n d Q uality.
School of the Built Environment, Coventry University.
Butler, D. & Davies, J.W., (2000). U rban D rainage. E & FN SPON.CIRIA
Bywater, (1997). E nvironm ental M atters. Employee Handbook for ISO 14001
Campbell, N.S., (1997). B asic G uidance on the E valu ation o f Surface W ater B e st
M anagem ent P ra ctices to C on trol a n d T reat U rban Runojf. Presented at the Scottish
Hydraulics Study Group Seminar.
Chapra, S.C., (1997). Surface W ater Q u ality M odelling. McGraw-Hill.
Claytor, R.A. & Schueler, T.R., (1996). D esign o f S torm w ater F ilterin g System s. The
Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium Inc. and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Dec.
Conlin, J., (2000). Development In Sustainable Urban Drainage In Scotland. In: P roc.
Vol. 19, 27th March.
S tandin g Conf. on S torm w ater Source C on trol Q uantity a n d Q uality.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (1994). C o n tro l o f
Report No. 142
P ollu tion fro m H igh w ay Runoff.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (1995). S edim en t
Report No. 134
M anagem ent in U rban D rain age C atchm ents.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (1996). In filtration
D rain age - M anual o f G o o d P ractice. Report No. 156
Appendix 1.1 1.1-2

References
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (1997/ D esig n o f
C ontainm ent System s f o r the P reven tion o f W ater P ollu tion fro m In du strial In cidents.
Report No. 164
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (2000). S u stain able
U rban D rain age System s - design m anual f o r S cotlan d a n d N orth ern Ireland. Report No.
521
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), (2002). S ource
C on trol U sing C on stru cted P erviou s Surfaces. Report No. 582
D’Arcy, B. & Roesner, L.A., (1997). Scottish Experiences With Stormwater Management
In New Developments. In: Proc. U n ited E n gineering F oundation Conf. On C rea tin g
Sustain able U rban W ater R esou rces F or The 2 1 st Century. Malmo conference, 7-12 Sep.
Day, G.E., Smith, D.R. & Bowers, J., (1981). R u n o ff a n d P ollu tion A batem en t
C h aracteristics o f C on crete G rid P avem ents. Bulletin 135, Virginia Water Resource
Research Centre, Blacksburg, VA.24060, U.S.A.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (1999a/ A B etter
Q u ality o f Life - A S tra teg y f o r Sustain able D evelopm en t f o r the U n ited K ingdom . Her
Majesty’s Stationary Office. May.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (1999b). Q u ality o f
Life Counts. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. December.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (2001a). A ch ievin g A
B etter Q uality o f Life - review o f p ro g re ss to w a rd s su stain able developm ent. Her
Majesty’s Stationary Office. January.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (2001b). S u stain able
- The G overnm ents A pproach . (Online). Available from the World Wide
D evelopm en t
Web: URL: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/index.htm (Accessed 29.7.01)
Dierkes, C., Holte, A. & Geiger, W.F., (1999). Heavy Metal Retention Within A Porous
Pavement Structure. In: P roc. 8 th In t Conf. On urban Storm D rainage. Joliffe, I.B. & Ball,
J.E., (eds). August 1999, Sydney, pp. 1955-1962
Driscoll, E.D., Palheggi, G.E., Strecker, E.W. & Shelley, P.E, (1989). A n a lysis o f Storm
E ven t C h aracteristics f o r S elected R ainfall G au ges T hroughout the USA. Report by
Woodward-Clyde consultants, prepared for and funded by USEPA, Washington, USA
Ellis, J.B., (1985). Pollutional Aspects of Urban Runoff. In: P roc. N A T O A d va n ced
Tomo, H.C., Marsalek, J. &
R esearch W orkshop on “ U rban R u n off P o l l u t i o n
Desbordes, M. (eds). Hotel Frante, Montpellier, France, Aug 26-30. ppl-38
Ellis, J. B., (1991). The Design And Operation Of Vegetation Systems For Urban Source
Runoff Quality Control. In: Proc. S tandin g C onference O n S torm w ater S ource C on trol
Q uantity A n d Q uality. Vol III, Coventry University, June
Ellis, J.B., (1998). Source Control For Non-point Urban Runoff: A Sustainable Option For
Stormwater Quality management? Presented at: 3rd Int. Conf. on D iffuse P ollution.
Edinburgh, Scotland, 31 Aug - 4 Sep, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Appendix 1.1 1.1-3
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (1990). U rban T argeting A n d B M P Selection.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nov
Ferguson, B. K. (1994). S torm w ater Infiltration. USA CRC Press Inc.
Formpave, (2000). Storm W ater Source C on trol S ystem 2000. Brochure.
Forth River Purification Board (FRPB), (1995). A G uide To Surface W ater B est
July. FRPB, Edinburgh.
M anagem ent P ractices.
Fujita, S., (1994). Infiltration Structures in Tokyo. In: P rep rin t f o r W ater Q u ality
Internation al ’94, IA W Q 17th B iennial In ternation al C onference. 24-29 July, Budapest,
Hungary.
Fujita, S., (1996). Measures To Promote Stormwater Infiltration. In: P roc. Seventh Int.
Conf. on U rban Storm D rainage. Sieker, F. & Verwom, H.R. (eds). Hannover, Germany.
pp.491-496
Gardiner, J. L., (ed) (1994). R iver P ro jects A n d C onservation: A M an u al F o r H o listic
A ppraisal. Wiley
Gburek, W.J. & Urban, J.B., (1980). Stormwater Detention and Groundwater Recharge
Using Porous Asphalt. In: Int. Sym posium on U rban Storm Runoff. University of
Kentucky. Lexington, Kentucky.
Gray, N.F., (1999). W ater Technology —A n Introduction f o r E n viron m en tal S cien tists a n d
Engineers. Arnold.
Hart, M., (2001). Sustainable M easure. (Online). Available from the World Wide Web:
URL: http://www. sustainablemeasures.com/Sustainability/KeyTermSustain.html
(Accessed 27.7.01)
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), (1981). C olou r a n d T urbidity o f W ater -
M ethods f o r the E xam ination o W aters a n d A sso cia ted M aterials. HMSO.
Hogland, W., Niemczynowicz, J. & Wahlman, T., (1987). The Unit Superstructure During
The Construction Period. S e t Total E nvironm ent. 59, pp.411-424
Hogland, W., Niemczynowicz, J. & Wahlman, T., (1990). The Pollutant Build-up In
Pervious Road Construction. In: Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. on U rban Storm D rain age. Iwasa,
I. & Sueishi, T. (eds), Osaka, Japan, 23-27 July, pp.845-852
Hvitbed-Jacobsen, T., (1985). Conventional Pollutant Impacts on Receiving Waters. In:
Tomo, H.C.,
Proc. N A T O A d va n ced R esearch W orkshop on “U rban R u n off P o llu tio n ”.
Marsalek, J. & Desbordes, M. (eds). Hotel Frante, Montpellier, France, Aug 26-30.
Ingenieurgesellschafl flier Stadthydrology, (1997). R -W in R egen w asserbew irtsch aftu n g.
Program m handbuch. Ingenieurgesellschaft filer Stadthydrology m.b.H. & Ulrich Natke
Software
Jefferies, C., Fleming, R., McKissock, G. & Hendiy, S., (1997). S ou rce C o n tro l in
Yorkshire. P h ase 1 - F inal Report. Report: WW 1057/3. Urban Water Technology
Centre at the University of Abertay Dundee
Appendix 1.1 1.1-4
References
Jefferies, C., (1998). P relim in ary R ep o rt on S w ales in Scotland. Prepared for steering
group for Sustainable Urban Drainage Scotland Working Party. Sep.
Jefferies, C., Fleming, R. & Dring, D., (1998). The Costs and Benefits o f Source Control
of Drainage. In: P roc. N O V A T E C H ’9 8 3rd Int. Conf. On In n ovative T echnologies in U rban
Storm D rainage. Lyon, France. 4-6 May. pp. 387-394
Jefferies, C., Aitken, A., McLean, N., Macdonald, K. & McKissock, G., (1999). Assessing
the Performance of Urban BMPs In Scotland. In: Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol.39, No.12, pp.123-
131 (see Appendix 1.2)
Jefferies, C. (ed), (2000). S U D S M on itorin g W orkshop 2 6 Jan u ary 2 0 0 0 —P a p ers. Papers
presented at Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Monitoring Group workshop, Edinburgh
University. Available from Urban Water Technology Centre at the University of Abertay
Dundee.
Karpel, R.S., (2000). The Alternative Techniques, A Solution for Sustainable
Management of Urban Runoff Water? In: P roc. 15 th E uropean Junior S cien tist W orkshop
on D ecision S u pport f o r U rban W ater System s. Stavoren, the Netherlands, 11-14 May.
Technical University of Delft, pp.39-45
Kercher, W.C., Landon, J.C. & Massarelli, R., (1983). G ra ssy S w a les P ro ve C ost-
Public Works. Metropolitan Washington Council
E ffective f o r W ater P ollu tion Control.
of Governments, pp.53-55.
Larson, R., (1990). Swedish Experience with Design and Construction of Pervious
Asphalt Constructions. In: P roc. S tan din g Conf. on S torm w ater Sou rce C ontrol. Pratt,
C.J. (ed), First Meeting, Coventry, pub. Coventry University
Legret, M. & Colandi, V., (1998). Effects of a Porous Pavement with Reservoir Structure
On Runoff Water: Water Quality and Fate of Heavy Metals. In: P roc. 3 rd Int. Conf. on
Innovative T echnologies in U rban Storm D rainage. 4-6 May, Lyon, France, pp.517-524
Lundin, M., (2000). Environmental Sustainability of Urban Water Systems Through
Indicators and LCA. In: P roc. 15th E uropean Junior S cien tist W orkshop on D ecisio n
S u pport f o r U rban W ater System s. Stavoren, the Netherlands, 11-14 May. Technical
University of Delft, pp. 109-118
Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C. & Dring, D., (1999). An Assessment Of The Efficiency Of A
Stormwater Runoff Pond In The Scottish Climate. In: P roc. 8 th In t Conf. O n urban Storm
D rainage. Joliffe, I.B. & Ball, J.E., (eds). August 1999, Sydney, pp.882-889 (see
Appendix 1.2)
Macdonald, K. & Jefferies, C., (2000). The Effectiveness of Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems In Scotland. In: P roc. 15th E uropean Junior S cien tist W orkshop on D ecisio n
S u pport f o r U rban W ater System s. Stavoren, the Netherlands, 11-14 May. Technical
University of Delft, (see Appendix 1.2)
Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C. & Guz, F., (2000). Roadside Swales for Source Control. In:
Vol XX. 19th
Proc. Standin g Conf. on S torm w ater Source C on trol Q uantity a n d Q uality.
Sep. Organised by School of the Built Environment, Coventry University. Held at Heriot
Watt University, Edinburgh (see Appendix 1.2)
Appendix 1.1 1.1-5

References
Macdonald, K., (2001a). NATS Porous Paved Car Park. In: S U D S M on itorin g
Jefferies, C. (ed). Scottish Universities SUDS Centre of Excellence.
P rogram m e.
SNIFFER Report (00)10. August.
Macdonald, K., (2001b). Swales. In: S U D S M on itorin g P rogram m e. Jefferies, C. (ed).
Scottish Universities SUDS Centre of Excellence. SNIFFER Report (00)10. August.
Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C., (2001). Performance Comparison of Porous Paved and
Traditional Car Parks. In: Proc. F irst N a tio n a l C onference on S u stain able D rain age,
In corporatin g 21st M eetin g o f Standing C onference on S torm w ater S ource C ontrol. 18“ —
19th June. Coventry University (see Appendix 1.2)
Macdonald, K. & Jefferies, C., (2002). Performance and Comparison of Two Swales. In:
Scottish Hydraulic Study Group.
P roc. S cottish H ydrau lic S tu dy G roup S U D S Sem inar.
Glasgow. 22nd March
Makepeace, D.K., Smith, D.W. & Stanley, S.J., (1995). Urban Stormwater Quality:
Summary of Contaminant Data. In: J. C ritica l R eview s in E n viron m en tal S cien ce a n d
Technology. Vol. 25 (2). pp93-139
Malmquist, P.A. (1986). Urban Runoff Field Studies - Objectives and Planning. In:
U rban R u n off P ollution. Tomo, H.C., Marsalek, J. & Desbordes, M., (eds). NATO ASI
Series, pp.89-102
Masters, G.M., (1991). Introduction To E n vironm ental E n gin eerin g a n d Science.
Prentice-Hall International Editions.
McKissock, G., Jefferies, C. & D’Arcy, B., (1999). An Assessment of Drainage Best
Management Practices in Scotland. C h a rtered Institute o f W ater a n d E n viron m en tal
M anagem ent Journal. 13. February, pp.47-51
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W.W., (1972). The L im its to
G row th. A R ep o rt f o r the Club o f R o m e ’s P ro je c t on the P red ica m en t o f M ankind.
Universe Books, New York.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), (1983). U rban R u n o ff in
the W ashington M etropolitan A rea - F in al R eport. Washington, D.C., Area Urban Runoff
Project. Prepared for U.S. EPA and WRPB.
Mitcham, C., (1995). The Concept of Sustainable Development: its Origins and
Ambivalence. In: T echnology in Society. Vol. 17, No.3, pp.311-326
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), (1975). F lo o d S tu dies R eport. Institute
of Hydrology, pp. 388
Ng, C.B., (2000). M odellin g an d M on itorin g the P erform an ce o f a S u stain able U rban
D rain age System (SUDS) - P orou s P avem ent. MSc Thesis, University of Abertay
Dundee.
Niemczynowicz, J., Hogland, W & Wahlman, T., (1985). C onsequence A n a lysis o f the
U nit Superstructure. VATTEN 41:250-258 (in Swedish)
Appendix 1.1 1.1-6

References
Novotny, V. & Olem, H., (1994). W ater Q uality, P revention, Iden tification &
M an agem en t o f D iffuse P ollu tion . Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Oakland, P.H., (1983). An Evaluation of Stormwater Pollutant Removal Through Grassed
Swale Treatment. In: P roc. Int. Sym p. O f U rban H ydrology, H ydra u lics a n d S edim en t
C ontrol. Stirling, H.J. (ed.). Lexington, KY.
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML), (1986). Interim Progress Report.
D a v is F o rd P a rk P o ro u s P avem en t M o n ito rin g Study. Prepared for the Virginia
Department of Community and Historic Resources. Richmond, VA.
Palmer, J., Cooper, I. & van der Vorst, R., (1997). Mapping out Fuzzy Buzzwords - Who
Sits Where on Sustainability and Sustainable Development. In: S u stain able D evelopm ent.
Vol. 5, pp.87-93
Parkin, S., (2000). Sustainable Development: the Concept and the Practical Challenge. In:
Jou rn al o f the Institution o f C ivil E ngineers. S pecial Issue — S u stain able D evelopm ent:
M akin g it H appen. Vol 138, special issue 2. November
Petersen, C.R., Faarbaek, T., Jensen, G.H., Weyer, G., Fujita, S., Ishikawa, K., Geldof, G.,
Stenmark, C. & Pratt, C.J., (1993). Urban Stormwater Infiltration Design Practice and
Technology: State of the Art Assessment. In: Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. on U rban Storm
D rain age. Marsalek, J. & Tomo, H.C. (eds). Ontario, Canada, 12-17 Sep.
Porksen, U., (1989). P la stik W orter: D ie S prach e einer Internationalendiktatur. Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta.
Postgate, J., (1978). N itrogen Fixation. The Institute of Biology’s Studies in Biology
no.92. Edward Arnold.
Pratt, C.J., (1989). Permeable Pavements For Stormwater Quality Enhancement. Paper
presented at A S C E E ngineering F oundation Conference, U rban S to rm w a ter Q u ality
E nhancem ent - Source Control, R etrofittin g a n d C om bin ed S ew er Technology. 23-27
October, Davos, Switzerland.
Pratt, C.J., (1995). Use of Porous Pavements for Water Storage. In: 7th Int. R a in w ater
C atch m ent S ystem s Conf. Beijing, China, 21-25 June
Pratt, C.J., (1997). Design Guidelines For Porous/Permeable Pavements. In: P roc. Conf.
on Sustaining U rban W ater R esource In The 21st Century. Rowney, A.C., Stahre, P. &
Roesner, L.A. (eds). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) & United Engineering
Foundation Inc. Malmo, Sweden, 7-12 Sep.pp. 196-211.
Pratt, C.J. & Horstead, J.R., (1987). Interim Developments Towards Design Limits On
Pollution. In\ The Science o f the T otal E nvironm ent. 59. pp.421-436. Elsevier Science
Publishers.
Pratt, C.J., Mantle, J.D.G. & Schofield, P.A., (1989). Urban Stormwater Reduction And
Quality Improvement Through the Use of Permeable Pavements. In: Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol
21, pp.769-778. IAWPRC. Elsevier Science.
Appendix 1.1 1.1-7

References
Pratt, C.J., Mantle, J.D.G. & Schofield, P.A., (1995). UK Research into the Performance
of permeable Pavement, Reservoir Structures in Controlling Stormwater Discharge
Quantity and Quality. Paper submitted to N O V A T E C H 95, S eco n d Int. Conf. on In n ovative
T echnologies in U rban Storm D rain age. Lyon, France, 30 May - 1 June.
Pratt, C.J., Newman, A.P. & Brownstein, J., (1996). Bio-Remediation Processes Within A
Permeable Pavement: Initial Observations. In: P roc. Seventh Int. Conf. on U rban Storm
D rain age. Sieker, F. & Verwom, H.R. (eds). Hanover, Germany, 9-13 Sep, pp.1455-1460
Pratt, C.J., Newman, A.P. & Bond, P.C., (1998). Mineral Oil Bio-degradation Within a
Permeable Pavement: Long Term Observations. Presented at: The T h ird Int. Conf. on
Innovative T echnologies in U rban Storm D rain age. Lyon, France, 4-6 May
Pratt, C.J., Oxley, N.C. & Buchan, N., (1994). P lann ing F o r S u stain able C ities:
P erm eable Surfacing A s A S trategy In S to rm w a ter M anagem ent. Report commissioned by
Cobham Resource Consultants, Abingdon, as part of contract let by Scottish Natural
Heritage.
Price, D.J. & Mclnally, G., (2001). C lim ate Change: R eview o f L evels o f P rotectio n
O ffered B y F lo o d P reven tion System s. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit
2001.
Rijsberman, M., (2000). Sustainability in Urban Water Management - Combining Four
Approaches to Enhance Planning. In: P roc. 15th E uropean Ju n ior S cien tist W orkshop on
D ecisio n S u pport f o r U rban W ater System s. Stavoren, the Netherlands, 11-14 May.
Technical University of Delft, pp. 15-26
Roesner, L.A., (1999). Urban Runoff Pollution - Summary Thoughts - the State of
Practice Today and for the 21st Century. W ater S cience & T echnology Jou rnal. Vol 39(12)
Roesner, L.A. & Brashear, R.W., (1999). Are BMP Criteria Really Environmentally
Friendly. In: P roc. 8 th Int Conf. On urban Storm D rainage. Joliffe, I.B. & Ball, J.E., (eds).
August 1999, Sydney, pp. 1366 - 1373
Rommel, M., Rus, M., Argue, J., Johnston, L. & Pezzaniti, D., (2001). Carpark with “1 to
1” (impervious/ permeable) Paving: Performance of “Formpave” Blocks. In: P roc.
N ovatech 4 th Int. Conf. on Innovative T echnologies in U rban S torm D rain age. Lyon,
France. 25-27 June, pp.807-814
Rushton, B.T., (2001). Low-Impact Parking Lot Design Reduces Runoff and Pollutant
Loads. In: J. o f W ater R esou rces p la n n in g a n d M anagem ent. May/June.
Sawyer, C.N., McCarty, P.L & Parkin, G.F., (1994). C h em istry F o r E n viron m en tal
Engineering.McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Schaller, N., (1993). The Concept of Agricultural Sustainability. A gricu ltu re, E cosystem s
a n d Environm ent. Vol 46, pp. 89-97
Schueler, T.R., (1987). C ontrollin g U rban Runoff: A P ra ctica l M an u al F o r P la n n in g A n d
D esign in g U rban B est M anagem ent P ractices. Department O f Environmental
Programmes, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, July
Appendix 1.1 1.1-8

References
Schueler, T., (1995). Site P lann ing F o r U rban Stream P rotection . Center for Watershed
Protection & Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Dec.
Schueler, T., & Claytor, R., (1997). M a ryla n d S torm w ater D esign M anual. Center For
Watershed Protection, Vol 1, Dec 10
Schliiter, W., (2000). M on itorin g a n d M o dellin g o f O utflow fro m a P erm ea b le C a r Park.
MSc dissertation at University of Abertay Dundee
Schluter, W. & Jefferies, C.J., (2001). Monitoring the Outflow from a Porous Car Park. In:
P roc. 1st Int. Conf. On Sustainable D rain age. Coventry University, 18-19June
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). P P G 3 Use a n d D esig n o f O il
(Online). Available from the World Wide
S epa rato rs in Surface W ater D ra in ag e System s.
Web: URL: http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/pdfs/ppg03.pdf
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1996). A G uide to S u rface W ater B est
M an agem en t P ractices. June
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1997). T ow ards U rban D ra in a g e B est
Feb
M an agem en t P ractices.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1998a). S u stainable U rban D ra in a g e -
A n Introduction.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1998b). A gu ide to su stain able U rban
D rainage.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1999a). P P G 5 : W orks in, n ear or
liab le to affect w atercourses.Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG5). Scottish
Environment Protection Agency, Environment Agency and Environment and Heritage
Service, Northern Ireland.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1999b). A nnual R ep o rts & A ccounts,
19 98 -1 999
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (2000a). S u stainable U rban D ra in ag e
System s A n Introduction.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (2000b). P onds, P o o ls a n d Lochans.
June
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (2000c). SEPA Water Quality
Classification Schemes. In: W est R egion W ater Q uality R eview . Interactive CD Rom.
SEPA.
Smith, D.R., (1984). Evaluations of Concrete Grid Pavements in the United States. In:
Delft, The Netherlands, 10-12 April,
P roc. S econ d Int. Conf. On C oncrete B lock P aving.
pp.330-336
Spitzer, A., (1999). M on itorin g the P erform an ce o f a S w ale in E m m ock W oods, D undee.
Honours Project, University of Abertay Dundee.
Appendix 1.1 1.1-9

References
Suda, S., Yamanaka, S., Kodama, O., Hata, M. & Kunimura, T., (1988). Development and
Application of Permeable Paving Concrete Block. In: P roc. T h ird Conf. on C on crete
B lo ck P aving. Rome, pp. 130-137
United Nations (UN)? (1992). A g en da 21: P rogram o f A ction f o r S u stain able
D evelopm ent.
Urbonas, B. & Stahre, P., (1993). S torm w ater B est m anagem ent P ra ctices a n d D eten tion
f o r W ater Q uality, D ra in ag e a n d C SO M anagem ent. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA
Urbonas, B., (1994). Parameters to Report with BMP Monitoring Data. In: P roc.
E n gin eerin g F oundation C onference on S to rm w a ter N P D E S R ela ted M o n ito rin g N eeds.
Tomo, H.C. (ed). August 7-12, Crested Butte, Colorado.
Urbonas, B.R., Tucker, T.S. & Doerfer, J.T, (1999). U rban Storm D ra in ag e C riteria
M anual, Volume 3 - B est M anagem ent P ractices. Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Denver, Colorado. September.
Venables, A.D., (1991). Stormwater Source Control: A Planners Viewpoint. P roceed in gs:
S tandin g C onference On S torm w ater Source C on trol Q u an tity A n d Q uality. Vol IV,
Coventry University, 2nd Dec
Walker, A. & Denholm, A., (2000). Flooding Chaos As Deluge Hits the Capital. In: The
27th April 2000.
Scotsm an new spaper.
Walker, K., D’Arcy, B.J., McKissock, G. & Willby, N., (2000). SUDS: The Scottish
Experience. Paper presented at B ritish P o n d L an dscapes —M o vin g T o w a rd S u stain a bility
conference. University College Chester. 18-19 September 2000.
Waller, D.H. & Hart, W.C., (1985). Solids, Nutrients, And Chlorides In Urban Runoff. In:
U rban R u n off P ollution. Tomo, H.C., Marsalek, J. & Desbordes, M., (eds). NATO ASI
Series, pp.59-85
Ward, R.C. & Robinson, M., (1990). P rin cip les O f H ydro log y (3rd Edition). McGraw-
Hill Book Co.
Wild, T.C., Jefferies, C. & D’Arcy, B.J., (2002). S U D S in S c o tla n d - The S cottish S U D S
D a ta base. SNIFFER Report SR(02)09. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum For
Environmental Research, 11-13 Cumberland Street, Edinburgh.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), (1987). O ur C om m on
Oxford University Press
F uture ( ‘The B ru n d tla n d R e p o rt).
Yousef, Y., Wanelista, M. & Harper, H., (1985). B est M an agem en t P ra ctices: R em ova l o f
H igh w ay C ontam inants b y R oadside Sw ales. Prepared for Florida Department of Highway
Transportation. Tallahassee, FL.
Yu, S., Kasnick, M & Byme, M., (1992). A Level Spreader/Vegetative Buffer Strip
System for Urban Stormwater Management. In: In teg ra ted S torm W ater M anagem ent.
pp.93-104. Field, R. (ed.). Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton. FL.
Appendix 1.1 1 .1 -1 0
References
APPENDIX1.2
PAPERS & REPORTS PUBLISHED DURING REGISTRATION
PERIOD
This Appendix details, in chronological order, the papers and reports published during the
authors registration period. The six with an asterisk are bound with this thesis. The data
presented in some of the papers may be different to that presented in this thesis, and as the
latter supersedes the papers it is that data which should be taken as correct.
* Jefferies, C., Aitken, A., McLean, N., Macdonald, K. & McKissock, G., (1999).
A ssessing the Perform ance of U rban BM Ps In Scotland. In: Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol.39,
No.12
* Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C. & Dring, D., (1999). An A ssessm ent O f T he E fficiency
O f A Storm w ater R un off Pond In The Scottish Clim ate. In: Proc. 8th Int Conf. On
urban Storm Drainage. Joliffe, I.B. & Ball, J.E., (eds). August 1999, Sydney
* Macdonald, K. & Jefferies, C., (2000). The Effectiveness o f Sustainable U rban
D rainage System s In Scotland. In: Proc. 15th European Junior Scientist Workshop on
Decision Support for Urban Water Systems. Stavoren, the Netherlands, 11-14 May.
Technical University of Delft.
* Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C. & Guz, F., (2000). R oadside Swales for Source Control.
In: Proc. Standing Conf. on Stormwater Source Control Quantity and Quality. Vol XX.
19th Sep. Organised by School of the Built Environment, Coventry University. Held
at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh
Macdonald, K., (2001a). NATS Porous Paved Car Park. In: SUDS Monitoring
Programme. Jefferies, C. (ed). Scottish Universities SUDS Centre of Excellence.
SNIFFER Report (00)10. August.
Macdonald, K., (2001b). Swales. In: S U D S M on itorin g P rogram m e. Jefferies, C.
(ed). Scottish Universities SUDS Centre of Excellence. SNIFFER Report (00)10.
August.
* Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C., (2001). Perform ance C om parison o f Porous Paved
and Traditional C ar Parks. In: Proc. First National Conference on Sustainable
Drainage, Incorporating 21st Meeting of Standing Conference on Stormwater Source
Control. 18th- 19th June. Coventry University (see Appendix 1.2)
Macdonald, K. & Jefferies, C., (2001). Perform ance o f BM Ps in Scotland. Poster
presentation at the United Engineering Foundation conference on Linking Stormwater
BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation. Snowmass
Village, Colorado, Aug 19-24.
* Macdonald, K. & Jefferies, C., (2002). Perform ance and C om parison o f Tw o
Swales. In: Proc. Scottish Hydraulic Study Group SUDS Seminar. Scottish Hydraulic
Study Group. Glasgow. 22n March
Appendix 1.2 1.2- 1

Papers & reports published
ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF URBAN BMPs IN
SCOTLAND
C. Jefferies , A Aitken , N McLean , K Macdonald and G McKissock *

*£ jjc$ £
Wastewater Technology Centre, School o f Construction and Environment, University o f

Abertay Dundee, Bell Street Dundee DD1 1HG UK.
** SEP A East Region, Clearwater House, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH 14 4AP
ABSTRACT
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in urban drainage have been promoted in Scotland for a
number of years in response to the need to combat pollution arising from diffuse sources in
urban areas. This has led to the construction of around one hundred BMP installations using
both source and end of pipe control. These are principally in the East of Scotland, and the
number is growing rapidly as education and knowledge increases.
A programme of investigations into the factors which influence the performance of the systems
commenced in 1997. A range of types of BMP are under study including both source control
and end of pipe systems. The sites have been divided into groups for which different depths of
investigation are being undertaken. The programme involves a number of parallel
investigations requiring field studies, data reviews and enquiries to confirm applicability and
performance in situ. Many of the factors which influence the selection, installation and
operation of a particular system are social, legal and administrative in addition to those which
relate to its design and construction. The different strands of the study have been developed to
ensure that all influences are identified and evaluated.
KEYWORDS
Drainage Best Management Practice; BMP; Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; Field
Study; Performance Assessment.
INTRODUCTION
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in urban drainage have been promoted in Scotland for
five years, in response to the need to combat pollution arising from diffuse sources in urban
areas. Interest in the systems and methodologies is being promoted throughout the UK
(CIRIA 1997) and there is an urgent need to identify the most appropriate systems. To meet
this need, a programme of investigations is being undertaken into the performance of BMP
systems which have been built in Scotland. Initially all sites were within the boundaries of the
Forth River Purification Board area (now part of SEPA East Region), but the area where they
are being promoted and implemented has expanded considerably. A database of sites for
which best management drainage practices were claimed was assembled in 1996. The first
version of the database contained around seventy sites and this has risen to significantly more
than one hundred.
1 .2 -2
Unfortunately, at the time of installation of the first systems, knowledge of the detailed
implementation of the relevant practices was limited and a number of systems have been
constructed which are clearly not successful. Others are claimed to be performing well when
there is evidence that this is not the case. Poor performance might arise from a number of
reasons including the lack of availability of sufficient land for the system installed, particular
administrative factors in the region, bad design and construction and inadequate maintenance.
The relative importance of these factors and their influence on the performance of the system
installed requires to be assessed before proper guidance can be given. Such guidance must be
relevant to relatively small sites where a developer wishes to construct a small number of
houses in addition to major new urban and industrial developments. The investigation
programme has been set up to report on the performance of BMP systems by assessing those
sites which have been implemented in Scotland.
Initial investigations (McKissock et. al. 1998) showed that cost implications, lack of
knowledge of suitable construction details and methods, together with the responsibility for
maintenance are the major impediments to successful BMP system construction. The Standing
Conference on source control (Pratt 1997) has been set up to address the issue of lack of
knowledge of BMP systems. Consequently, one of the main objectives of this study is the
acquisition of data which will assist in the preparation of improved guidelines for their
implementation. A principal output of the study will be an improved guidance manual and
educational information.
Table 1 Categories of Sites in Database
Category of site Examples
Wetland Wet ponds and vegetation based systems
Above ground Porous pavements, grass swales and dry ponds.
Underground Infiltration trenches, filter drains and soakaways
In broad terms, the guidance will follow the three categories of BMP system which have been
constructed in Scotland and these are shown in table 1. The sites have been assigned three
levels of study to be undertaken, each level including some of each of the above categories. A
number will be investigated in great detail with monitoring programmes. More general
performance indicators and influences will be assessed for a larger number of sites, while
basic data will be gathered on the remainder.
This paper addresses the questions to be asked of the systems which have been installed and
overviews the methodologies being used in the programme to provide answers. The paper
concludes by outlining the outputs which will arise from the programme.
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

An investigation of this nature is required to provide answers to a wide range of conflicting
questions. For the most valuable performance studies, the best possible sites with text book
maintenance regimes were the most desirable, while administrative problems would best be
studied with reference to poor sites. Consequently, in setting up the programme, the first task
was to determine the principal questions requiring answering. Each location had to be
qualified by the inadequacies of the site and location, with the most appropriate being selected
to assist in answering the different questions which had to be asked.
1.2-3
R em oval o f pollutants
Many questions are posed as to the sustainability of modem drainage practices. Critical in
establishing whether this is true is the fate of pollutants removed from the aqueous stream. In
most BMP systems, pollutants will form a sludge which must be disposed of, and it may be
that good housekeeping measures are the only sustainable drainage practices and the entry of
pollutants into drainage systems may only be prevented by heavy handed regulation.
Measures would include regular and thorough street clearing, spill prevention, bunding etc.
However, in practice, all urban areas produce significant pollution and the amount of
pollutants arriving at BMP systems must be addressed, together with the ability of the systems
to remove the pollutants from the drainage route. The ability of different BMP systems to
remove different amounts of pollution must be assessed. Included in this assessment will
need to be the likely life of the system, any seasonal variation of its performance and the
requirements for maintenance or renewal.
Fate o f pollutants in BM P system s

Pollutants removed from runoff in a system such as a pond may accumulate in sediments and
biota. The settlement of relatively large and heavy particles contributes to sediment
accumulation. The particles may contain heavy metals and trace elements originating from
street surface or parking lots, and nutrients and pesticides may be associated with soil
particulates (Pitt, 1995). In general, concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff are not great
and median EMC values are 100 mg/L TSS and 9 mg/L BOD (WEF/ASCE 1998).
Accumulation may occur by precipitation of soluble materials following a chemical process
such as change of pH, oxidation reduction potential (ORP) or indeed of temperature. The
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the water may be reduced by sedimentation (Kiely,
1997), and this may lead to an increase in the sediment oxygen demand (SOD).
The potential activity of these pollutants does not end with their concentration into sediments.
Polluted sediments may be resuspended or pollutants released by dredging or bottom scouring
during high stream flows (Pitt, 1995). Resuspended metals and organics, along with those
already in the water can have toxic effects on aquatic life, accumulate in many species and
concentrate through food chains (Ellis, 1989).
The quality of groundwater may also be influenced by exfiltration of water and contaminants
from urban BMP systems. Detailed studies in the US have shown that pesticides can move
through both topsoil and subsoil (Hallberg, 1989). When disposed of in soakaways, it has
been reported that the organophosphates have appeared in watercourse 400 metres away only
two hours after disposal (ENDS, 1993). Industrial solvents which may leak or spill can have
environmental significance at concentrations as low as parts per billion (Kiely, 1997).
Refined mineral oils such as petrol and aviation fuel may also be problematic, and a new
threat has appeared in the form of methyl butyl tertiary ether, an additive in unleaded petrol.
This chemical is ten times more soluble in water than other constituents in petrol and spreads
readily in groundwater (Kiely, 1997).
Soil is also potentially a medium for pollutant accumulation since it acts as a filter for many
pollutants due to physical or chemical adsorption and biological processes (Hiitter et al, 1998).
If left unchecked, these pollutants may eventually become remobilize in different conditions,
and consequently BMP systems utilising soil require adequate maintenance and inspection.
Once the pollutants have been removed from the runoff, they may then degrade. It is often the
consequent degradation products which are potentially the most polluting. For example, the
1.2-4
breakdown products of pesticides may be more toxic, persistent and mobile than the principal
chemicals (Hallberg, 1989). The breakdown products of industrial solvents can often be more
harmful. For example the biotransformation of TCE (trichloroethylene) results in hazardous
products such as vinyl chloride which is a confirmed human carcinogen (Burmaster, 1982).
Biodegradation of organic matter in water and sediments can result in the release of other
substances such as ammonia and nitrates which can be toxic to aquatic life.
It is clear from the above that there is a great potential for pollution arising from urban BMP
systems. The monitoring programme will assess the extent of this potential pollution by
sampling and measuring at the various sites. Comparisons will be made between the
concentrations and loads arising from BMPs and those from other types of diffuse sources to
determine the extent of the potential problem and the fate of pollutants in the BMP systems
studied.
H ydrological effects
A prime function of BMP systems is the maintenance of as natural flows in watercourses as
possible. Urbanisation, with greater impermeable areas than occur naturally, leads to more
rapid flow fluctuations, with greater high flows and lower low flows (Gardiner 1994). In
turn, this leads to degradation of watercourses, more frequent flooding and lower flows in dry
weather. The BMP system, whether it embodies source control techniques, or is at the end of
the pipe should, at least in part, revert the urbanised system to a natural regime.
To assess the benefits of the BMP system, it is frequently easier to express the need to
maintain natural flows in terms of the opposite effect being required - urbanisation should not
increase the flashiness of streams, and it should not reduce the baseflow. The assessment
programme must identify the extent to which BMP systems achieve these effects, and both
flows and storage must be monitored. Attenuation and storage is required to meet both high
and low flow requirements, and the monitoring programme must evaluate the attenuation of
each type of system to permit comparisons to be made.
A ppropriateness o f the system s being constructed
Much of the above discussion applies to systems which have been designed and installed to
published design and performance criteria. Unfortunately, many systems have been
improperly designed, or have not been built to the design specification. A major thread of the
assessment programme is to determine the causes for such variation. Inevitably, site or
location factors may be the cause of many differences and some reasons might be the lack of
space set aside, the steepness of the slope in its vicinity, or the lack of permeability of the
local soil. In contrast, there may be institutional factors or planning considerations which
render the system inappropriate and such factors might include access for maintenance, the
safety of the system proposed and the final responsibility for the system. The assessment
programme must investigate the reasons why the system installed may be inappropriate by
consulting with planners and developers to determine why decisions were made, and what
might be altered to produce more appropriate and reliable systems.
Inform ation required by practitioners
It is the intention of a working group on sustainable urban drainage systems to produce a
preliminary guide to good practice early in 1999. This guide will include design
specifications and examples of good design, but it must also draw on the experience gained
from the installation and operation of the systems in place. These examples will form case
1.2-5
studies which will include construction sequences shown to be appropriate for UK
construction practice.
Scope o f the program m e o f investigations
It will be seen that many questions require to be asked from the information to be gathered
from the sites which have been installed in Scotland. To collect this information, a multi
disciplinary team has been assembled which will monitor a number of sites, ask questions of
the developers and planners of others, and gather anecdotal evidence about more. The
assessment strategy is to have a vertically integrated programme of performance assessment.
STRATEGY FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

A ssessm ent program m e
The assessment programme commenced in 1996 with the assembly of the first version of the
database. Only a relatively small number of sites could be considered to be ‘good’ examples,
and compromise locations had to be accepted, particularly for the monitoring programme.
The database has been updated twice, each time a significant number of extra sites with fewer
compromises have been found. Three different levels, or types of investigation will be
undertaken as outlined in table 2. Each level of investigation will include the one above, so
level C and B investigations will also be undertaken at level A sites.
Table 2 Study sites - level of investigation
Site A pproxim at Extent o f study
level e N um ber
A 12 Full investigation to be undertaken with monitoring of flows,
water qualities, sediments, biological and design/ implementation
factors.
B 20 Varying level of assessment including regular visits and semi-
structured interviews with key personnel involved at the design
and construction phase. Data collection will include gathering
information on design and the construction issues which have
influenced the installation and performance of the system.
C 60 A lower level of detail about these sites will be assembled
Fieldw ork & testing - hydrological m onitoring
Hydrological monitoring will be undertaken at level A sites and comprises monitoring
rainfall, flows and depths within the BMP systems. Intense rainfall may be very localised and
it is necessary to have raingauges fairly close to the sites being monitored, or at least close to
the catchments of the BMP. Intense storms are often the most damaging in terms of
producing a first flush of polluted runoff from a catchment that has been dry for some time
previously. Consequently, measurement locally of rainfall is important as it will ultimately be
related to runoff and pollutant shock to the BMP system being monitored.
Flows must also be monitored to determine both flow attenuation and pollutant loading. A
particular feature of the monitoring required is the small flowrates involved due to the small
catchment areas and the nature of the systems being studied - particularly true for source
control systems. The following flow measurement techniques are being used at each of the
study sites; 1.2-6
• calibrated tipping bucket with counter - for low flows at car parks and
permeable pavements,
• level sensor with logger and thin plate weir - particularly useful at ponds,
• velocity and level sensor with logger - for in-pipe flow monitoring.
Site conditions have dictated the different types of devices to be installed in order to obtain
accurate flow data. The installations are varied, but in all cases, small construction, or
fabrication tasks have been necessary to fit the measuring devices into the spaces available.
For example, porous paving does not lend itself, by nature of the facility, i.e. sub-surface
flows, to normal surface water techniques. Consequently, only if convenient access is
available is it possible to apply customary sewer monitoring practices. Otherwise, more
expensive, time consuming equipment and methods must be employed. This has been a major
criterion in the choice of site being monitored and by way of an example, establishing flow
monitoring equipment at ponds has been considerably easier than at the swales being
monitored.
Fieldw ork & testing - pollutant assessm ent
Several methods are again being used for monitoring pollutants. All will be used at the inflow
and outflow of each BMP system. The approaches being adopted are as follows;
* chemical analysis;
• multi-parameter water quality sensor - short term, continuous monitoring,
• discrete samples - occasional sampling, for background levels,
• autosampler - storm event sampling
* biological analysis;
• 3 minute kick samples - field score obtained from bankside analysis.
Pollutant concentrations will be determined using the above approaches. The concentrations
will be integrated with the flow data to find pollutant loadings. Values from both the inlet and
outlet at each site will be plotted on a time series to show the effectiveness of the BMP in
reducing the discharge of pollution to the receiving watercourse.
Fieldw ork & testing - continuous m onitoring o f pollutants
Multi-channel probes will be used to capture information about storm flow events and
pollutographs. The probes will be used in combination with discrete autosamplers to monitor
the background levels of pollution entering each system. Certain events will be sampled using
pre-programmed autosamplers triggered by the flow loggers. Data from a limited number of
storm events will be sought in the first two years of the project, the target being three events
for each analysis suite per site. Opportunities may prove to be restrictive - due to insufficient
rainfall, but it is hoped that enough events can be monitored to provide an accurate
representation of the performance of the BMPs under examination.
Data from the probes deployed during wet weather can also be used to profile pollutographs.
Correlation with other determinands measured from the laboratory analysis should be
possible. For example, frequently relationships between turbidity - one of the channels in the
probes - and suspended solids (SS) can be established. In turn, a relationship for SS will be
developed for the duration of the probes’ deployment.
1.2-7
Fieldw ork & testing - sam pling and lab analysis
Where it is undertaken, the analysis of both soil and water samples will include;
• sanitary suite; pH, EC, SS, NH3 ,BOD ,DO ,TON ,PC>4 , Cl
• toxic metals suite; pH, EC, Cd, Cr, Ni, Cu, Pb, Zn, As
• oils.
Fieldw ork & testing - long term im plications o f BM Ps
Much has been written about the particular pollutants which might be present in runoff from
given types of catchments. It is recognised that the variability of catchments will lead to
problems, and for the first year of the project, modest, less complex analysis will be
undertaken. This will be augmented in the following years with more detailed analysis
including, for example, for pesticides, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and faecal pathogens
enabling a fuller representation of the performance of BMPs to be ascertained. Soils and pond
sediments will be examined to trace the fate of pollutants and also to establish their effect on
the site. Typically, assessments, supported by monitoring will be undertaken to determine;
• Whether the habitat of a wet pond having a large freshwater biodiversity might become
too toxic to maintain such life after a number of years in service as a BMP.
• The extent of ground contamination from infiltration systems draining urban roads.
• The potential routes for disposal of sediments from BMP systems, and the costs attached
to their disposal.
INSTITUTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Several fundamental aspects of the implementation of BMPs cannot be answered by the
fieldwork programme. The second level of investigation (table 2) must be addressed by
detailed examination of documents, and by interviews and questionnaires.
The matter of maintenance is a key issue encountered, in Scotland. Having convinced
planners and developers that BMPs are desirable, the need to ensure that the systems, once
constructed, are then maintained satisfactorily has been a more problematical issue.
Maintenance is crucial with infiltration and pond systems from which solids must be
periodically removed to ensure the effective performance of the treatment system. Estimates
must be made of the times when this maintenance will be necessary and it is only by
monitoring existing systems that information on maintenance regimes can be ascertained.
The implementation and maintenance costs are frequently perceived to be the prime blocks to
BMP implementation. Estimates have been made of costs over a three year period running
into hundreds of thousands of pounds for larger developments. It is essential to any BMP that
they are maintained, or early failure will occur and this has been experienced at several sites.
Indeed, even at the construction phase, provisions should be included to allow for the
disturbance of top and sub soils as well as the movement of other materials and debris
common with existing construction practices.
The assessment programme is addressing these institutional and operational considerations
through regular performance checks, semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire to
determine the level of understanding of the implementation and performance of the systems.
1 .2 -8
R egular perform ance checks
Approximately ten of the level B sites will be visited on a weekly basis to assemble qualitative
data on the routine changes and influences on the performance of each system. This study
will assess the extent to which the fears of many developers concerning the use of BMPs have
been realised. Such fears might include the propensity for children to be attracted to a pond,
the extent of surface ponding of porous surfaces during heavy rainfall, or the erosion of swale
side slopes. Visits will be made by pollution inspectors from SEPA in addition to members of
the monitoring team, Proforma sheets have been developed to assist in collating performance
information in a coherent manner.
Sem i-structured interview s
It is recognised that key decisions concerning the layout of development sites and
implementation of BMPs into drainage systems are made by senior staff within developer and
planning organisations. A complete understanding of the reasons behind these decisions can
only be made after consultation with these personnel. Semi-structured interviews are to be
used to establish the background and to gain this knowledge. Interviews will be targeted
towards developers, planners and SEPA staff associated with the development of the level B
sites.
The use of semi-structured interviews allows questions to be worked out in advance and
modified in view of their appropriateness in the context of the conversation, ensuring that
relevant data is gathered. Around thirty interviews will be undertaken for the level B sites,
many interviewees being associated with several sites. The issues highlighted in the
interviews will be used in the compilation of the questionnaire.
Q uestionnaire
The purpose of the questionnaire is to establish the level of awareness of BMPs, to investigate
the effectiveness of information and guidance on the practices, and to generate information on
whether developers’ fears of using BMPs have been realised. The questionnaire is being
designed as a follow-on from one undertaken in 1996 which established that there were many
misconceptions regarding BMP use and performance. The survey will comprise closed
questions, limiting the number of available responses, and they will be compiled to gather
information on the level C sites. The questionnaire will be distributed by journal and
newsletter, thereby gathering information on experiences and attitudes to BMPs over a wide
geographical area.
PLANNED OUTPUTS FROM THE PROGRAMME

The outputs from the research programme are presented here as a series of aims and objectives
which have been matched to the ability to obtain information with a realistic use of the
resources available.
O verall project aims

The sites where the full monitoring programme is being undertaken (level A sites) will
provide information on the operation of BMP systems in terms of the inputs, storage and
outputs of chemical and biological determinands which influence water quality. Many sites
1.2-9
have been studied in Europe, the US and the UK, and information from this programme will
be added to the results of the previous studies where these are available to produce overall
guidance on the performance of ‘good examples’ of the systems operating in Scotland.
Improved design guidance will be developed from this ‘hard’ data on how the BMP performs,
by comparing the results with the expectations from the design of the system implemented.
However, further investigation is required into the issues which affected the installation of the
structure in the first place. Much of the design will have followed from the SEPA guidance
notes (SEPA 1996). It is anticipated that this procedure will ensure that all relevant factors
are included in the development of improved guidance notes.
In a similar vein, the structures built may not follow ‘best’ practice. Plans of systems which
have been installed will be compared with best design practice to give guidance as to why
there are differences - if indeed there are any.
To meet each of the above aims, the actual performance, comparison with design and the
practicalities of building and maintaining structures will be coalesced to produce guidance as
to the best BMP approach to be used in different circumstances. It is anticipated that this
guidance will be incorporated into the design manual which is under development.
Recommendations for future monitoring will be made. One particular aspect which will merit
investigation will be the potentially detrimental effects that BMP systems have on
groundwater supplies.
Planned Outputs
A series of preliminary reports on the observed performance of the different categories of
BMPs studies will be prepared. The planned programme of reports is summarised in figure 1.
Figure 1 Planned reporting schedule
1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000
Sept Dec March June Sept Dec March June Sept Dec
Study Outline F
Swales D w F
Ponds D w F
Infiltration D w F
Full Report D F w
D = Draft Report w = Workshop
F = Final Report
The first draft reports are being timed to coincide with the preliminary design guidance
manual being prepared under the aegis of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Working Party.
The individual reports will be merged into a final report at the end of the year 2000, when a
revision of the design manual is also planned.
1.2-10
In addition to these engineering reports, a number of PhD theses and Masters dissertations
will be written by fieldworkers and students working on individual aspects of the study.
Conference and journal papers will be prepared.
PARTNERS
The project is being jointly managed by the University of Abertay Dundee and SEPA (East
Region) and has received funding through Sniffer (Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for
Environmental Research), the Environment Agency and R-Log, the Scottish Water
Authorities’ research fund. The Universities of Stirling, Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt are
undertaking a number of research projects which are co-ordinated into the programme.
REFERENCES
Burmaster, D.E., (1982). The New Pollution. In'.Environm ent. V ol24, No.2.
CIRIA(1997) R esearch P ro je c t 55 5 Sustainable U rban R u n off M an agem en t. The
Construction Industry Research and Information Association London
Ellis, K.V., (1989). Surface W ater P ollu tion A n d Its C o n tro l Macmillan.
ENDS Report, (1993). R esearch U nderlines P ollu tion R isks F rom S heep D ip C hem icals.
Environmental Data Services Ltd., No.218.
Gardiner J.L., (1994) Sustainable Development for River Catchments. In: J IW E M V ol.8
No.3 June 1994
Hallberg, G.R., (1989), Sturrock, J.M. & Ulbricht, T.L.V. (eds). Pesticide Pollution of
Groundwater In the Humid United States. In: A griculture, E cosystem s a n d
Environm ent. Elsevier.
Htitter, U., Hesse, U. & Kaczmarczyk, B., (1998). Investigations On The Migration Of
Stormwater Pollutants In Soils. In: P roceedin gs: N ovatech C onference on
Innovative T echnologies In U rban Storm D rainage. May. Vol 2.
Kiely, G., (1997). E nvironm ental Engineering. McGraw-Hill.
McKissock, G., Jefferies C., & D’Arcy B. (1998) An assessment of drainage best
management practices in Scotland. In: JCIW EM . accepted for publication.
Pitt R.E., (1995), Biological Effects Of Urban Runoff Discharges. In: S to rm w a ter R u n o ff
A n d R eceivin g S ystem s - Im pact, M on itorin g a n d A ssessm en t , E.E.Herricks (ed).
Lewis Publishers.
Pratt C.J., (Ed) (1991 - 1997) P roceedin gs o f the S tandin g C onference on S to rm w a ter
Source C ontrol : Q uantity a n d Q uality. Vol. I - XX. School of The Built
Environment, Coventry University. Coventry University.
WEF/ASCE (1998). U rban R u n off Q u ality M an agem en t Water Environment Federation
Manual No.23 / American Society of Civil Engineers Report No. 87, ASCE Reston,
Virginia USA.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (1996) A G uide to Surface W ater B est
M anagem ent P ractices. May.
1 .2 -1 1
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFICIENCY OF A STORMWATER
RUNOFF POND IN THE SCOTTISH CLIMATE
K. Macdonald*, C. Jefferies* and D. Dring**
Wastewater Technology Centre, School o f Science and Engineering, University ofAbertay Dundee, Bell
Street Dundee DD 11H G , UK.
*Yorkshire Water PLC, Regional Operations Centre, Bradford UK
ABSTRACT
Preliminary results from an investigation of the performance of a pond treating urban runoff in
Scotland are presented. The investigation is one of a series of linked studies of the operation of
a range of modified drainage arrangements in Scotland which are, for convenience termed
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). The paper reports on the preliminary results
from one of the detailed investigations at a surface water treatment pond in the east of
Scotland. The pond appears to be effective at flood attenuation and water quality
improvement, despite being designed only for flood attenuation. Studies of the sediment of the
pond suggest that heavy metal concentrations may reach unacceptable levels within twenty
years and the planned maintenance strategy may have to be altered accordingly.
KEYWORDS
Urban Drainage Best Management Practice; BMP; Pollutant Loading; SUDS
INTRODUCTION
Best Management Practices in urban drainage are currently being promoted in Scotland by the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the water undertakers and local councils in
an effort to produce more sustainable urban drainage systems. A variety of approaches are
becoming generally accepted, including dry and wet retention ponds, swales and other forms
of vegetation systems, and infiltration trenches and soakaways. For widespread uptake of
BMP techniques, developers, regulators and planners require more detailed information about
their performance and operation. This includes the effectiveness of the different systems and
their suitability for specific types of development. To date there is no widely accepted
performance data on BMP systems in the United Kingdom, yet there is a clear need for such
information, coupled with data on maintenance, reliability, economics and social acceptance.
A research programme is currently underway involving collecting data from a variety of BMP
sites in Scotland, and it is anticipated that the information will feed directly into a ‘Best
Practice’ manual for developers, regulators and planners in the United Kingdom (Jefferies et
al, 1999).
A wealth of performance data and guidelines is available from studies of BMPs carried out in
the United States, Australia and Sweden (e.g. Roesner et al, 1988; Schueler, 1987; Pitt, 1995;
Urbonas, 1997). Performance data will also shortly be available in CD format (ASCE, 1999).
The information currently available has been invaluable in the initial stages of BMP
implementation in Scotland. However, there are many differences affecting the choice and
design of BMP for a particular site, including climate, social views, economics and builîpj
practices. A recently assembled database listed around 160 sites in Scotland (McKissock,
1998) and the current research programme is attempting to assess the performance of a range
of operating urban drainage BMP systems.
The programme is investigating the aspects which must be considered in evaluating the
efficiency of ponds in Scotland where they are used in BMP systems. The evaluation is being
carried out at two levels. Firstly, there is detailed monitoring of twelve systems, including
three ponds, to assess their physical performance in terms of flood attenuation and water
quality changes. This assessment uses flow and water quality data together with biological
and sediment sampling, and the resultant information will be used for detailed performance
modelling. The second level of study involves a less detailed investigation of about thirty
systems to obtain more general conclusions on maintenance, cost, safety and related issues.
This paper is concerned primarily with the physical performance of the ponds which have
been installed, and concentrates on data gathered at one pond in Fife, Scotland.
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION ISSUES

At present BMP systems are at the early stages of acceptance by developers in the UK and a
number factors currently influence their acceptability including: fear of the additional cost to
developers; perceived poor safety record, particularly of ponds; lack of confidence in the
longer term viability of small-scale (single property) systems; the need for a clear case for the
benefits to be identified, particularly for the water undertaker, and; the need for robust
arrangements for the maintenance of these new systems.
All evidence points to the costs being reduced where systems fully integrating best
management practices and source control have been implemented. Additional land may be
required for their proper implementation, but this issue will reduce in importance once all
sites being developed have similar source control requirements. Safety issues revolve around
potential danger to young children playing and such concerns are being addressed by a
combination of good design practices, whereby all open areas of water will have shallow
slopes and thick bankside vegetation to prevent access. There is no doubt that systems
installed which incorporate such good design practices are fully accepted by the local
residents, and are generally considered to be a local asset. The research programme currently
underway will address these social and institutional issues in addition to the flood attenuation
and quality improvements provided by the systems.
POND PERFORMANCE
Stenton pond
The data to be examined were gathered at Stenton Pond in Fife, Scotland. Rainfall, flow and
various water quality parameters were collected from April 1998 to February 1999, and data
collection is ongoing.
Stenton Pond was built in 1987 as a flood abatement facility for a residential area of the new
town of Glenrothes in Fife. With a capacity of 9000 m and an additional 4500 m storage for
flood attenuation, the pond was designed to delay and attenuate the peak flows reaching the
receiving watercourse, the Lochty Bum, and consequently prevent downstream flooding
(Dowswell, 1998). A study of the Lochty Bum catchment, carried out in 1990, showed that
the increased flood peak and time of response caused by urbanisation would have had no
significant impact on the Bum. However, it was realised the Pond may be having a beneficial
1.2-13
effect on water quality and may be protecting the Bum from downgrading due to urban
pollution.
There are two inlets to Stenton Pond, SWO North and SWO West, draining a residential
catchment of 127 hectares. The outlet to the Pond is located on the southern side of the Pond,
and discharges to the Lochty Bum via a rectangular weir.
The Pond provides an established habitat for a variety of birds, fish, invertebrates and aquatic
plants. Vigorous reed growth is supported around the margins. The shape and landscaping of
the Pond was designed to produce a high amenity value, and this is clearly apparent as many
local residents utilise the area throughout the year.
Algal blooms continue to be an annual problem at Stenton Pond probably due to the high
nutrient levels, but the placing a number of barley straw bales in the water during springtime
has reduced this problem. Microorganisms in the straw utilise the same nutrients as the algae
which cause eutrophication. Water quality problems arise in general due to wrong
connections and blockages in dual manholes of the separate sewer system. The pollution
which results from the eutrophication is often visually apparent, particularly at SWO North.
This is of concern because there is a suspected hydraulic short circuit in the pond and water
flows directly from this inlet to the outlet, with reduced time for settlement and water
treatment.
Data collection
Flow monitors were installed at both inlets and a level monitor at the outlet. The data from the
level monitor was used with a weir equation to calculate an approximate flow. A raingauge
was installed nearby. The water quality data discussed in this paper were gathered using
automatic samplers which collected average hourly samples during and after a rainfall event.
In addition, to determine the quality of the water between rainfall events water quality sondes
were installed for 6 periods, logging data every 15 minutes. Weekly baseline sampling was
also carried out at the Pond during the year, to detect possible annual trends.
Rainfall & Flow at Stenton Pond

19th-20th July 1998
«T
o5
oO i o- ^ —c NT— rT—t ^T—^ Tt—bT—N -5o— oT—o iT—o ^C cN NC Ni cI Co Nd C^ Nc 'O i Oc Oo O^ Oi fOi

t t
Figure 1 Date
INTENSITY (m m /h ).............W e st Flow ( l/ s ) -------------North Flow (l/s) ------------ O utlet (l/s)
Flowrates and volumes

In order to illustrate the performance, data from one event during 19-20 July 1998 is
presented in Figure 1 which shows the inflow and outflow characteristics during the rainfall
1.2-14
event. Figure 1 displays rainfall intensity together with the flow entering the pond at SWO
North and SWO West, and the calculated flow at the Outlet.
It is clear that the flow from both inlets follows exactly the same pattern, except the flow at
SWO North is proportionately greater than at SWO West. The flows correspond with the
rainfall intensity. The flow at the outlet is directly affected by the increased flow entering the
pond.
A total of 18.2mm of rain fell during this event, which lasted approximately 12 hours. The
peak intensity of 6mm/h was reached several times during a 3-hour period. The flow at both
inlets peaked at the same time as the rainfall intensity peaks. During the time shown on the
graph the volume entering the pond was 5200m3, peaking at 293 1/s. The volume exiting the
pond was approximately 3500 m3, peaking at 140 1/s.
It is clear that the pond attenuated the flow during the event. The increase in flow at the outlet
began 6 hours after the increase in flow at the inlets. The peak flow at the outlet was
approximately half that of the inlets, and occurred 2 hours later.
Water quality
Samples were collected and tested for various water quality parameters both during and after
the rainfall event. Figures 2.a., 2.b. and 2.c. display the hourly loadings of the determinands
measured at both of the inlets and the outlet.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
25000
O)
'w' 20000
TO
C
~ 15000 —
TJ
CO
10000 —
w
(/) 5000 —
1-
0 ____ ■
o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o
o
o o o
<Si
T—
o
co
T—
o
NT
T—
o
uo
T—
o
CD
o
t—
o
66
■*—
o
<j>
o
o
04
o
CM
O
CM
CM
O
CO
CM
O
O
O
O
T—
O
o
CM
O
Figure 2.a Time
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 00: 01: 02
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Time
Figure 2.b
1.2-15
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN)
o o o O o o o o O o o O o o o o o
o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o
o T- <Si CO Sr CO CD r- co CT> o X— (Si CO o cSi
T— x— V- t— V- CM CM CM CM o o o
Figure 2.c Time
■ NORTH i W E S T □ O UTLET
TSS at SWO North increased at the peak of the event, whilst at SWO West there was a
relatively high load at the start followed by a dramatic decrease. At the start o f the event there
was an increase in TSS at the outlet, and over the period of the event the load o f TSS
decreased. The load at the outlet was less than the load entering the pond from both inlets.
The initial increase at the outlet may have been because the increased flow at the inlets re
suspended solids from the pond bed. It is also possible that the TSS results were affected by
the presence of algae. During July there was a substantial quantity o f algae on the pond
surface and this has been shown to increase solids, pH and chemical oxygen demand (COD)
(Dowswell, 1998). During this event it would appear the pond did reduce the load of total
suspended solids leaving the pond.
The variation in BOD load at SWO North corresponded with the increased in flow, decreasing
at the end of the event. At SWO West there was an evident BOD first flush. The BOD load
at the outlet remained lower than the total load entering the pond and peaked at 4pm at the
same time as the flow at the outlet began to increase. There is another smaller peak at 8pm
just after another increase in rainfall. It would appear that during this event the pond did
reduce the BOD loading leaving the pond.
The variation in Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN) load at SWO North corresponded with the
increase in flow, peaking at the same times while at SWO West the load o f AmmN was
consistently low. The AmmN loading at the outlet is relatively high, increasing until 5pm as
the flow increased. For most of the time the load at the outlet exceeds the load entering the
pond, except between 2pm and 4pm. The higher outlet loading could be due to sediment re
suspension releasing stored AmmN, in addition to the effect of hydraulic short circuiting
between SWO North and the outlet. Although the load of AmmN at the outlet did decrease
during the event, it still remained higher than at the inlets. It would appear that during this
event the pond did not reduce the load of AmmN of the flow leaving the pond.
In addition to the parameters discussed above, samples were tested for the presence o f heavy
metals. Table l.a displays the pollutant loadings for particular hours. Table l.b shows
pollutant concentrations.
1.2-16
19-20 Cadmium mS Copper mg Lead mg Zinc mg Chromium mg Nickel mg
July N W O N W O N w 0 N W o N W O N W o
11:00 0.178 0.255 0.096 2.849 1.913 1.35 1.122 3.38 0.906 4.808 10.2 4.05 0.321 1.199 0.376 0.374 1.288 0.482
12:00 0.073 1.165 1.05 4.15 0.335 0.444
13:00 0.498 1.994 2.064 3.988 0.498 0.189
15:00 0.266 2.08 2.17 9.268 0.475 0.362
17:00 0.434 6.08 1.35 7.39 0.217 0.434
22:00 0.124 0.064 3.091 0.287 0.519 0.277 3.586 1.019 0.371 0.099 0.37 0.089
02:00 0.11 0.054 0.077 1.488 0.213 1.84 0.187 0.115 0.176 1.653 0.698 2.38 0.143 0.066 0.084 0.149 0.043 0.13
Key
N = SWO North W = SWOWest 0 = Outlet
Table l.a Metal Loadings
The results in Table l.a show a reduction in metals loadings between the inlets and the outlet
for all six metals. Cu, Zn and Ni are higher at the outlet at one point during the peak of the
event, but this could be due to sediment re-suspension.
When compared to the typical pollutant concentrations published in the Maryland Stormwater
Design Manual (Schueler, 1997), the pollutant concentrations shown in Table l.b are levels to
be expected in urban stormwater, except Cu and Zn. Cu at SWO North is approximately
double the Design Manual typical concentration, whilst at SWO West it is just slightly more
than the typical concentration. Zn levels at both inlets are approximately half the Design
Manual typical concentration.
19-20 Cadmium Hg/1 Copper pg/I Lead pg/1 Zinc pg/1 Chromium Mfi/1 Nickel ug/1
July N w 0 N w O N W O N W O N W O N w O
11:00 i 2 1 16 15 14 6.3 26.5 9.4 27 80 42 1.8 9.4 3.9 2.1 10.1 5
12:00 1 16 14.1 57 4.6 6.1
13:00 5 20 20.7 40 5 1.9
15:00 1 9.2 9.6 41 2.1 1.6
17:00 1 14 3.1 17 0.5 1
22:00 1 2 25 9 4.2 8.7 29 32 3 3.1 3 2.8
02:00 2 1 1 27 11.9 24 3.4 6.4 23 30 39 31 2.6 3.7 1.1 2.7 2.4 1.7
Key
N = SWO North W = SWO West 0 = Outlet
Table l.b Metal Concentrations
Sediment analysis
Sediments were sampled during July 1998 at six points in the Pond, and tested for metals
concentrations (Bowden, 1998). Metal concentrations showed considerable variability within
each structure (Heal, 1999). In comparison to the other points in the pond Zn and Cd were
most abundant at the inlets, Cu and Pb were most abundant at the outlet, and Cr and Ni were
most abundant at SWO North.
The median concentrations were compared (Heal, 1999) against the natural background
concentration for total metals found in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
1.2-17
(Swedish EPA) survey of aquatic sediments in Sweden (Swedish EPA, 1991). If the
concentration of metals reach critical levels that are toxic to plants and animals then the pond
may require to be dredged to remove the sediments. This leads to questions regarding the
most suitable disposal of the dredged sediments. It was found that the median concentrations
for Cd, Cr, Cu and Zn in the sediments were all below the background concentrations, whilst
Ni and Pb exceeded the level although only marginally. However, p e a k levels of Ni and Pb
were considerably higher than the background concentration. Peak levels of Cd and Cu are
close to the background concentration.
Stenton Pond was constructed 12 years ago. These results show that two metals may have
reached a concentration detrimental to the aquatic environment of the pond, and a further two
metals may be close to a detrimental concentration. A timescale of 25 years has been
suggested (Yousef & Yu, 1992) for removal of sediments to prevent the risk of groundwater
contamination from heavy metals. Sediment removal from Stenton Pond may have to be
sooner than 25 years to protect the aquatic habitat. Examination of the data infers that this
may have to be within the next 5 years.
Biological indication o f pollution levels
A biological sampling survey is being carried out at Stenton Pond to establish the water
quality of the pond. By identifying indicator species collected during sampling, an indication
of water quality is provided. The presence of known intolerant or sensitive organisms can be
used to infer whether the water is of sufficiently good quality to sustain normal aquatic life.
DISCUSSION
Stenton Pond appears to have been effective in attenuating and storing the increase flow
during the rainfall event on 1 9 - 2 0 July 1998. Loadings of TSS and BOD were reduced
between the inlets and the outlet during this rainfall event, however the loading of AmmN did
not appear to be reduced. Examination of other rainfall events show reductions in all three
determinands , except sometimes during small events the TSS load is not reduced, possibly
due to re-suspension of sediments from the pond bed. Water quality sonde results show that
turbidity and ammonium levels are lower at the outlet than at the inlet between rainfall events.
Also, weekly baseline sampling results show that usually the concentrations of TSS,
Ammonia and BOD are lower at the outlet than the inlets. This indicates that, whilst there
may not be an immediate improvement in water quality during a rainfall event, the pond
probably results in an improvement of water quality over a longer period of time. Dowswell
concluded (Dowswell, 1998) after his work at Stenton Pond between 1996 and 1998 that
“generally a reduction may be seen” between the inlets and the outlet, and that at times the
solids and COD results are affected by the abundant levels of algae present during summer
months. Loadings of Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, Cr and Ni were reduced between the inlets and the
outlet during this rainfall event, except at one point during the peak of the event when Cu, Zn
and Ni were higher at the outlet. Sediment analysis (Bowden, 1998 & Heal, 1999) shows that
metals are accumulating in the pond floor. After 12 years Pb and Ni have reached
concentrations worthy of concern, whilst Cd and Cu concentrations are close to being at levels
of concern. Sediment removal at Stenton Pond may be necessary within the next 5 years due
to these metals concentrations. It should be noted that Stenton Pond was designed for flood
attenuation not water quality improvement, hence the short circuiting between SWO North
and the outlet, yet still the water quality is improved.
More detailed analysis of pond performance data in Scotland is necessary before an adequate
comparison can be made with pond performance reported in other countries. However, on
comparison of pond performance with other urban drainage BMPs, Novotny and Olem (1994)
1.2-18
summarises a wet pond as having “relatively low efficiency”, and highlights the problem of
sediment accumulation. The pond examined in this paper appears to be in line with this
summary.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of the many funders of this project. These include the
Carnegie Trust, The Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, The
Scottish Water Authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the UK
Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water PLC.
REFERENCES
ASCE (1999) N ation al S torm w ater B M P D atabase. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston Virginia, USA.
Bowden N., (1998). A n In vestigation Into The P erform ance O f Three B est M an agem en t
P ra ctice System s. MSc thesis, University of Stirling.
Dowswell P., (1998). A S tu dy O f Surface W ater O utfalls In Fife. MSc thesis, University of
Abertay Dundee.
Heal K., (1999). Metals In Sediments Of Sustainable Urban Drainage Structures In Scotland.
In: Im pacts O f U rban G row th On Surface W ater a n d G ro u n dw ater Q u ality , J. B.
Ellis (ed.), IAHS Publ. no.259
Jefferies C., Aitken A., McLean N., Macdonald K. and McKissock G. (1999). Assessing The
Performance Of Urban BMPs In Scotland. In: W ater S cien ce & Technology.
Accepted for publication.
McKissock G., (1998). U rban B est M anagem ent P ractice D atabase. SEPA Technical
Report EQI 3/10, February. Scottish Environment Protection Agency/ University of
Abertay Dundee, UK.
Novotny V. and Olem H., (1994). W ater Q uality, P revention, Iden tification & M an agem en t
O f D iffuse P ollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pitt R.E., (1995). Biological Effects Of Urban Runoff Discharges. In: S to rm w a ter R u n o ff
A n d R eceivin g S ystem s - Im pact, M on itorin g an d A ssessm ent, Herricks E. E., (ed).
Lewis Publishers.
Roesner L., Urbonas B. and Sonnen M., (eds) (1988). D esign O f U rban R u n off Q u a lity
C ontrols. ASCE.
Schueler T. R., (1987). C on trollin g U rban Runoff: A P ra ctica l M an ual F o r P lan n in g A n d
D esign in g urban B est M anagem ent P ractices. Department of Environmental
Programmes, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, July.
Schueler, T., & Claytor, R., (1997). M a rylan d S torm w ater D esign M anual. Center For
Watershed Protection, Vol 1, Dec 10
Swedish EPA, (1991). Q u ality C riteria F o r L akes A n d W atercourses: A S ystem
C lassification O f W ater C h em istry A n d S edim en t A n d O rgan ism M eta l
C oncentrations. Statens Naturvardsverk.
Urbonas B., (1997). Design And Selection Guidance For Structural BMPs. In: S u stain in g
U rban W ater R esou rces In The 21st Century. Malmo Conference, September.
Yousef Y. A. and Yu L. Y., (1992). Potential Contamination Of Groundwater From Cu, Pb
and Zn In Wet Detention Ponds Receiving Highway Runoff. In: Jou rn al o f
E nvironm ental Science H ealth. A l l , 1033-1044.
1.2-19
15th European Junior Scientist Workshop May 11-14, 2000
^Decision support for urban water management’ Terschelling, the Netherlands
T h e E f f e c t i v e n e s s O f S u s t a i n a b l e U r b a n D r a in a g e
S y s t e m s I n S c o tla n d
Results of flowrate and water quality monitoring at four SUDS sites in Scotland
K irsteen M acdonald & Dr. Chris Jefferies

Urban Water Technology Centre, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell St, Dundee, D D 1 1 HG, Scotland
Tel: + 4 4 1 3 8 2 3 0 8 1 7 0 , Fax: + 4 4 1 3 8 2 3 0 8 1 1 7 , e-mail: k.macdonald@tay.ac.uk
A b s tr a c t
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are currently being promoted in Scotland. To date there
are no widely accepted performance data on SUDS in the UK, showing whether or not they are effective
in reducing the potential impacts of urban runoff. For widespread uptake of SUDS, developers,
regulators and planners require such data. The research discussed in this paper concentrates on the
performance of four SUDS systems in the East of Scotland —a retention pond, a porous paved car park
and two swales. Flowrates and water quality data have been collected from the sites. The pond and
porous paved car park appear to be effective in flow attenuation and reduction, and water quality
improvement. Data is still being collected from the two swales, to date the effectiveness is variable.
When data collection and analysis are complete a comparison will be made between the systems.
Modelling will be carried out using data from the swale sites. During the research observational
information has been collected on the performance of SUDS, indicating the importance of attention to
detail during design and construction. A key issue regarding the effectiveness of SUDS is maintenance.
The results of this research project, and the larger SUDS project of which it is a part, will help with this
issue.
K eyw ords
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), Best Management Practices (BMPs), retention pond,
porous paving, swale, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
Introduction
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are currently being promoted in Scotland by the Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Water Authorities and local councils as part of an effort
to reduce watercourse downgrading caused by both diffuse source pollution and flooding. It has been
estimated (SEPA, 1999) that urban drainage is responsible for 20% by river length, of all poor quality
watercourses in Scotland. For widespread uptake of SUDS, developers, regulators and planners need
more detailed information about their operation. This includes the effectiveness of different systems
and their suitability for specific types of development. To date there are no widely accepted
performance data on SUDS in the United Kingdom, showing whether or not they are effective in
reducing the potential impacts of urban runoff. There is a clear need for such information, coupled
with information on cost, maintenance and reliability. The research discussed in this paper
concentrates on the performance of a number of SUDS, involving data collection from four sites in
the East of Scotland. It is part of a larger programme of SUDS research also involving SEPA and the
Water Authorities. The information from this research programme has, and w ill continue, to feed
directly into a ‘Guide to Best Practice’ manual which has recently been prepared for developers,
regulators and planners in Scotland with the support of the Scottish Office. The first edition o f the
guide was published in February 2000 by C IR IA .
1
1 .2 - 2 0
KirsteenMacdonald UniversityofAbertayDundee
Dundee, U.K.
The term ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems’ (SUDS) supersedes urban drainage ‘Best Management
Practice’ (BMP) in the UK, as many developers and consultants were unhappy using the American
terminology. Either term may be found in literature, and can be taken to mean the same.
M ethodology
To establish the effectiveness of various SUDS systems in Scotland, detailed monitoring is being
carried out at four sites in the East of Scodand. Data is collected regarding flowrate and water quality.
The four sites being monitored are:
1) Stenton Pond, Glenrothes, Fife

2) N.A.T.S. porous paved car park, Edinburgh
3) Emmock Woods swale, Dundee
4) West Grange swale, Monifeith, Dundee
The pond and the porous paved car park were monitored for a year, finishing in Spring 1999.
Monitoring commenced at the two swale sites after this, and is ongoing. Additional data has been
collected at the porous paved car park during February to May 2000.
Water quantity is monitored using equipment to establish flow during and after rainfall, and a
raingauge is located at the site. Water quality is monitored in two ways. Water quality sondes are used,
with six probes to measure: temperature; pH; conductivity; dissolved oxygen; ammonium; and
turbidity. Data are logged at a specified time period (usually 10 minutes). The second method is using
automatic samplers (EPICs) that collect samples of runoff into several bottles, which are then analysed
in the laboratory for selected determinands.
O ve rv iew o f sites
A brief outline of the monitoring at each site is shown below.
Stenton Pond
The retention pond at Stenton was built in 1987 as a flood abatement facility for a new housing
development. It was realised a few years ago that the pond would also be providing water quality
improvement before discharging to the receiving watercourse.
An outline of the pond is shown in Diagram 1.
For the monitoring programme equipment was installed at the two inlets to the pond and at the outlet.
Water quantity at the outlet was established using depth readings, which w ill then be calculated into
approximate flow values using equations which are not yet complete.
15thEuropeanJuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings

2
‘Decision supportfor urban watermanagement' 1 .2 -2 1
The Effectiveness Of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems In Scotland
Results of flowrate andwaterqualitymonitoringat four SUDS sites inScotland
Diagram 1: O utline of Stenton Pond
N.A. T.S. Porous Paved Car Park

The porous paved car park at the National A ir Traffic Services (NATS) building was built in 1997 as
an overspill car park to an existing conventional tarmac car park which is located beside it Monitoring
has been carried out at both car parks to provide comparisons.
The porous paved car park has a porous pipe running under it so excess water (termed ‘exit water’ by
the manufacturers Formpave) mns into a manhole. Once the manhole is nearly full the water spills
into the nearby adverted watercourse. The rest of the water in the manhole slowly exfiltrates. The
water in this manhole was used for monitoring flowrate and water quality. Water quantity was
established by logging the depth of the water in the manhole, this is to be converted into an
approximate flow using equations which still require refinement.
The section of tarmac car park being monitored drains to a gully with a gully pot. The water then
flows into the nearby culverted watercourse. Flowrate was established using equipment in the gully,
measuring the runoff before it fell into the gully pot below. The water quality sonde was placed in the
gully pot, therefore measuring the change in water quality in the gully pot liquor. The automatic
sampler was placed in a manhole chamber where the runoff from the gully pot flows into the
watercourse, therefore establishing the quality of the water once it has been through the gully pot —not
directly as it flows off the car park.
Em mock Woods swale

Emmock Woods is a new housing development with which started in summer 1997. The swale is
located along one side of the road. Along the length of the swale are soakaway manholes. It is in one
of these manholes that the equipment is located to monitor flowrate and water quality. Runoff from a
section of swale is monitored, and the runoff from a section of road. The resultant data w ill establish
whether or not the swale is effective at reducing/attenuating flow and at improving water quality. The
site is still under development, consequendy several problems have been experienced due to excessive
sdt and sediment on the site. The resultant data w ill therefore be important in assessing the ability of
swales to protect watercourses during the construction phase. The swale here was left pardy
incomplete by the contractor and has not been maintained.. It was constructed with coarse gravel
overlying the natural soil, then loose soil placed on top of the gravel.
3
‘Decision supportfor urban watermanagement'
1 .2 - 2 2
Kirsteen Macdonald UniversityofAbertayDundee
Dundee, U.K.
W est Grange swale
West Grange is a new housing development which started in summer 1998. As with Emmock Woods,
the swale is located along one side of a road, with soakaway manholes along the length of it.
Equipment is located in one of these manholes to monitor flowrate and water quality from a section of
swale and from the road. The swales at this site have been constructed with sand overlying the natural
soil, then turfed.
Analysis
The results from each site w ill be analysed individually to establish the effectiveness of each site and
understand the process going on. It w ill then be possible to compare the three different types of
SUDS, and to compare the two different swale sites. Two software modelling packages, XP-SWMM
and R-Win, w ill then used. Data from the two swale sites will be utilised to determine how well each
software package models SUDS, to gain a further understanding of the processes involved in the
swales, and to help determine improvement in the design.
An additional part of the monitoring which has become of great value is the collection of observational
data. This is vital in understanding the processes, and in educating the planners and builders how to
design/ construct SUDS better.
R esu lts
The following is a brief summary of the results at each site so far.
Stenton Pond
The two inlets are referred to as Surface Water Outlet (SWO) West and SWO North. One of the
queries raised by the shape of the pond is that the runoff entering at SWO North may be ‘short
circuiting’ the main body of the pond and going almost direct to the outlet, and resulting in reduced
water quality improvement.
Flowrates and Volumes

To illustrate the performance of the pond, data from one event during 19-20 July 1998 is presented in
Figure 1, which shows the inflow and outflow characteristics during the rainfall event.
Rainfall Intensity & Flowrates

Stenton Pond
19th-20th July 1998
180
160
120 v>
140
100
80 5
60 o
40 Ll_
20
0
cO b o—T —- c Ts—j cT—o AT—i b—c b—G—c o —c b—o TC -NCI CNNj cJ oC OM 'CUMcONOi cOSOAOi Ob
t t t t t t t
Date
INTENSITY (m m /h ).............W e st Flow ( l/ s ) -------------North Flow ( l/ s ) ------------ O utlet (l/s)
4
15thEuropeanjuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings
‘Decision supportfor urban water management’ 1.2-23
The Effectiveness O f Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems In Scotland
Figure 1: R ainfall & flow at Stenton pond
The flow from both inlets follows exactly the same pattern, except the flow at SWO North is
proportionately greater that at SWO West. The flows correspond with the rainfall intensity. The flow
at the outlet is direcdy affected by the increase flow entering the pond.
A total of 18.2mm of rain fell during this event. The flow at both inlets peaked at the same time as the
rainfall intensity peaks. During the time shown on the graph the volume entering the pond was
5200m3, peaking at 2931/s. The volume exiting the pond was approximately 3500m3, peaking at
1401/s. It is clear that the pondattenuated the flow during the event.
Water Quality
For this event, samples from the automatic sampler were analysed for total suspended solids (TSS),
biological oxygen demand (BOD) and ammoniacal nitrogen (AmmN), along with six metals: cadmium
(Cd); copper (Cu); lead (Pb); zinc (Zn); chromium (Cr); and nickel (Ni). The results showed that
during this event TSS and BOD loads leaving the pond were reduced, but not AmmN. The loadings
of all six metals were reduced at the outlet. When compared to typical pollutant concentrations
published in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (Schueler, 1997), the pollutant concentrations
entering the pond are of a level to be expected in urban stormwater, except Cu which is higher and Zn
which is lower.
Sediment samples taken from six points in the pond during July 1998 were tested for metals
concentrations (Bowden, 1998). The median concentrations were compared (Heal, 1999) against the
natural background concentration for total metals found in the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency survey of aquatic sediments in Sweden (Swedish EPA, 1991). It was found that N i and Pb
may have reached a concentration detrimental to the aquatic environment of the pond, whilst Cu and
Cd may be close to a detrimental concentration. A timescale of 25 years has been suggested (Yousef &
Yu, 1992) for removal of sediments, however examination of the data at Stenton Pond infers that this
may have to be within the next few years.
Summary
The pond is effective at attenuating flow and appears to improve water quality, despite being designed
for only flood attenuation. The water quality improvement is not immediately apparent during a
rainfall event, however examination of some other rainfall events, water quality sonde data and the
results of weekly baseline sampling at the pond indicates that improvement does appear to occur over
a longer period of time (Macdonald, 1999). The pond may require dredging in the next few years due
to accumulation of heavy metals, and possibly other pollutants, on the pond floor.
N .A .T.S . Porous Paved C ar P ark

Rainfall and flow at both car parks for one event are shown in Figure 2, to illustrate the characteristics
of the car parks.
The equations used to calculate the flow from the porous car park require further refinement, however
it is clear from this event the porous car park does attenuate and reduce flow. Other events confirm
this. For this event, the porous car park produced 92% less runoff than the tarmac car park.
5
15,bEuropeanJuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings
‘Decision supportfor urban watermanagement'
1.2-24
Kirstecn Macdonald UniversityofAbertayDundee
Dundee, U.K.
Rainfall Intensity with Tarmac Runoff Rate &
Porous Exit Water Flow Rate
11th -12th May 1998
Total Rainfall = 8.8m m
Total runoff from Tarmac car park =4.8m m
Total runoff from Porous car park = 0.4m m 1 8.6mm of rain fell
I before runoff recorded
0.4m m of rain fell before runoff
S I 1 at porous car park
c£ recorded at tarmac car park
co o
CD
iool l 00..... !!■ \
un o 05 o
5 oi LOO o
O
05 o
LO o
^ CNJ
o
c\i
Date
Figure 2: Rainfall and flow at NATS porous paved and tarmac car parks
Water Quality
Results from one set of samples taken with automatic samplers shows: hdyrocarbons and Cd are lower
in the porous exit water; Pb, Cu, N i and Zn are fairly equal at both car parks; and Cr levels are higher
at the porous car park. Results from the sondes show that for several events: temperature at the
porous car park is more constant; pH is more alkaline; conductivity is considerably higher; turbidity is
lower; and ammonium is higher (most likely due to higher pH which affects ammonium readings).
Summary
The porous paving does seem to attenuate and reduce surface runoff, and water quality is improved.
Conductivity requires further examination. The analysis of further results w ill confirm the findings to
date.
Emmock Woods Swale

Rainfall intensity and runoff rates for one event are displayed in Figure 3.
There is no swale runoff for a couple of hours after the main period of rainfall commences. The swale
runoff rate then increases as the soil becomes more saturated, then by the end of the event the swale
mnoff rate is almost equal to the road runoff rate. The swale reduces runoff by almost 50% for this
event.
15thYiuropeanjuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings

6
‘Decision supportfor urban water management’ 1.2-25
The Effectiveness Of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems In Scotland
Results of flowrate andwater qualitymonitoring at four SUDS sites in Scotland
Rainfall Intensity & Runoff Rates
Emmock Woods
27th -28th February 1999
o5?
C To >® co x ®> ao >® c oD 5c no c Do aa>> oc 705 >o a 05> oc 05D Co D05 ao >05
9 Cvi 9? ^ T? <N 9? CN 0 CM ° CN
<Si o 5 oo 5 T~ 5 o 9? co 9 id 9 6 i 9 c\i 9? 60 ° 66 ° o
^ h~- r— '* i— cvi o co o oo o oo o co ^ oo ^ co ^ ro cm co
C N C N J C N J C M C M C M C N C N I C N C M C N C N J
Date
■ Intensity (m m /h) ■ Road Runoff Rate (m m /h) Sw ale Runoff Rate (m m /h)
Figure 3: R ainfall and flow at Em m ock Woods swale
Water Quality
Suitable water quality data are yet to be collected.
Summary
The swale attenuates and reduces surface runoff. Initial analysis of other rainfall events shows that
whilst road runoff occurs almost immediately after any rainfall commences, a minimum intensity of
more than 3mm/h and reasonable duration is required to initiate runoff from the swale. There has
very rarely been mnoff from the swale in the last six months, even when the inlets to the swale are
cleared of construction sediment. During this time though the shape of the swale has changed as it has
become filled with a lot of silt, which has changed its shape in such a way that more ponding occurs in
the swale. This seems to have made the swale more effective in terms of runoff reduction.
Observation of this site over time, and continued data collection w ill show the changes in the swale
due to the construction site runoff.
West Grange Swale
Rainfall intensity and runoff rates for one event are displayed in Figure 4.
In this event there is only marginally less swale runoff than road runoff, approximately 22% less. The
road runoff is fairly constant throughout the event, whilst the swale appears to produce short intense
periods of mnoff, when there is substantial rainfall. This may be because the m noff exceeds the
infiltration rate of the soil, or the infiltration capacity has been reached.
7
15thEuropeanjuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings
‘Decision supportfor urban watermanagement’ 1.2-26
Kirsteen Macdonald UniversityofAbertayDundee
Dundee, U.K.
Rainfall Intensity & Runoff Rates
West Grange
28th November 1999
1.4mm of rain fell

before runoff Total Rainfall = 10.4mm
recorded from sw ale Total Road runoff = 4.84mm
Total Sw ale runoff = 3.79mm
0.2mm of rain fell
before runoff
recorded from road
05 05 05 05 05
IMIUHIF0
05 05
o 05 O 05 O 05 O 05 O 05 O 05 O 05
o O O O O O O
cb CM l b T— CO x— A G
CM G O CO O CO O CO CO CO x— 00
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
Date
■ Rainfall Intensity (m m /h) ■ Road Runoff Rate (m m /h) Swale Runoff R a te (m m /h)
Figure 4: Rainfall and flow at West Grange swale
Water Quality
From the small amount of data collected so far for the water quality sondes, it would, appear that there
is very litde difference in temperature, pH, conductivity or dissolved oxygen between swale or road
runoff. It w ill be necessary to collect and analyse many events to confirm this, and other determinands
are yet to be analysed.
Summary
It would appear the swale is attenuating flow at the start of the event, but may be increasing peak
runoff intensity and may not be reducing the total amount of runoff. After examining several events, it
would appear the swale does not produce runoff until the rainfall reaches an intensity of 3mm/h,
suggesting the infiltration rate of the soil may be the reason. Regarding water quality, the swale
appears to be doing very little to improve it. Results from other events may change this current
conclusion.
D iscussion
Comparison of the SUDS systems monitored
It is very difficult at present to carry out a comparison of the different SUDS that have been
monitored, primarily because data collection is incomplete and the analysis is as yet only preliminary.
Stenton Pond appears to be effective despite being designed for only flood attenuation. The porous
car park appears to be effective. The swale at Emmock Woods appears to be effective in terms of
flow attenuation and reduction, but as yet we do not know about water quality improvements. The
swale at West Grange appears to be moderately effective in terms of flow attenuation, but not in terms
of water quality.
When data collection and analysis are complete, it w ill be possible to compare the runoff rates and
water quality determinands for similar sized rainfall events at each of the SUDS. However, it w ill be a
/5thEuropeanjuniorScientist Workshop, Proceedings 8

‘Decision supportfor urban water management' 1.2-27
The Effectiveness O f Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems In Scotland
tentative comparison due to the many varying contributing factors, for example: the use of the
contributing catchment area may be different; the natural soils and drainage in the areas may be
different; the maintenance of that particular SUDS may be different. If the comparison shows one
system to be more effective than another for a particular rainfall event, it w ill not be mean that it is a
‘better’ system. The results of the comparison w ill initiate research to discover if it is the system itself
that is more effective, or if it is due to the other factors around it
C om parison o f tw o sw ales
The two swales being monitored are both in the Dundee area, which reduces the number of variables.
The swale at Emmock Woods has gravel on top o f the natural soil, then some soil placed on top with
grass seeds grown. The swale at West Grange has sand on top of the natural soil, then some turf.
Both are of approximately the same dimensions, with soakaway manholes punctuating the length of
the swale and drainage inlets in the kerb for the runoff to enter the swale. Emmock Woods swale was
not completed and has never been as aesthetically pleasing as the West Grange swale. From the data
analysed to date however, it would appear that the gravel filled swale at Emmock is more effective in
flow attenuation and reduction. There is no suitable data for comparison o f water quality
improvements yet. The two swales receive similar rainfall, and are in similar new housing estates.
Emmock does have the problem of excessive construction sediment, but even when the drainage inlets
to the swale are completely clear, there is still rarely any runoff at all —unlike the West Grange swale
which often produces runoff. The base of the swale at Emmock is a very uneven shape now due to
sediment deposits and being churned up a little from heavy vehicles driving over it occasionally. It is
possible that this uneven shape is holding back the runoff in the swale, ponding it so it gets a better
chance to infiltrate over time. The sub-base may also be a contributing factor. Further research at the
West Grange swale w ill include creating a berm in the swale to hold back some runoff and discover if
this helps attenuate and reduce runoff.
O b servatio n al in fo rm a tio n
One of the important outcomes of this monitoring programme has been the observational information
that has been gathered, mostly to do with swale design/ construction. To ensure the swales function
effectively, they must be designed and constructed with an understanding of how the system works. A
small raise, even of millimetres, in the road surface around the entry to the swale w ill prevent most of
the intended runoff getting in. In swales with a flush kerb, if the soil or grass is too high the intended
runoff w ill not enter. In swales with a drainage inlet, the pipe from the inlet to the swale (only
approximately 20cm long) must slope downward to allow water to flow in, otherwise the runoff ponds
at the start of the pipe. A key issue in the effectiveness of any SUDS is maintenance.
Maintenance
A ll SUDS require some degree of maintenance. Depending on the SUDS this maintenance may
include: mowing; unclogging inlets; unclogging outlets; road sweeping; and jetting (porous paving).
The SUDS can not be left unattended for an extended period of time, without at least occasional
maintenance for general upkeep. The question remains as to how often, exactly what, and who w ill
carry it out. In the Scotland there is an agreement (CERIA, 2000) that the Local Authority (Roads
department) is responsible for maintenance of above-ground structures (e.g. swales and ponds) and the
Water Authority is responsible for below-ground structures (e.g. soakaways, filter drains) and for
discharge into watercourses. A system w ill not be adopted by the relevant authority for maintenance
until at least one year after it is constructed, and it must meet with the standards requested. Exactly
how to maintain, and how often remains subjective as yet. The outcome of this monitoring
programme, and of the larger SUDS project w ill help to guide the authorities in suitable maintenance.
Cost is an issue which w ill always play a role in the maintenance practices.
9
‘Decision supportfor urban watermanagement' 1.2-28
KirsteenMacdonald UniversityofAbertayDundee
Dundee, U.K.
C onclusions
T h is m o n ito rin g p ro g ra m m e h as c o n c e n tra te d o n fo u r S U D S sites. R e su lts fo r th e re te n tio n p o n d a n d
p o ro u s p a v e d car p a rk a p p e a r to sh o w th e se tw o S U D S are effectiv e in flo w a tte n u a tio n a n d re d u c tio n ,
a n d in w a te r q uality im p ro v e m e n t. F u rth e r analysis o f th e co llected d ata is n ecessary h o w ev er. D a ta
co lle ctio n is still o n g o in g fo r th e tw o sw ale sites, to d a te th e resu lts s h o w th a t th e su b -b a se a n d th e
g ra d ie n t o f th e sw ale m ay b e o f m a jo r im p o rta n c e as to w h e th e r th e sw ale w ill b e e ffe ctiv e o r n o t.
W h e n th e d a ta fo r all fo u r S U D S sites h as b e e n co llected a n d m o n ito re d , it w ill b e p o ssib le to c o m p a re
h o w effectiv e each ty p e o f S U D S is fo r v a rio u s rain fall c o n d itio n s. T h is c o m p a ris o n w ill th e n le a d o n
to ex am in e w h e th e r is it th e sy stem o r th e su rro u n d in g s th a t m ak e it a p p e a r m o re effectiv e.
M o d ellin g w ill b e carried o u t o n th e sw ale d ata, u sin g tw o d iffe re n t so ftw a re pack ag es: X P -S W M M a n d
R -W in . T h is w ill h elp d e te rm in e h o w w ell each so ftw are p ack ag e m o d e ls S U D S , g ain a fu rth e r
u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p ro c e sse s in v o lv ed in th e sw ales, a n d h elp d e te rm in e im p ro v e m e n ts in th e design.
I t m a y h elp estab lish w h e th e r th e su b -b a se o r g ra d ie n t is as v ital as it w o u ld c u rre n tly ap p ear.
D u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e research , it h as b e e n o b se rv e d th a t th e clo se a tte n tio n m u s t b e p a id d u rin g

b o th d esig n and c o n stru c tio n . I t is ev id e n t th a t u n less b o th d esig n er a n d c o n tr u c to r u n d e rs ta n d h o w
th e sy stem is s u p p o se d to w o rk th e n sm all, b u t vital, erro rs m ay b e m a d e e.g. ro a d su rface a ro u n d
sw ale in le t m arginally to o h ig h to le t w a te r flo w in to sw ale.
A key issu e reg ard in g th e o n g o in g effectiv en ess o f any S U D S is m a in te n a n c e . T h is issu e h as b e e n

re so lv e d to so m e d eg ree in th e U K w ith a n a g re e m e n t b etw een th e L o c a l A u th o rity a n d th e W a te r
A u th o rity . T h e re are n o w ell ack n o w led g ed guidelines as y et to in fo rm th e re le v a n t a u th o rity as to
w h a t m a in te n a n c e sh o u ld b e c a rrie d o u t a n d h o w o fte n . T h e resu lts o f th is re se a rc h p ro g ra m m e a n d
th e larg er S U D S p ro je c t w ill h elp w ith th is issue.
R eferen ces
Bowden, N., 1998. I An Investigation Into The Performance o f Three Best Management Practice Systems. M S c thesis,
U niversity o f Stirling.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), 2000. Sustainable U rban Drainage System s — design m anual
fo r Scotland and N orthern Ireland. Report No. 521
Heal, K., 1999. Metals In Sediments O f Sustainable Drainage Structures In Scotland. In: Im pacts O f U rban G rowth O n Surface
W ater and G roundwaterQ uality, J.B. Ellis (ed), IAHS Publ. No. 259
Macdonald, K., Jefferies, C. & Dring, D., 1999. A n A ssessm ent o f The E fficieny O f A Storm w ater R u n o ff Pond In The Scottish
Clim ate. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, Aug/Sep 1999.
Schueler, T. & Claytor, R , 1997. M aryland Storm water Design M anual. Center For Watershed Protection, Vol 1, Dec 10
SEPA, 1999. Improving Scotland's W ater Environm ent, SEPA State of the Environment Report.
Swedish EPA, 1991. Q uality C riteria F or T a kes A n d Watercourses: A System Classification O f W ater Chem istry A n d Sedim ent A n d
Organism M etal Concentration. Statens Naturvardsverk.
Yousef, Y.A. & Yu, L.Y., 1992. Potential Contamination O f Groundwater From Cu, Pb, and Zn in Wet Detention Ponds
Receiving Highway Runoff. In: Journal ofEnvrionm entalScience H ealth. A l l , 1033 —1044.

10
Decision supportfor urban watermanagement' 1.2-29
ROADSIDE SWALES FOR SOURCE CONTROL
K. Macdonald*, C. Jefferies* & F.Guz**
*Urban Water Technology Centre, University of Abertay Dundee, DD1 1HG, United
Kingdom.
** Dundee City Council, Tayside House, Dundee
I Abstract
This paper reports on one of the principal outcomes of a policy of the introduction of
source control systems in eastern Scotland, particularly in Dundee. The response of
developers to this policy change is described, together with their reaction to issues of
ownership, maintenance and detailing. The source control systems which have been
developed are described, in particular the roadside swales which are being installed by
many developers. Early results from a monitoring programme are reported, together with
some preliminaiy design recommendations.
2 Introduction
Several areas on the East coast of Scotland have adopted a vigorous policy of
implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). This has been in
response to a strategy to promote the concept of Sustainable Urban Drainage developed
by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA 1998). Arrangements for the
drainage of both housing and commercial/ industrial areas which are radically different
from traditional systems are now being installed. Traditional twin pipe foul and surface
water drainage systems have been replaced by systems which now incorporate local
source control elements for both roof and road runoff
Roadside Swales 1 Macdonald, Jefferies & Guz
1.2-30
A number of concepts have been fundamental to this strategy;
> surface water quality degradation should be prevented in spite of urban
developments;
> visible watercourses within communities should be encouraged,
> any pollution should be readily identifiable by retaining surface water above ground
wherever possible, and
> an element of flood control should be provided through attenuation of flows at
source.
A number of different source control systems have been developed, in particular several
variations of roadside swales. Problems which have been resolved include the
development of appropriate details, issues of adoption and maintenance, and the sales of
houses by the developers. Preliminary results from a performance monitoring
programme are presented, together with some design tips developed from this
monitoring programme.
3 Local Factors Influencing the Selection of SUDS Systems

A number of different SUDS systems have been implemented in the Dundee area which
has variable soils, underlying geology and water table. In general, soil and rock
permeabilities are low and extensive use of infiltration systems is not possible although
permeabilities are sufficiently high in some areas to make this possible. The local trunk
sewers had reached capacity and also, much of the development land available to the
city council was within a flood prone catchment. Consequently, SUDS systems which
incorporate surface storage were identified as being the most appropriate locally, with
either local swales or ponds predominating. The most noticeable type of SUDS system
to be implemented in Dundee have been local swales sited alongside access roads in
new industrial and housing areas and these are becoming a common feature of the local
townscape. Figures 1 & 2 illustrate the concept of the roadside swale as applied in
urban applications in Eastern Scotland.

Figure 1 Layout of swales acting as a source control and conveyancing system
(Courtesy of Muir Homes Ltd)
Figure 2 Schematic of swales acting as a source control at head of a storm sewer

1.2-32
4 Swales in an international context
Swales are gaining in popularity in Scotland and are virtually unknown in England &
Wales. Until the Forth River Purification Board proposed their use in 1995 (FRPB,
1995), there was very little information on their application in the UK. Immediately
following their introduction, many swales were in effect ‘added on’ to drainage systems
as afterthoughts, perhaps due to the transitional phase when source controls were
required by SEPA but the concept of the development had already been set (Jefferies,
1998). Their design and use is now an integrated part of the drainage design process,
and they are being actively flaunted at several sites. Available information has now
increased (SEPA, 1998 CIRIA, 2000 a&b ; Jefferies, 2000;), yet there is no reliable data
on the performance of swales installed in Scotland.
Swales of varying designs have been installed in most countries where SUDS are used.
They are very commonly used in the US (Buchan, 1994), and design guides have been
available there for several years (Petersen et al, 1993). Performance data are available
from the US, but results are highly variable depending on the location and the design
used. Table Al displays a range of pollutant removal efficiencies for various
determinands in three States, and the average given in the National Pollutant Removal
Database.
Table 1: Range of Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for Swales in US
Total TSSTotal Cu Pb Zn Hydro
nitrog phos. carbons
Washington1 67- 83% 4.5-29% 41-70% 60-80% 0-73%
Florida2 27-99% 81-99% 18-99% 56-89% 50-99% 69-99%
Maryland3 37% 31% 14% 33-55% 9%
Nat. Poll. Rem. 38% 14% 32% 35% 28% 62%
Database4
1 (A SCE, 1999; C laytor & Schueler, 1996) 2 (C laytor & Schueler, 1996)
3 (C laytor & Schueler, 1996) 4 (B row n & Schueler, 1997)
Schueler (1987) notes that field monitoring has provided mixed results and cites three
examples. Kercher et al (1983) and Yousef et al (1985) report moderate to high removal
1.2-33
of particulate pollutants in low gradient, densely vegetated swales in Florida. Oakland
(1983) found low to moderate removal of particulate pollutants and negligible removal
of soluble pollutants in low gradient swales underlain by relatively impermeable soils in
New Hampshire. The Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC, 1983)
found no statistically significant difference in runoff quality observed at three residential
high gradient (2-5%) swales in Washington D.C. when compared to curb and gutter and
similar results have been observed in Dundee. Schueler (1987) comments that the
mediocre performance may be due to soil compaction, high slopes and short grass
height. Braune & Wood (1998) compiled a matrix giving the effectiveness of various
BMPs in South Africa, taking into account several considerations including water
quality, quantity, applicability, design robustness etc. Three categories of BMPs were
proposed, and swales came out in the bottom category as only ‘moderately effective’,
with porous pavements judged as being ‘effective’ and detention ponds ‘very effective’.
Performance data regarding flow attenuation and reduction are also limited. Anderson
(1982, cited in Claytor & Schueler, 1996) and Yu et al (1992, cited in Claytor &
Schueler, 1996) both observed that swales seldom produced measurable runoff during
storms, although adjacent curb and gutter systems did.
The performance data which are available are primarily from the US, and are highly
variable. It would appear that gradient, soil type, grass coverage and grass type are
amongst the factors which most influence the performance. Whilst soil type and climate
in Scotland is different to the US, the clay soils and terrain of Maryland are much like
that of lowland Scotland (Campbell, 1997). Consequently, it is contended that it is valid
to compare results from this research with the performance data available for swales in
Maryland.
5 Roadside Swales in Urban Applications
5.1 The application of Swales in Developments

Roadside swales represent a radical paradigm shift in the philosophy of drainage
planning because they encourage above-ground storage close to the point of runoff (the
road). The runoff must be visible while at the same time being in a constructed system.
1.2-34
This philosophy requires the resolution of issues such as the safety aspects of
deliberately encouraging water close to the road, ownership and responsibility for
maintenance and the development of construction details which prevent car parking on
the swale. The swales may also be on either public or private property.
Roadside swale systems are capable of completely replacing traditional storm sewers
draining both highways and properties, but currently many systems take only road
drainage. The hydrological benefits of local storage attenuating runoff at source are
clear and the prevention of water quality degradation is also assisted by the combined
effects of flow attenuation, partial treatment and the ability to see pollution (such as
might arise from wrong connections) at source.
The swale is constructed to one side of the carriageway, normally at the lower edge, and
in general only one pavement is provided. Typical details are given in figure 3. The
swale may be grass seeded or alternatively turfed, thus creating a pleasant appearance
for the development. Laying turf has the added advantage of rapidly producing a
surface which is erosion resistant. The feeling of open space which results is a benefit
which developers are now able to use as a marketing tool. A number of types of inflow
arrangements have been used, while the most common type of outflow is via a chamber
constructed from manhole rings which has a raised grating cover. Considerable
redundancy is built into a system of this nature, and use is made of such infiltration as is
possible.
Figure 3 House to swale connection (Courtesy of Muir Homes Ltd)

1.2-35
5.2 Swale Inlet Details
The inlet to the swale requires details which have not normally been used before in
urban areas in the UK and a variety of different inlet arrangements are possible. Good
detailing is most needed at inlets, otherwise long term operational difficulties are likely
to occur. The inlet options are:
1. Sheet flow from the road surface - only advised on highways where there is little or
no parking possible, and there is a wide carriageway margin.
2. Depressed kerb sections which must be short enough to discourage access by vehicles
onto the swale. Drop kerb inlets have been successfully developed but frequently the
turf level is too high and inflow to the swale is impeded. Other cases have been noted
where slight rises of the road surface have prevented any flow from entering the swale,
3. Horizontal pipe inlets which appear from a distance to be like gullies, but the outlet
is to the side into the swale. These ‘Clearway™’ inlets have a ribbed gutter detail
and a near horizontal pipe through the kerb into the swale. A slight run on this pipe
is required with the surface of the swale some 75mm below kerb level to ensure free
flow. Occasional blockages of the Clearway inlets occur and they need to be
cleaned at least approximately once per month by hand, or suction cleaner.
4. Through standard gullies without traps - possible where sufficient elevation is
possible.
5.3 Swale Outlet Details

The outlet arrangement will depend on whether the swale is to be considered only as a
source control device, with outlet to a storm sewer, or as part of an integrated
conveyance system.
1. Where the swale is part of a conveyance system, no storm sewer is required. Special
detailing is required to cross driveways and roads. Drive crossings need not be
constructed to carry heavy wheel loads and can be small diameter pipes or ducts in
class A bedding. To cross roads at shallow depths requires either special pipe
sections or ‘Beany’ type drains. Alternatively, the surface water may cross over the

road surface at specially designed road depressions with roughened surfacing for
safety during freezing weather.
2. Swales draining to a storm sewer normally have a
raised outlet utilising a grating cover. The elevation
of this cover (normally 2 0 0 mm above invert) is such
that a depth (and storage volume) of water is created
in the swale before outflow commences. The outlet
from the chamber is at a high level - see figure 4 -
and this in turn creates further storage in the system,
thus attenuating flows before final spill (if any) to
the watercourse via the storm sewer.
6 Preliminary Results from monitoring roadside swales
Two roadside swales in Dundee were monitored for a period of 12 months in 1999-2000.
The swales (at Emmock Woods and West Grange) both act as source control swales at the
head of storm sewer systems and have outlet details of type 2 in section 5.3. During the
monitoring period, a total of 61 events greater than 2mm were monitored of which only 36
produced runoff from the swale, demonstrating the value of the roadside swale for source
control. Preliminary results from the monitoring are presented in figures 4 and 5.
E m m ock W ood s 27th -28th February 1999
S5 T o tal R ain fall = 1 6 .6 m m

E
■ CS .G 4
T o tal R o a d R u n o ff = 7 .1 m m
T o tal S w a le R u n o ff = 3 .3 m m
E,
3
0.8m m rain fell 4m m rain fell 2
e
42
b e fo r e ru n o ff b e fo r e ru n o ff tt=
o£
2 D3C
re c o rd e d fr o m re c o rd e d fro m
ro ad s w a le
IIIIHIIIIilllliMlIlllllllllillllll
0<Si ^ 0__ 0cSl5
__ 0 5
g CD O O)
05
05 8_ cr>
03
o§ oo
§
CM CM CM
CN CM CN CM " S3
Date
■ Intensity (mm/h) ■ Road Runoff Rate (mm/h) Swale Runoff Rate (mm/h)
Figure 5 Sample rainfall - runoff results from Emmock Woods Swale
1.2-37
Figure 6 Road and swale runoff from 8 events
Figure 4 shows typical data from monitoring at Emmock Woods while figure 5
demonstrates the impact of the roadside storage, surface runoff being less than 20% after
initial losses compared to more than 50% from the road. The initial runoff losses from the
swale are around 2mm, while from the road losses are less than 1mm. It is clear from these
data that the principal function of systems of this type is hydrological from which water
quality improvement stems automatically. The amount of water quality data gathered was
extremely limited, however, information from one event is included in table 2. The data
cannot be considered to be representative, although there is clearly excellent removal of
suspended solids - primarily derived from building activities.
Road Swale
pH 7.6 7.41
C o n d u ctiv ity (pS /cm ) 292 167
T S S (mg/1) 1057 299
A m m onium (mg/1) 1.11 1.21
O rth o -p h o s (mg/1) 0.28 0
B O D (mg/1) 2.4 2.4
Table 2 Manual sample results - Emmock Woods, 23rd March 2000 at 22:45

7 Review of swale applications
The principal change associated with the implementation of SUDS systems in Scotland has
been the adoption of an holistic approach to drainage planning, with a focus towards local
water management and control of pollution. This approach has required joint action by
several groups of individuals or organisations including; Local Authorities, representing
both Parks Departments and Highways Authorities; by Water Authorities; by Developers;
and by the Regulator, SEPA. Many problems which have been resolved were acute at the
time of policy development, but were in practice found to be relatively soluble. Problems
included issues of safety, ownership, allocation of green space and maintenance
responsibility. Resolution of the problems has only been possible due to the partnership
approach which has been adopted in Scotland.
8 Acknowledgements
The support of the Carnegie Trust with a studentship is also acknowledged. The City of
Dundee Council provided access to the swale systems reported here and valuable support
and assistance in carrying out the work.
9 References
CIRIA (2000a) S U D S D esign M anual f o r S co tla n d & N orth ern Ireland. Construction
Industry Research and Information Association. 6 Storey’s Gate London
CIRIA (2000b) S U D S D esign M anual f o r E n glan d & W ales. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association. 6 Storey’s Gate London
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (1999). N a tion al S to rm w a ter B est
M anagem ent P ra ctice D a ta base. US Environmental Protection Agency. June.
Anderson, (1982). E valu ation o f Sw ale D esign. Masters thesis. Dept, of Environmental
Engineering, University of Central Florida. Orlando.
Braune, M.J. & Wood, A., (1998). Best Management Practices Applied To Urban Runoff
Quantity and Quality Control. In: P roc. T h ird Int. Conf. on D iffuse P ollu tion .
International Association on Water Quality (LAWQ) hosted by SEPA. 31st Aug - 4th Sep.
Brown, W. & Schueler, T., (1997). N ation al P ollu ta n t R em oval P erform an ce D a ta b a se f o r
Storm w ater B M Ps - a N ation al Exam ination o f P ollu ta n t R em oval C apability. Center for
Watershed Protection. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Contsortium Inc. Aug.

1.2-39
Buchan, N., (1994). Source Control Techniques for the Disposal of Stormwater. In: P roc.
Standing Conf. on S torm w ater Source C on trol Q u antity a n d Q uality. Vol 10. 9th Dec.
Campbell, N.S., (1997). B a sic G uidance on the E valu ation o f Surface W ater B est
M anagem ent P ra ctices to C on trol an d T reat U rban R u n off Presented at the Scottish
Hydraulics Study Group Seminar.
Claytor, R.A. & Schueler, T.R., (1996). D esign o f S to rm w a ter F ilterin g System s. The
Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium Inc. and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. Dec.
Forth River Purification Board (FRPB), (1995). A G uide To Surface W ater B est
M anagem ent P ractices. July. FRPB, Edinburgh.
Jefferies, C., (1998). P relim in ary R ep ort on S w ales in S cotland. Prepared for steering
group for Sustainable Urban Drainage Scotland Working Party. Sep.
Jefferies, C. (ed), (2000). S U D S M on itorin g W orkshop 2 6 January 2 0 0 0 - P apers. Papers
presented at Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Monitoring Group workshop, Edinburgh
University. Available from University of Abertay Dundee.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC), (1983). F in al C o n tra ct R ep o rt
fo r the W ashington m etropolitan A rea U rban R u n off D em onstration P roject. Prepared for
the Washington metropolitan Council of Governments.
Oakland, P.H., (1983). An Evaluation of Stormwater Pollutant Removal Through Grassed
Swale Treatment. In: P roc. Int. Symp. O f U rban H ydrology, H ydrau lics a n d S edim en t
C ontrol. Stirling, H.J. (ed.). Lexington, KY.
Petersen, C.R., Faarbaek, T., Jensen, G.H., Weyer, G., Fujita, S., Ishikawa, K., Geldof, G.,
Stenmark, C. & Pratt, C.J., (1993). Urban Stormwater Infiltration Design Practice and
Technology: State of the Art Assessment. In: P roc. Sixth Int. Conf. on U rban Storm
D rainage. Marsalek, J. & Tomo, H.C. (eds). Ontario, Canada, 12-17 Sep.
Schueler, T.R., (1987). C ontrollin g U rban Runoff: A P ra ctica l M anual f o r P la n n in g a n d
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
D esign in g U rban B M Ps.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (1998). Sustainable U rban D ra in a g e —
An Introduction.
Yousef, Y., Wanelista, M. & Harper, H., (1985). B est M anagem ent P ractices: R em ova l o f
H ighw ay C ontam inants b y R oadside Sw ales. Prepared for Florida Department of Highway
Transportation. Tallahassee, FL.
Yu, S., Kasnick, M & Byrne, M., (1992). A Level Spreader/Vegetative Buffer Strip
System for Urban Stormwater Management. In: In teg ra ted Storm W ater M an agem en t.
pp.93-104. Field, R. (ed.). Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton. FL.

1.2-40
Performance Comparison of Porous Paved
and Traditional Car Parks
K Macdonald and C Jefferies
Urban Water Technology Centre, School of Science and Engineering, University of Abertay
Dundee, Bell St, Dundee DD1 1HG, UK
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a monitoring project carried out on a porous paved car park using a porous
block system by Formpave Ltd. Outflow from the porous car park was compared to runoff from a
neighbouring tarmac car park. This research is the first to provide performance results for a porous
block system and direct comparison between porous paved and tarmac car parks in situ. Results
from both the hydraulic and the water quality monitoring during more than 150 rainfall events
show the porous car park performed very favourably. Lag time, peak flow reduction, initial runoff
loss and percentage outflow have been calculated. Benefit Factor is introduced here as a
volumetric measure used to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained by installing porous paving.
Water quality results show an overall improvement in the quality of outflow from the porous paved
car park compared to the tarmac, although not for all determinands.
KEYWORDS
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), porous paving, hydrology, water quality
1. INTRODUCTION
Urban growth increases the percentage of total ground surface that is impermeable, impeding the
ability of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground and resulting in higher levels of runoff which entrain
pollutants from the impermeable surfaces. Traditionally urban runoff has been intercepted and
discharged to sewer systems and watercourses. The higher rate of runoff increase the demand on
this system resulting in more frequent discharges to receiving watercourses and less effective
treatment at treatment plants. The overall effect has been reduced quality of watercourses. It has
been estimated (SEPA, 1999) that urban drainage is responsible for 20%, by river length, of all
poor quality watercourses in Scotland. Current thinking on climate change also expects to see an
annual precipitation increase in Scotland of 7% by 2020, with a more intense hydrological cycle
and hence a greater risk of flooding. Pervious car parks (either porous or permeable) are one form
of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) which can reduce the problem at source by
attenuating runoff and permitting some to evaporate and infiltrate.
This study reports on a monitoring project carried out on a porous paved car park with a porous
block system from Formpave Ltd. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of the porous block
system in attenuation and water quality improvement. A large body of literature exists covering
the performance of other pervious systems abroad including porous asphalt and permeable grass
concrete (for example: Schueler, 1987; Larson, 1990; Fujita, 1996 & Legret et al, 1998), and in the
UK research has been undertaken at Nottingham Trent University and Coventry University
concentrating on variable flow and water quality results from different sub-base stone types and
also on the bio-degradation of hydrocarbons within permeable paving (Pratt et al, 1995, 1998;
Newman et al, 1998 & Bond et al, 1999). However, this research is the first to provide
performance results of a porous block system and direct comparison between porous paved and
tarmac car parks in situ.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site studied was the porous paved car park at the National Air Traffic Services (NATS)
building in Edinburgh. It was built in 1996 as an extension adjacent to the existing tarmac car
park. This was the first site in Scotland to use the porous paving concept. Pervious paving was
1.2-41
chosen in order to prevent surface ponding and potential problems in the culverted receiving
watercourse. Patented porous blocks from Formpave Ltd. were used.
Figure 1 displays the construction of the porous pavement. The structure is laid on the existing soil
which trial pits showed to be light sandy clay in some parts and dark brown clay in others. The
350mm deep sub-base consists of ‘DOT type B table 5’ material which is a variety of ungraded,
unsorted dense compacted stones with sand and dust particles. There is no intermembrane between
the sub-base and soil, to permit infiltration into the soil. Due to the soil type, most of the stored
rainfall will evaporate. Above the sub-base is a 50mm layer of 6mm diameter clean stone on top of
which is the 80mm layer of Formpave porous brick. Between the sub-base and the clean stone is a
Geotextile layer. A 110mm perforated pipe has been laid in the sub-base so that when the ground
is saturated, any excess water (termed ‘exit water’ by Formpave) will go into the pipe and into a
manhole at one comer of the car park. When this manhole chamber is full it overspills into the
Stank Bum nearby. The remaining water in the chamber evaporates and exfiltrates into the
surrounding area over a period of approximately 24 hours. As indicated on Figure 1, the exit water
flowing into the manhole chamber is the flow that has been monitored.
3. DATA COLLECTION
In order to establish the effectiveness of the porous paving in attenuation and water quality
improvement, data was collected from both the porous paved car park and the adjacent tarmac car
park. The porous paved area was 1401m2 and the tarmac area was 442 m2.
Monitoring was carried out between April 1998 and February 1999, and from February to May
2000. Water quality monitoring was carried out for short periods within those times. Further
monitoring of the porous car park only was carried out from May to August 2000.
Flow was monitored using a tipping bucket in a gully pot at the tarmac car park. An ultrasonic
level measuring device was used in the manhole at the porous car park to monitor the changes in
water level within the chamber. These changes in level have been calculated into an exit water
flow rate. A raingauge was installed at a nearby location. Water quality was monitored using 2
methods: an EPIC automatic sampler which collects samples to be analysed in the laboratory for
specific determinands; and Solomat sondes which consist of 6 probes that record temperature, pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and ammonium at specified intervals.
4. RESULTS FROM HYDRAULIC MONITORING
Over 150 rainfall events of varying magnitude were recorded during the monitoring periods.
Thirty four of these were analysed in more detail and are displayed in Table 1. Figure 2 shows a
typical hydrograph for this site. The minimum recorded rainfall event which produced runoff at
Macdonald & Jefferies Performance comparison of porous & traditional car parks 2
1.2-42
th e p o ro u s c a r p a rk w a s 4 .4 m m (e v e n t 14 o n T a b le 1), w h e re a s e v e n ts a s sm a ll a s 0 .6 m m w o u ld
p ro d u c e r u n o f f a t th e ta rm a c c a r p ark .
T a b le 1 D e ta ils o f e v e n ts a n a ly se d
Mm rain % outflow Mm rain % outflow
Q 03 <U H o < ‘S before
Total Rainfall
before runoff
ve
runoff
E
Event No.
(mm)
Api5
Date
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
1 5.4
16.4.98 2.44 0 3.8 54.6 9.1 18 28-29.2.00 6.6 4.33 1.7 4.6 24.8 5.8
2 5.6
24-25.4.98 2.36 0 5.4 21.4 2.5 19 23.3.00 6.6 0.19 0.6 / 52.9 0
3 8.8
11-14.5.98 0.72 0.4 8.6 52.7 4.7 20 2.4.00 7.8 0.69 N/A 6.4 N/A 46.2
4 21.4
28-30.5.98 4.72 0.2 5.6 45.8 8.4 21 11-12.4.00 16.6 0.17 0.4 9.8 28.2 24.8
5 33.4
12-13.7.98 1.13 0.4 17.2 72.8 22.5 22 17-18.4.00 9.8 3.12 N/A 5.4 N/A 66
6 15
7-8.8.98 0.28 0.4 8.6 57.3 10.7 23 16-17.5.00 10 1.64 0.6 9.2 49 18
7 9.2
1.10.98 2 0.4 5.6 72.5 8.7 24 f 27.5.00 8.9 0.9 N/A 7.2 N/A 3.7
8 16
4-5.10.98 1.12 0.6 7.6 63 23.8 25 t 28.5.00 6.6 3.4 N/A 6.6 N/A 39
9 7
9.10.98 0.98 0.4 7 61 13.6 26 t 3.6.00 16.2 0.5 N/A 8.8 N/A 24.9
10 29.8
16-17.10.98 2.39 N/A 7.4 N/A 50.3 27 f 6.6.00 7 4.5 N/A 5.3 N/A 25
11 6.6
20-21.10.98 2.56 N/A 4.8 N/A 7.3 28 t 9.6.00 5.4 2.6 N/A 5.4 N/A 3
12 8.4
24.10.98 2.08 1 6.6 38 13.1 29 f 9.7.00 32 1 N/A 9.2 N/A 20
13 12.8
26-28.10.98 2.19 1.4 4.8 51.6 15.3 301 27.7.00 18.6 0.1 N/A 18.6 N/A 12
14 4.4
28.11.98 1.26 0.8 3.6 25.3 6.4 31 t 28.7.00 9 11.9 N/A 7.4 N/A 39.5
15 23.8
24-27.12.98 0.58 2.6 4.8 69.7 34 32 t 31.7.00 15.4 3.4 N/A 9 N/A 27.1
16 9.8
27-28.2.99 1.32 1.6 7 44.9 39.8 33 f 2.8.00 9.4 7.9 N/A 7.4 N/A 38
17 8.2
27.2.00 1.42 1 5.4 30 28 34 t 14.8.00 14 4.4 N/A 9.5 N/A 24
t Data from Ng (2000)
7 th -8 th A ugust 1998 (12:00-8:00)
v>
3.5
3.0
2.5
1 1 !■ !!■ ■ ■ u i 1
0£
1St EE 2.0
1.5 h h
oc w 1.0
3 0.5 ________ A. J VA An 1 V
0.0 i\J v v v /v a
oo O
O
oo oo oo
oCM (Si
CM oo o<Si Sr
o
time
i- ■ Rainfall Porous Tarmac
F ig u re 2. T y p ic a l h y d ro g ra p h a t N A T S
T h e c h a ra c te ris tic a tte n u a tio n a n d re d u c tio n c a p a b ilitie s o f th e p o ro u s p a v e d c a r p a rk c a n b e

d e m o n s tra te d in s e v e ra l w ay s:
• In itial r u n o f f lo ss • B e n e fit F a c to r
• R u n o ff re d u c tio n (in c o rp o ra tin g % • P e a k flo w re d u c tio n
o u tflo w ) • L a g tim e
P e rc e n ta g e O u tflo w (% o u tflo w ) is th e r u n o f f a s a p e rc e n ta g e o f th e to ta l ra in fa ll. B e n e fit F a c to r is

a v o lu m e tric m e a s u re u se d to su m m a rise th e h y d ra u lic b e n e fit g a in e d b y in s ta llin g th e p o ro u s
p av in g .
4.1. Initial Runoff Loss (IRL)

In itial lo sse s w ill v a ry a c c o rd in g to a n te c e d e n t c o n d itio n s . A v a lu e fo r IR L h a s b e e n c a lc u la te d a t
N A T S u sin g an a v e ra g e o f re s u lts fro m 2 m e th o d s:
1.2-43
• Total runoff for both car parks were plotted against the total rainfall, shown in Figure 3. IRL
was calculated using the regression equation.
Tarmac: 0.9mm Porous: 3.9mm
• ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’ for both car parks was plotted against Api5, shown in
Figure 4. The mean value of ‘mm rain before runoff commences’ was calculated (see Table 2).
Tarmac: 0.7mm Porous: 7.4mm
An average of these values provides an initial runoff loss value for use as a guideline:
Tarmac initial runoff loss (0.9 & 0.7) = 0.8mm
Porous initial runoff loss (3.9 & 7.4) = 5.6mm
R a in fa ll v. T o ta l R u n o ff (m m ) A p i5 V . m m ra in b e fo re ru n o ff
Tarmac/ Porous runoff
X total tarmac runoff (mm) • total porous runoff (mm) x mm rain before tarmac runoff • mm rain before porous runoff
Figure 3. Rainfall v. Total Runoff Figure 4. ‘mm rain before runoff

commences’ v. Api5
The trend line on Figure 4 for the tarmac car park indicates that the depth of rainfall required to
produce runoff from the tarmac car park does not vary with Api5. Table 2 shows statistics for ‘mm
rainfall before runoff commences’. The greatest value of recorded depth of rain before runoff
commenced at the tarmac car park was 2.6mm, which was less then the least depth required to
produce runoff at the porous paved car park. The range of IRL values for the tarmac car park was
2.6mm compared to the larger range of 15mm for the porous.
Table 2. Statistics from hydraulic monitoring
mm rain before runoff Percent Outflow Benefit Peak Flow Reduction Lag Time (min)
tarmac porous tarmac porous Factor tarmac porous % reduction tarmac porous
Min 0 3.6 21.4 2.5 6.5 0.93 0.05 23.7 -158 29
Max 2.6 18.6 72.8 66 91.2 17 3.3 98.4 123 600
Mean 0.76 7.4 48.2 21.7 64.2 (75) 5.17 1.1 76.8 9..3 181.5
4.2. Runoff Reduction

A total of 145 rainfall events of 0.8mm or more were recorded during the monitoring period. The
monitoring equipment at the tarmac car park was operational during 88 of these events, however as
the initial rainfall loss at the tarmac car park was 0.8mm it can be assumed that virtually all of these
145 rainfall events produced runoff at the tarmac car park. Only 57 of the rainfall events produced
runoff from the porous paved car park i.e. the porous paving system prevented runoff from 61% of
the rainfall events.
For each event which produced runoff at the porous paved car park, the total depth of runoff was
significantly less for the porous car park than the tarmac. This is expressed as ‘Percentage
Outflow’ (see Table 1). Table 2 displays the statistics. The results show that the outflow from the
Macdonald & Jefferies Performance comparison of porous & traditional car parks ^ 2-44
tarmac car park was 48.2% of the rainfall, whilst the outflow from the porous car park was only
21.7 % of the rainfall. In addition, inspection of the data showed that % outflow does not appear to
be related to Api5. However, there was a positive relationship between % outflow and total
rainfall.
4.3. Benefit Factor
The term ‘Benefit Factor’ has been used to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained by installing the
porous paving, as no comparable terminology has yet been used elsewhere. The ‘Benefit Factor’ is
a volumetric measure expressed as the total porous exit water compared to the total tarmac runoff,
and is calculated using only events producing porous car park exit water. Table 3 shows the
relevant statistics. The data set included three very low values (6 , 11 and 12%) which were
significantly less than the 62 - 92% range of the other values. The mean value for the Benefit
Factor without these three very low values was 75%.
As with the Percentage Outflow, Benefit Factor does not appear to be related to Api5. However
there was a negative relationship between Benefit Factor and total rainfall.
4.4. Peak Flow Reduction
Analysis of data showed that the porous paved car park significantly reduced the peak runoff rate
and Table 2 shows the statistics. The peak runoff rates from the porous car park were significantly
lower than those from the tarmac, with a mean reduction of 76.8%.
4.5. Lag Time
Lag time, ‘the time from centroid of total rainfall to peak flow’ (NERC, 1975), at the porous paved
car park was found to be significantly longer than at the tarmac. The relevant statistics for both car
parks are given in Table 2.
The mean lag time at the tarmac car park was 9.3 minutes whereas it was found to be 181.5
minutes at the porous. On several occasions the peak flow at the tarmac car park was before the
centroid of the total rainfall, resulting in a negative value.
Figure 5 shows the relationship of mean lag times at the porous paved car park for groups of Api5
values. No relationship could be developed for individual point pairs. It shows that as Api5
increased the lag time was reduced. This will be primarily due to ground saturation.
Mean Lag Times for Api5
Porous paved car park
□ mean lag time (mins)
Figure 5. Mean lag times at porous paved car park v. Api5

There was no relationship for lag time with Api5 at the tarmac car park. All graphs and analysis
showed that the points, ranging from -158 to 123 minutes, had no relationship and averaged at
1.2-45
approximately zero (9.3 min) indicating that runoff from the tarmac car park was almost
instantaneous.
5. RESULTS FROM WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Water quality was monitored using Solomat™ sondes and EPIC™ automatic samplers. The sondes
were used to record data on site, whilst the samplers collected samples which were then taken to
the lab for analysis. At the porous car park the quality of water was monitored in the manhole,
whilst at the tarmac car park the quality of water was monitored in the gully pot prior to overflow
into the culverted bum. Results for sanitary, metals and hydrocarbons analysis are presented here.
5.1. Physical & Chemical Determinands
Results for sanitary determinands have been obtained from the sondes and the automatic samplers.
The sondes recorded data during twelve events. The data summary is shown in Table 3. Five
events have data for both car parks. The reduction/ increase of EMCs at the porous car park
compared to the tarmac car park has been calculated for these events, and the mean of this
reduction or increase is shown. The remaining seven events have data for just the porous paved car
park.
The automatic samplers were used to collect samples from six events for sanitary analysis. Five
spot samples were also taken from the porous car park for sanitary analysis (Ng, 2000). Table 4
summarises the data. Two events have data for both car parks, and the reduction/ increase of
EMCs has been calculated for these events.
Table 3. Sonde water quality results
Sonde water quality values (12 events)
Param eter T em p pH Cond DO T u rb id . A m m on.
U nit °c MS % NTU PPM
A v erag e § T arm ac 6.7 68 71 43 0.68
Porous 7.9 341 42 95 1.57
R a n g e o f T arm ac 4.2 - 8.3 6 .5 -7 3 0 .5 - 1 0 7 6 6 -7 6 3 6 - 4 9 .5 0 .1 1 - 1 .6
EM Cs Porous j 5 .1 - 1 8 .8 7 .6 - 8 .3 2 3 8 -4 9 7 2 9 -7 7 9 -3 0 8 0 .7 - 2 .1 5
EMC Red./ Inc. (-/+) * | +0.36° + 1.3 + 630% + 1.8% 1 -24% + 539%
_LFrom only one event
Table 4. EPIC automatic sampler SANITARY results

EPIC water quality - SANT ARY (6 events & spot sam ples)
Param eter pH C ond. T SS BOD TON o -phos C h lo r. AmmN
U nit gS/ cm mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
A verage§ Tarm ac 6.7 49 35 4.3 0.7 0.03 8.3 0.2
Porous 8 315 17 1.9 0.9 0.15 24.4 0.34
R a n g e o f Tarm ac 6.4-6.85 41-62 15.8-51 2.8- 5.8 0.15- 1.42 0.02- 6.5- 10.9 0.03- 0.48
EM Cs 0.04
Porous 7.73-8.2 210-416 9.8-24 1.2-2.6 0.36-1.36 0.05- 5.1-57.6 0.03- 1.13
0.53
EMC Red./Inc. (-/+)* | +1.4 +822% -32% -49% +165% +159% +389% -32%
The EMC increase of temperature was +0.36° (sonde). However this did not reflect the insulating
effect of the porous car park. For individual events the temperature of the porous car park outflow
was higher or lower than the tarmac runoff, but inspection of the data showed that the range of
temperatures during each event was veiy small compared to the tarmac with an average range of
1.2-46
0.25° compared to 2.6°. pH was always slightly acidic at the tarmac car park and always slightly
alkaline at the porous. The EMC increase was +1.3 from the sondes and +1.37 from sample
analysis, with an average of 6.7 from the tarmac and 8 from the porous.
Conductivity was significantly higher in runoff from the porous car park than the tarmac. The
EMC increase was +630% from the sondes and +822% from sample analysis, with an average of
68 & 49 pS from the tarmac and 341 & 315 from the porous. This significant increase is probably
related to a high level of dissolved solids in the outflow from the porous car park. EPIC samples
from one event were analysed to obtain a detailed breakdown of the solids concentration at both
sites. Runoff from the porous car park had 338% more total solids than the tarmac. Most of the
difference can be accounted for by a rise of dissolved solids, as the total suspended solids for both
sites were similar. Chloride results, which contribute to dissolved solids levels, from the samples
analysis (see Table 4) concur with the increase of conductivity.
The EMC increase of dissolved oxygen was +1.8%. This result is inconclusive since there was
only one event for which a direct comparison was possible. The average was 71% from the tarmac
and 42% from the porous.
The EMC reduction of turbidity was -24% from the sondes and -32% for Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) from sample analysis. The average TSS from the sample analysis corresponded with this
reduction, unlike the average turbidity from the sondes. This higher average from the porous car
park (sonde data) may be due to the inclusion of six events which have no corresponding tarmac
data, and have a significantly greater EMC than previous events. Visually, samples taken from the
porous car park always appeared less turbid than those from the tarmac.
The EMC increase of ammonium was +593%, with an average of 0.68ppm from the tarmac and
1.57ppm from the porous. The EMC reduction of Ammoniacal Nitrogen (AmmN) does not concur
(-32%), although the average of 0.2mg/l from the tarmac and 0.34mg/l from the porous was an
increase in a similar ratio to that of the sondes. The increase found in runoff from the porous car
park was probably due to the larger effective surface area of the porous car park, particularly in the
sub-base. A bacterial biofilm may exist on the stones of the sub-base which will convert protein
(from decaying plants and bacteria) into ammonium i.e. in situ bio-remediation (Pratt, 1998).
The EMC increase of BOD was —49%. All EMC values were low with the exception of one event
at the tarmac car park (event 19) when the mean was 5.8mg/l with a range of 10mg/l (max
12.5mg/l). The average BOD concentration in urban runoff is approximately 12mg/l (ASCE, 1992;
Novotny, 1994; Ellis, 1998). The average from the porous car park in this study was 1.9mg/l,
classified as ‘excellent’ in the SEPA rivers classification scheme (SEPA, 2000).
The EMC increase of Total Oxidised Nitrogen (TON) was +165%, with an average of 0.7mg/l
from the tarmac and 0.9mg/l from the porous. The EMC increase of ortho-phosphates (o-phos)
was +159%, with an average of 0.03mg/l from the tarmac and 0.15mg/l from the porous. This
increase in nutrients, confirmed by the sonde results for ammonium (+539%), may be due to plant
decomposition (Chapra, 1997) or leaching from soil (Pratt, 1989).
The EMC increase of chloride was +398%, with an average of 8.3mg/l from the tarmac and
24.4mg/l from the porous. This sizeable increase may be one of the contributing factors to high
conductivity levels, but it is unclear why it occurred.
5.2. Metals Analysis
Samples from three events were collected for metals analysis. Three spot samples were also taken
from the porous car park (Ng, 2000). The data summary is shown in Table 5. Only one event had
data for both car parks.
1.2-47
Table 5. EPIC water quality METALS & HYDROCARBONS results
(3 events m etals, 4 for hydrocarbons & 3 spot sam ples fo r each)
Param eter Cd Pb Cu Cr Ni Zn H y d ro c a rb
U nit ng/i Fg/1 Hg/1 Fg/1 Hg/1 mg/1
A verage§ T a rm a c l 0.3 2.76 0.68 5.05 4.64 29.4 1.07
P orous 1.5 13 11.3 5.17 3.47 46.5 0.4
R a n g e o f T a rm a c l 0.3 2.76 0.68 5.05 4.64 29.4 1.07
EM Cs P orous 0.12- 5.33 0.93-24.3 5.9-23.1 3.76- 8.73 0.95- 8.69 17-67 0.12-1.21
EMC Red J Inc. (-/+)*! -3% -66% +580% -26% -63% -42% -69%
The EMC reduction/ increase shows that metals concentrations were reduced in the runoff from the
porous paved car park, except copper which increased. The averages did not concur with this,
primarily because the tarmac averages were from only one event which had a low EMC for both
car parks. The porous EMC for other events were higher.
The concentrations of Pb, Cr and Zn in runoff from the porous paved car park are higher than those
found by Day (quoted in Pratt, 1989) for permeable blocks studied in a laboratory. The
concentrations of Cd, Cu and Zn are similar however to those found by Legret et al (1998) for an
experimental pervious asphalt car park in France, and concentrations of Pb are slightly higher.
5.3. Hydrocarbons Analysis
Samples from four events were collected for hydrocarbons analysis. Three spot samples were also
taken from the porous car park (Ng, 2000). The data summary is shown in Table 5. Only one
event had data for both car parks. The results show that hydrocarbon concentration was reduced by
69% in runoff from the porous car park. This was from only one event, however the averages for
both car parks confirm this.
For all the events and spot samples the values for hydrocarbon EMC were in the same range,
except for one event which was slightly higher. Schueler (1997) states that the average
concentration of hydrocarbons found in urban stormwater is 3.5mg/l, which is higher than the
levels found in this study.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the research reported on in this paper was to determine the effectiveness of the porous
block system in attenuation and water quality improvement. The outflow from the porous paved
car park was compared to runoff from a neighbouring tarmac car park. From over 150 rainfall
events recorded during the monitoring period, results from both the hydraulic and the water quality
monitoring show the porous paved car park performed favourably.
The porous paving system prevented runoff from 61% of the rainfall events. For those events
which did produce outflow from the porous car park, the percentage outflow was less than half that
from the tarmac car park. Peak flow was reduced by almost 77% compared to the tarmac. Lag
time at the porous car park was significantly longer with a mean of 181.5 minutes compared to 9.3
minutes at the tarmac. Initial runoff loss was 5.6mm at the porous car park and 0.8mm at the
tarmac. Benefit Factor is a term introduced in this paper to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained
by installing the porous paving. The Benefit Factor at this site was 75% based on volume of
outflow from the two areas.
Water quality results show an overall improvement in the quality of outflow from the porous car
park compared to the tarmac, although not for all determinands. The porous car park has an
1.2-48
insulating effect on temperature and pH is always slightly alkaline. TSS, BOD, metals (except
copper) and hydrocarbons are reduced. Conductivity is higher in outflow from the porous paved
car park, as is ammonium, TON, ortho-phosphates, dissolved solids and chloride. The results
indicate that the processes occurring within the porous system may include filtering, bio
remediation with a bacterial biofilm in the sub-base, also leaching from soil and plant
decomposition. The process taking place on the stones in the sub-base may be similar to that in a
trickling filter system. No maintenance has been carried out at the site, and jetting or vacuuming
may affect the processes occurring.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks go to Chin Boon Ng (Ng, 2000) who collected some of the data. The support of the
Carnegie Trust with a studentship is acknowledged, and financial support from Formpave Ltd.
enabled monitoring work to continue in the latter period of the project. SEPA staff have also
provided much support and assistance.
8. REFERENCES
A m erican Society o f C ivil E ngineers (A SC E ), (1992). Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater
Management Systems. U rban W ater R esources R esearch C ouncil o f the A SC E and th e W ater E nvironm ent
Federation. A SC E / W ater E nvironm ent Federation
B ond, P.C ., Pratt, C .J. & N ew m an, A .P., (1999). A R eview O f Storm w ater Q uantity and Q uality
Perform ance o f P erm eable Pavem ents in the U K . In: Proc. 8th Int Conf. On urban Storm Drainage. Joliffe,
I.B . & B all, J.E ., (eds). A ugust 1999, Sydney, pp.248-255
Ellis, J.B ., (1998). Source C ontrol F or N on-point U rban R unoff: A Sustainable O ption F o r Storm w ater
Q uality m anagem ent? Presented at: 3rd Int. Conf. on Diffuse Pollution. E dinburgh, Scotland, 31 A ug - 4
Sep, Scottish E nvironm ent Protection A gency
L egret, M . & C olandi, V ., (1998). E ffects o f a Porous Pavem ent w ith R eservoir Structure O n R u n o ff W ater:
W ater Q uality and Fate o f H eavy M etals. In: Proc. 3rdInt. Conf. on Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm
Drainage. 4-6 M ay, L yon, France, pp.517-524
N atural E nvironm ent R esearch C ouncil, (1975). Flood Studies Report. Institute o f H ydrology.
N ew m an, A .P., K rogm ann, J., B ond, P.C . & Pratt, C .J., (1998). M ineral O il R etention C apacities o f
C om m on H ighw ay Surfaces. In: Proc. 12th European Junior Scientist Workshop on Runoff Pollution and
Stormwater Infiltration. Prefailles/N antes, France, 12-15 M arch.
N g, C .B ., (2000). Modelling and Monitoring the Performance of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System
(SUDS) - Porous Pavement. M S c Thesis, U niversity o f A bertay D undee.
N ovotny, V . & O lem , H ., (1994). Water Quality - Prevention, Identification and Management of Diffuse
Pollution. V an N ostrand R einhold.
Pratt, C .J., (1989). P erm eable Pavem ents F o r Storm w ater Q uality E nhancem ent. P aper p resented at ASCE
Engineering Foundation Conference, Urban Stormwater Quality Enhancement — Source Control,
Retrofitting and Combined Sewer Technology. 23-27 O ctober, D avos, Sw itzerland.
Pratt, C.J., M antle, J.D .G . & Schofield, P.A ., (1995). U K R esearch into the Perform ance o f perm eable
Pavem ent, R eservoir Structures in C ontrolling Storm w ater D ischarge Q uantity and Q uality. P aper subm itted
to NOVATECH 95, Second Int. Conf. on Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm Drainage. L yon, France,
30 M ay - 1 June.
Pratt, C .J., N ew m an, A .P. & B ond, P.C ., (1998). M ineral O il B io-degradation W ithin a P erm eable
Pavem ent: L ong T erm O bservations. Presented at: The Third Int. Conf. on Innovative Technologies in
Urban Storm Drainage. L yon, France, 4-6 M ay
Schueler, T .R ., (1997). Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. C enter F o r W atershed Protection. P rep ared
for: W ater M anagem ent A dm inistration, M aryland D ept, o f the E nvironm ent.
Scottish E nvironm ent Protection A gency, (1999). Annual Reports & Accounts, 1998 - 1999.
Scottish E nvironm ent Protection A gency, (2000). SEPA Water Quality Classification Schemes. In W est
R egion W ater Q uality R eview , Interactive C D R om
1.2-49
Performance and Comparison of Two Swales
Kirsteen Macdonald & Chris Jefferies
1Ewan Associates, 12 The Beta Centre, Stirling University Innovation Park, Stirling, FK9 4NF.
Tel: 01786 449131 e-mail: kirsteen.macdonald@ewanscotland.co.uk
2Urban Water Technology Centre, Pirie Building, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell St., Dundee,
DD1 4HG. Tel: 01382 308170 e-mail: uwtc@ewanscotland.co.uk
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a study of two roadside swales in Dundee to determine their
effectiveness in attenuation and water quality improvement. Runoff from the swales was
compared to the road runoff entering them and this paper is the first to provide data on the
performance of swales installed in Scotland. Results from hydraulic and water quality
monitoring during more than 100 rainfall events at each site show the swales performed
favourably, but that some design aspects enhance performance. Lag time, peak flow reduction,
initial runoff loss and percentage outflow have been calculated. Benefit Factor is introduced
here as a volumetric measure used to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained by installing
swales. A comparison between the swales and an additional comparison made at one site after
the drainage arrangement was altered indicates some of the design aspects which enhance
performance. Water quality results show an overall improvement in the quality of runoff from
the swale compared to the road runoff, although not for all determinands. Observations made
during the fieldwork provide additional information on design and installation practices.
KEYWORDS
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), swale, hydrology, water quality
1. INTRODUCTION
Swales are one form of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which can reduce the
problem of increased runoff due to urbanisation at source by attenuating runoff and permitting
some to infiltrate and evaporate, thus also preventing pollutants entering watercourses. In
addition, the use of swales replaces the ‘out of sight out of mind’ concept of traditional piped
urban drainage systems by bringing the system to the surface. Another benefit is that any
pollution should be readily identifiable by the retaining water in the swale.
This study reports on a project carried out on two swales. The aim was to determine the
effectiveness of these swale systems in attenuation and water quality improvement. A
comparison between the swales is also made, as they are of slightly different design and there
were varying outlet arrangements at one site. Observations made during the fieldwork are
discussed, thus providing further information on performance and on the relative merits, or de
merits, of some of the design and installation practices. Swales of varying designs have been
installed in most countries where SUDS are used, and design guides (ASCE, 1992; Urbonas et
al, 1999) and performance data (ASCE, 1999; Backstrom, 2001) have been available,
particularly in the US, for several years. Although swales are now relatively common and
have been installed on approximately 10% of SUDS sites in Scotland (Wild & Jefferies 2002),
there was very little information about or use of swales in Scotland until the Forth River
Purification Board proposed their use in 1995 (FRPB, 1995). Available information has now
increased (CIRIA, 2000; Jefferies, 2000; SEPA, 2000), yet prior to the research presented in
this paper there has been no reliable data on the performance of swales installed in Scotland.
1.2-50
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The two swale sites studied are Emmock Woods (EW) and West Grange (WG) in Dundee.
These swales were selected as they are of different design but with similar soils, climate and
land use. The EW swale is located on a new housing development on the northern outskirts of
Dundee. The WG swale is located on a new Wimpey Elomes housing development in
Monifeith to the East of Dundee. Both sites studied lie alongside the access roads of the
developments. Information on each is detailed in Table 1 and cross-sections shown in Figures
la and lb:
Emmock Woods (EW) West Grange (WG)
• Installed 1997 - one of the first in the • Installed 1999
Dundee area
• 300mm layer of gravel under the • turfed with no gravel layer under the
surface soil surface
• Surface not properly finished, natural
vegetation been allowed to establish,
base of the swale has become very
uneven over time
• Slope = 2% • Slope = 5%
• length = 23.9m • length = 15.4m
• No maintenance carried out • Regular maintenance carried out
T A B L E 1________inform ation on E m m ock W oods and W est G range sw ales
1850m m
r slope =
^ 840m m ^ AT 50%
260m m y ■ . thin laver
swale ▼ \250mm
top soil
F IG U R E l a cross-section o f EW sw ale F IG U R E l b cross-section o f W G sw ale
Both sites were still under development during the monitoring period. Development at EW
was upstream of the swale and developers did not take precautions to prevent migration of
sediment. At WG the development was downstream of the swale and developers took
precautions to keep sediment, primarily mud falling from vehicles, under control. The runoff
enters both swales via Clearway drainage inlets in the kerb, as shown in Plate 1. To enable a
direct comparison of results from both swales, the outlet arrangement at WG was modified to
be the same as EW which was a near-horizontal pipe at the end of the swale with the invert
level at the base of the swale, laid underground and leading to a soakaway manhole. The outlet
at WG was a raised outlet with a grating cover, which creates ponding in the swale as shown in
Plate 2. The modification to make the outlet the same as at EW included the installation of a
check dam near the end of the swale and laying a pipe to convey flow directly into the
soakaway manhole. Subsequent to the monitoring carried out to compare the EW and WG
swales, additional monitoring was carried out at the WG swale with the outlet arrangement
restored (Bryce, 2001). This enabled a direct comparison of the two different outlet
arrangements.
Macdonald & Jefferies Performance And Comparison of Two Swales 2

1.2-51
3. DATA COLLECTION
In order to establish the effectiveness of the swales in attenuation and water quality
improvement, data was collected from runoff entering the swale (road runoff) and runoff
exiting the swale {swale runoff).
Monitoring was carried out for a total of 16 months at EW (Feb 1999 to Aug 2000) with a total
of 106 rainfall events. At WG monitoring was carried out for a total of 12 months (between
Sep 1999 and Sep 2000) with a total of 104 rainfall events. Further monitoring at WG was
carried out for periods between December 2000 to August 2001, with the outlet arrangement
returned to its original design, from which a total of 24 events were analysed.
At both swale sites, excess runoff from the swale flowed into the soakaway manhole via the
pipe laid underground. To monitor the flow of this runoff a tipping bucket was installed in the
manhole on a false floor. Road runoff was monitored by connecting a pipe from one of the
drainage inlets (two at WG) directly into the soakaway manhole, and another tipping bucket
installed on the false floor. A raingauge was installed at a nearby location. Water quality was
monitored using 2 methods: an EPIC automatic sampler which collects samples to be analysed
in the laboratory for specific determinands; and Solomat sondes which consist of 6 probes
recording temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and ammonium at
specified regular intervals.
4. RESULTS FROM HYDRAULIC MONITORING
From the 106 rainfall events monitored at EW, 26 were analysed in more detail and are
displayed in Table la. Figures 2a and 2b show typical hydrographs for these sites. From the
104 rainfall events monitored at WG, 27 were analysed in more detail and are listed in Table
lb.
F IG U R E 2a. Typical hydrograph at EW F IG U R E 2b. Typical hydrograph at WG
Em mock Woods West Grange
2-3rd June 1999
0
Will PH • HP 21^£
I3 r 3l
o 4"<5
51 5c
0 imin\imi_iWffiiminiinTinimnnTn'iTiflii lmnniifilfflifirnimnr 6£
7
co cri
CO
o o
66
o m-
to in N (J )
CM CM
time tim e
Rainfall Road Sw ale Rainfall Road Sw ale
Macdonald & Jefferies Performance And Comparison of Two Swales

1.2-52
TABLE la Details of events analysed at EW TABLE lb Details of events analysed at WG
Mm rain % runoff Mm rain % runoff
_________ +XT^_
JO
Even
Tota
Date
before runoff before runoff
Total Rainfall
1
Event No.
$
(mm)
Date
<L> O
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
T3
«d Id
£ o
•3
£
X/l W
1 27-28.2.99 16.6 0.81 6.80 3.6 41 21.5 1 20.10.99 3 0.17 1.59 N/A 53 N/A
2 2.3.99 4.6 4.73 1.09 0.34 24 7.5 2 4-5.11.99 N/A 0 12.56 4.38 N/A N/A
3 12.3.99 3.2 0.04 0.76 0.07 24 2 3 25.11.99 0.8 0.01 0.35 0 44 0
4 13.3.99 1.6 2.36 0.44 0.06 27.5 4 4 26.11.99 2.8 0.55 1.69 0.33 60 11.8
5 28-29.3.99 17.8 0.31 / 2.6 5 27-28.11.99 10.4 1.62 6.8 4.28 65 41
6 5-6.4.99 10.2 0.93 N/A 1.08 N/A 10 6 8.12.99 4.2 0.23 3.6 1.02 85.7 24.3
7 20-21.4.99 34.2 3.67 N/A 12.3 N/A 36 7 11.12.99 15.2 1.21 11.2 4.25 74 28
8 21.5.99 8.8 0.01 N/A 0.42 N/A 4.8 8 30.1.00 3.6 0.14 2.6 0.6 72 16.7
9 28-29.5.99 17.6 0.2 N/A 0.27 N/A 1.5 9 17.2.00 5 0.29 2.73 1.79 55 36
10 2-3.6.99 13.8 0.67 7.81 1.01 57 7 10 9-103.00 3.8 1.1 1.97 1.33 52 35
11 4.6.99 2.4 6.23 1.62 0.11 67.5 4.5 11 23-243.00 13.4 1.74 10.43 12.8 78 95
12 5.6.99 9.6 4.35 1.6 0.38 16 4 12 2.4.00 7 1.07 3.96 6.38 56 91
13 27.6.99 12.2 0.38 N/A 0.96 N/A 7.9 13 24-27.4.00 23.8 1.73 10.2 N/A 43 N/A
14 5.7.99 6.4 0.95 N/A 0.15 N/A 2.3 14 15.5.00 4 0 1.43 N/A 36 N/A
15 10.10.99 2.2 0.34 0.03 0.05 N/A 2.3 15 27.5.00 16 0.76 10.1 9.7 63 60.5
16 4-5.11.99 14.4 0 N/A 0.35 N/A 2.4 16 29.5.00 3.2 7.3 1.04 0.92 32.5 29
17 30.1.00 N/A N/A 3.5 0.025 N/A N/A 17 6.6.00 1.6 2.76 0.66 1.04 40 65
18 8-9.2.00 4.2 0.41 3.6 0 85.7 0 18 10.6.00 0.6 2.36 0.15 0.11 25 18
19 11-12.2.00 3.2 1.17 0.4 0.11 12.5 3.5 19 22.6.00 1.2 2.35 0.3 0.06 25 5
20 23-24.3.00 19 2.14 N/A 0.13 N/A 0.7 20 9.7.00 2.8 2.45 1.2 1.1 43 39
21 10.4.00 5.2 0 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.4 21 25.7.00 2 0 0.69 0.52 34 26
22 11-12.4.00 23.4 3.8 N/A 0.31 N/A 1.3 22 31.7.00 3.6 0.76 1.5 0.5 42 14
23 21.6.00 N/A N/A 6.3 0.09 N/A N/A 23 14.8.00 10.8 1.37 7.8 3.2 72 30
24 9.8.00 8.2 0.96 7.12 0 86.9 0 24 27.8.00 3.6 3.25 0.98 0.63 27 17.5
25 14.8.00 11.2 1.36 5.1 0 45.5 0 25 31.8-1.9.00 12.4 0.63 6.25 3.12 50 25
26 16.8.00 4.2 1.96 N/A 0.3 N/A 7 26 6.9.00 13 0.94 12.1 7.2 93 55
27 11-11.9.00 6.6 0.71 3.9 3 59 45
The characteristic attenuation and reduction capabilities of the swales can be demonstrated in
several ways:
• Initial runoff loss • Benefit Factor
• Runoff reduction (incorporating % • Peak flow reduction
runoff) • Lag time
4.1. Initial Runoff Loss (IRL)
Initial losses will vary according to antecedent conditions. A value for IRL has been
calculated for each site using an average of results from 2 methods. In the first method, total
runoff for the road and the swale were plotted against the total rainfall, shown in Figures 3a
and 3b, and IRL calculated from the resultant regression equation. In the second method the
mean value of ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’ was calculated, statistics for which are
shown in Table 2.
An average of these values provides an initial runoff loss value for use as a guideline:
Emmock Woods: Road initial runoff loss (0.1 + 0.75) = 0.4mm
Swale initial runoff loss (6.0 + 3.9) = 5mm
West Grange: Road initial runoff loss (0.16 + 0.4) = 0.3mm
Swale initial runoff loss (1.3 + 1.09) = 1.2mm

1.2-53
Em m ock W oods W e s t Grange
Total Runoff v. Rainfall (m m )
Total Runoff
0.1mm 6mm
Rainfall Total (m m )
X total road runoff (mm) • total swale runoff (mm) x total road runoff (mm) • total sw ale runoff (mm)
F IG U R E 3 a T otal R u n o ff v. R ainfall for E W F IG U R E 3 b T otal R u n o ff v. R ainfall for W G
Table 2 shows statistics for ‘mm rainfall before runoff commences’. For EW the range of
values for road runoff was 2.6mm, whilst swale runoff had a range of 11.7mm. For WG the
range of values was 1.2mm for road runoff and 1.6mm for the swale, although the alteration to
the WG outlet produced a swale value similar to EW (see section 4.7).
T A B L E 2 Statistics from hydrological m onitoring
mm rain before % runoff Benefit Peak Runoff Intensity (mm/h) Lag Time (min)
runoff Factor
road swale road swale road swale % reduction road swale
Emmock Min 0.2 0.7 12.5 0.4 47 1.05 0.27 0 1.6 1.63
Max 2.8 12.4 86.9 36 99.3 9.6 4.78 95 21 29.7
M ean 0.75 3.9 44.3 6.53 82.4 4.06 1.6 52.2 9.2 11.6
West Min 0.2 0.6 25 5 4 0.42 0.16 -90 -74 -70
Grange Max 1.4 2.2 93 95 80.5 13 7.2 62 77 87
M ean 0.4 1.09 53.1 36.7 44.6 3.9 3.1 1.2 3.7 14.3
4.2. Runoff Reduction

At EW a total of 104 rainfall events of at least 0.4mm (IRL for road) occurred during the
monitoring period. Only 50 of these events produced runoff from the swale i.e. the swale
prevented runoff from 52% of the rainfall events. At WG there was a total of 82 events of
0.3mm (IRL for road), and all events resulted in road runoff. 67 of these events resulted in
swale runoff i.e. the swale prevented runoff from 19% of the rainfall events.
For each event which produced runoff at the swale, the total depth of runoff was significantly
less for the swale than for the road at EW, and slightly less at WG. This is expressed as
‘Percentage Runoff (see Tables la and b). Table 2 displays the statistics. The results show
that at EW the runoff from the road was 44.3% of the rainfall, whilst runoff from the swale
was only 6.53 % of the rainfall. The range was smaller for the swale data than the road. At
WG the road runoff was 53.1% of the rainfall, and runoff from the swale was 36.7% (again see
section 4.7).
4.3. Benefit Factor
The term ‘Benefit Factor’ has been used to summarise the hydraulic benefit gained by
installing the swale, as no comparable terminology has yet been used elsewhere. The ‘Benefit
Factor’ is a volumetric measure expressed as the total swale runoff compared to the total road
runoff, and is calculated using only events producing swale runoff. Table 2 shows the
relevant statistics. At EW the Benefit Factor was 82.4%, ranging from 47 to 99.3%. At WG
the Benefit Factor was 44.6%, significantly less than at EW. The range was from 4 to 80.5%.

1.2-54
4.4. Peak Flow Reduction
Results showed that at EW the swale reduced peak flow by a mean of 52.2%, with a range of 0
to 95%. At WG the mean reduction was 1.2%. Statistics for the peak flows at both sites are
shown in Table 2.
4.5. Lag Time
Lag time, ‘the time from centroid of total rainfall to peak flow’ (NERC, 1975) for the swales at
both sites was only slightly longer than lag time from the road runoff. Relevant statistics are
shown in Table 1. Mean lag time at Emmock was 9.2 mins from the road and 11.6 mins from
the swale, at West Grange it was 3.7 mins from the road and 14.3 mins from the swale.
4.6. Comparison Between Swales
The results presented here show the swale at Emmock Woods was more effective than West
Grange. The IRL at EW was 75% greater than at WG, the runoff reduction was 52%
compared to only 19% and percentage runoff was only 6.53% compared to 36.7% at WG. The
Benefit Factor at EW was a significant 82.4% compared to 44.6% at WG. Mean peak flow
reduction was 1.2% at WG with almost half the events resulting in a higher peak runoff from
the swale than the road, whilst at EW the mean reduction was 52.2% and the swale always
producing a lower peak flow than the road. This poorer performance at WG was substantially
due to the modified drainage arrangement, and indicates the beneficial effect of the shallower
slope and gravel layer at EW.
4.7. Hydrological Effect Of Altering The Drainage Arrangement
The drainage arrangement for excess runoff from the swale at WG was modified for the
monitoring discussed in the previous sections. Subsequent to this monitoring the drainage
arrangement was restored to the original design and additional monitoring was carried out
(Bryce, 2001). Table 3 shows the minimum, maximum and mean values of the data from the
additional monitoring, and also, for comparison, the values from when the drainage
arrangement was modified. Returning the drainage arrangement to its original design had a
beneficial effect on the hydrology, and is briefly discussed here. Table 3 shows that the mean
values for the rainfall events are different, with the rainfall during the restored, or ‘design’
monitoring period consisting of, on average, larger rainfall events of longer duration and with a
higher Apis than the ‘modified’ events.
T A B L E 3 Statistics show ing hydrological effect o f changing drainage arrangem ent at W G
intensity
M ax. Intensity (mm/h)
(mm/h)
R unoff
R unoff
runoff
runoff
before
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Total Rain (mm)
%
D uration (hrs)
Benefit Factor
reduction
V)
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
'S.
<
%
D esign M in 0.8 1 1.5 0.02 0 1.4 0.44 0.002 5.2 0.047 31.2 0.45 0.07 20.57
M ax 46.6 40 24 7.03 3 5.8 8.87 2.66 98.5 17.6 99.96 9.09 3.25 95.91
M E A N 10.2 15.9 8.9 2.19 0.67 3.18 2.5 0.59 33.8 6.3 80.1 2.6 1.16 65
M od ified M in 0.6 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.6 0.15 0.06 25 5 4 0.42 0.16 -90
M ax 23.8 46 12.5 12.8 93 95 24 7.3 1.4 2.2 80.5 13 7.2 62
6
M E A N 6.7 11.6 8.2 1.31 0.4 1.09 4.36 2.97 53.1 36.7 44.6 3.9 3.1 1.2
Macdonald & Jefferies Performance And Comparison of Two Swales 1.^-5 5

When the results of monitoring with the drainage arrangement restored to the original design
are compared to those with the modified drainage arrangement (‘modified’), there are several
aspects of note, showing a significant improvement. Percentage runoff was approximately 80%
less, the Benefit Factor almost doubled, the peak runoff intensity is approximately 66% less
and the mean percentage reduction per event is 65% compared to 1.2%. This shows that after
restoring the drainage arrangement to its original design the hydraulic performance of the
swale was very similar to EW.
5. RESULTS FROM WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Three main groups of determinands are discussed here: physical/ chemical, metals and
hydrocarbons. At EW few water quality results were obtained as the events which did produce
runoff had either insufficient volume (mean 6.5% runoff) or occurred when the water quality
equipment was not installed! Water quality results were obtained from four events, but none
for metals or hydrocarbon analysis. Results were obtained from 13 events at WG, plus one for
metals and three for hydrocarbon analysis. Table 4 shows a summary of the water quality
results, and more detail is given in the discussions in the subsequent sections. The results
presented are for pollutant concentrations.
T A B L E 4 sum m ary o f w ater quality results fo r sw ale perform ance
IMPROVEMENT NO CHANGE WORSENING
• Insulating effect • p H barely differs • am m onium inc. at
• T urbidity and T SS dec. • C onductivity results E W (one event)
• dissolved oxygen higher (W G ) varied • O rtho-phos. inc. at
• A m m oniacal N itrogen dec. a t W G • B O D unchanged at W G (m arginally)
• B O D & T O N dec. at W G EW • C u, C d & Z n inc.
• O rtho-phos. dec. at E W at W G
• C hloride dec. (W G )
• P b, Cr, N i & H ydrocarbons dec. (W G )
5.1. Physical & Chemical Determinands

Results for physical and chemical determinands have been obtained from the sondes and the
automatic samplers. The summary of results is shown in Tables 5 and 6. Only one event was
sampled with the automatic samplers at EW. Event Mean Concentration (EMC) has been used
for comparison of events.
T A B L E 5 Sonde w ater quality results_____________________________________________________________________
S O N D E W A T E R Q U A L IT Y V A L U E S
______ (3 events E W , 7 events W G )______
P a ra m e te r T em p. PH C ond. DO® T u rb .
Unit “C us % NTU
Average§ Road 8.28 69.05
Swale 8.28 83.54 68.6®
Emmock
Range of Road 4.95-5.72 8.2-8.37 60.7-77.4

EM Cs Swale 4.3-13.4 8.18-8.54 65.3-103.97
EM C Red./ Inc. (-/+)* -0.225° 0 +6.3%
Average§ Road 7.8 108.5 57.7 88
West Grange
Swale 7.56 69.2 68 62.9

Range of Road 10.7-18.9 7.47-7.86 58.5-298.9 23.2-73.1 55-104
EM Cs Swale 13.96-19.1 7.3-7.76 33.6-140.25 53.9-80.3 31.5-91
EM C Red./ Inc. (-/+)* +0.08° -0.1 -9.6% +6.1% -25.3%
Key for tables 5. 6 & 7

1.2-56
TABLE 6 EPIC automatic sampler water quality results
S A M P L E R W A T E R Q U A L IT Y V A L U E S F O R P H Y S IC A L & C H E M IC A L
____________________________(1 event E W , 7 events W G )____________________________
Param eter PH Cond. TSS BOD Amm. TON o-phos Chlor.
Unit US mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 Mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Average§ Road® 7.6 292 1057 2.4 1.11 0.28
Swale® 7.41 167 299 2.4 1.21 0
o Range of Road
EM Cs Swale
W EM C Red./ Inc. (-/+)*® -0.19 -43% -72% 0% +9% -100%
Average§ Road 7.6 139 332.8 5.1 0.42 0.5 0.11 14.6
West Grange
Swale 7.5 154 92.5 4.4 0.21 0.27 0.11 7.7

Range of Road 7.17-8.1 93.1-253.8 29.4 - 957 2.2-12.3 0.056-1.96 0.164-0.85 0.07-0.19 2.2-39.2
EM Cs Swale 7.1-7.85 53.1-426.1 21.5-156.5 1.75-7.3 0.015-0.75 0.07-0.61 0.042-0.16 0.05-16.3
EM C Red./ Inc. (-/+)* -0.13 +13.4% -54.5% +14.3% -33.6% -45% +7.7% -46.2%
At both sites the temperature for the swales during individual events was not very different to
the road, however inspection of the data showed the swale had an insulating effect with the
temperature range at the swale during each event less than at the road. The average range was
0.26°C compared to 4°C at EW and 1.7°C compared to 2.4°C at WG. There was very little
difference of pH values between swale and road at both sites. Conductivity results are
varied. Analysis of results at EW shows an EMC reduction/ increase ranging from -43% to
+8, and at WG ranging from -73to +229%. Dissolved Oxgyen was slightly increased in
runoff from the swale at WG, and the one value from EW was almost identical to the average
at WG. Results at WG for turbidity (sonde) showed a reduction. Results for Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) from sample analysis showed a reduction at both sites.
Ammoniacal Nitrogen results showed an increase for the one event at EW, and a decrease for
the events at WG. The EMC of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) remained unchanged at
EW. At WG the EMC increase was 14.3%, although the average decreased. This EMC
increase is primarily due to one event when the swale BOD was 189% higher than the road.
Without this value the EMC reduction is 21%.
These suburban sites had generally low pollutant levels (Schueler & Claytor, 1997). TSS, o-
phos and Chloride were within the expected range for urban runoff, whilst BOD, TON and
Ammoniacal Nitrogen were lower than expected values. The only exception was for
Ammonium at EW which was slightly higher than expected values for urban runoff.
5.2. Metals Analysis
Results for the metals analysis have been obtained from the automatic samplers. A summary
of the results is shown in Table 7. The results are from one event sampled at WG. The EMC
reduction/ increase shows that Cadmium (Cd), Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) concentrations were
increased in the swale runoff, whilst the others were reduced. This is from only one event
however. The values for both the road and swale runoff were in the lower range of expected
values for urban runoff.
T A B L E 7 W ater quality results for m etals & hydrocarbons__________________________________________
W A T E R Q U A L IT Y F O R M E T A L S & H Y I 1R O C A R B O N S
(only W G - 1 event for m etals, 3 fo r hyc rocarbon)
Param eter Cd® Pb® Cr® Cu® Ni® Zn® H ydrocarb
Unit gg/1 ug/i ug/i H8/1 ng/i ng/i mg/1
Average§ Road 0.17 8.15 5.4 28 6.3 82.1 1.36
West Grange
Swale 0.89 4.64 2.83 51.8 3.1 93.7 0.87

Range of Road 1.22-1.47
EM Cs Swale 0.6-1.2
EM C Red./ Inc. (-/+)* +423% -43% -47.6% +85% -50.1% +14% -36%
1.2-57
5.3. Hydrocarbons Analysis
Results for the hydrocarbon analysis have been obtained from the automatic samplers. A
summary of the results is shown in Table 7. The results are from three events sampled at WG.
The swale reduced hydrocarbons by 36%, and the average for swale and road concentrations
confirm this. The range of EMC values is in the lower range expected to be found in urban
runoff.
6. OBSERVATIONS
During the 16 months of fieldwork, anecdotal observations were also made at both sites during
a full range of weather conditions. The Clearway drainage inlets became blocked very easily
at both sites. The problem was more severe at EW due to the continuing construction on site
with poor housekeeping practices by the construction companies, but the problem was quite
frequent at WG also where good housekeeping practices were implemented. The inlets
required regular manual cleaning during the monitoring period to ensure runoff could enter the
swales.
At both sites the ability of the swale to reduce sediment in the runoff was evident, not only
from the monitoring results, but also from visual inspections. Sediment removal was
particularly evident at EW where the base of the swale became very uneven over time. This
change in shape of the swale base, along with the rough, natural vegetation that grew there,
probably improved the performance of the swale by attenuating flows more effectively. Some
maintenance would be necessary however to prevent complete blockage and malfunction.
There was periodic evidence of oil/ petrol in the runoff entering the swales at both sites. At
WG it appeared to be attached to some of the sediment in the inlets, and when the inlets were
manually cleaned out during wet weather the release of oil was clearly visible. Although no
samples were analysed for hydrocarbon at EW, it was never noted in the swale or the runoff
from the swale and therefore would likely have been retained in the swale.
The observations on site clearly show that attention to detail during construction of the site is
vital. Some of the swales at WG have dip kerbs instead of Clearway drainage inlets, which let
road runoff flow into the swale. However, at some of the swales the tarmac on the road was
slightly raised and a tracer dye test showed the runoff completely bypassing the entrance to the
swale. Another issue which became apparent during rainfall was the installation of some of
the Clearway drainage inlets which were noted to have a slight upward inclination which
meant that the runoff would not always run into the swale. On some of the swales at WG with
dip kerbs, the turf had been laid too high to let runoff enter. Other swales had the inlet located
below the head of the swale, thus wasting a section of swale.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the research reported on in this paper was to determine the effectiveness of two
swales in attenuation and water quality improvement. A comparison between the swales has
been made as they are of different design, and an additional comparison made at one site after
the drainage arrangement was altered. Observations made during the fieldwork have provided
further information on performance, design and installation. The runoff from the swale at each
site was compared to runoff entering the swale from the road. From over 100 events recorded
at each site during the monitoring period, results from both the hydraulic and water quality
monitoring show the swales performed favourably, but some design aspects enhance
performance.
Results for initial runoff loss, runoff reduction, Benefit Factor, peak flow reduction and lag
time show the swale at EW performed better than the swale at WG. The Benefit Factor at EW
was 82.4% compared to 44.6% at WG, although when the drainage arrangement at WG was
modified back to design, the Benefit Factor increased to 80.1%. It is concluded that the
performances were similar. The comparisons between the swales show that implementation of
a gravel layer below the soil, a shallower slope and a raised outlet enhance performance.
Water quality results show an overall improvement in the quality of runoff from the swale
compared to the road runoff. Pollutant concentrations were in general very low in comparison
to the expected values for urban runoff. Removal of suspended solids, many chemical
determinands, hydrocarbons and some metals was observed, along with an insulating effect on
temperature. pH barely differed between the road and swale runoff and conductivity results
were varied. There was an increase in some metal concentrations at WG and for ammonium at
EW, however these were from only one monitored event. Additional water quality monitoring
for all determinands at EW and for metals and hydrocarbon at WG would be desirable.
The observations made during the fieldwork showed a variety of design and installation
problems and confirmed that the results of monitoring and sampling were valid. The Clearway
drainage inlets block very easily, thus impeding the flow of runoff into the swale. There was
periodic visual evidence of oil/ petrol entering the swale yet never noted in the swale itself or
the swale runoff and therefore would likely have been retained in the swale. Attention to detail
during construction is vital as highlighted by several observations which prevented runoff
entering the swale.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks go to Lesley Bryce (Bryce, 2001) whose data is used in this paper, and Adolf Spitzer
who also collected some of the data used in this paper. The support of the Carnegie Trust with
a studentship is acknowledged. Dundee City Council staff have been highly co-operative and
supportive in this research, and SEPA staff have also provided much support and assistance.
9. REFERENCES
A m erican Society o f C ivil E ngineers (A SC E ), (1992). Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater
Management Systems. U rban W ater R esources R esearch C ouncil o f the A SC E and the W ater E nvironm ent
Federation. A S C E / W ater E nvironm ent Federation
A m erican Society o f C ivil E ngineers (A SC E), (1999). National Stormwater Best Management Practice
Database. U S E nvironm ental Protection A gency. June.
B ackstrom , M ., (2001). P article T rapping in G rassed Sw ales. In: Proc. NOVATECH 4th Int. Conf. On
Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm Drainage. L yon, France. 25-27 June, pp.391-397
B iyce, L ., (2001). A Study of A Roadside Swale in Dundee. Final y ear dissertation, U niversity o f A bertay
D undee.
C onstruction Industry R esearch and Inform ation A ssociation (C IR IA ), (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems - design manualfor Scotland and Northern Ireland. R eport N o. 521
Forth R iver Purification B oard (FR PB ), (1995). A Guide To Surface Water Best Management Practices.
July. FR PB , E dinburgh.
Jefferies, C. (ed), (2000). SUDS Monitoring Workshop 26 January 2000 — Papers. P apers presen ted at
Sustainable U rban D rainage System s M onitoring G roup w orkshop, E dinburgh U niversity. A vailable from
U niversity o f A bertay D undee.
N atural E nvironm ent R esearch C ouncil (N E R C ), (1975). Flood Studies Report. Institute o f H ydrology.
Schueler, T., & C laytor, R ., (1997). Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. C enter F o r W atershed
Protection, V ol 1, D ec 10
Scottish E nvironm ent Protection A gency (SEPA ), (1999). Annual Reports & Accounts, 1998-1999
Scottish E nvironm ent Protection A gency (SE PA ), (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage—An Introduction.
U rbonas, B .R ., T ucker, T .S. & D oerfer, J.T , (1999). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 -
Best Management Practices. U rban D rainage and Flood C ontrol D istrict, D enver, C olorado. Septem ber.
W ild, T. & Jefferies, C. (2002). SUDS in Scotland - Scottish SUDS database Scottish E nvironm ent
Protection A gency. R eport in preparation.

1.2-59
A P P E N D IX 3.1
TIPPING BUCKET CALIBRATIONS
Tipping buckets were used at NATS, Emmock Woods and West Grange. Each tipping
bucket had a nominal tip volume. However, as flow increased (thus tips/minute increased)
the water splashed as it flowed onto the tipping bucket and hence the volume of water
passing per tip (litre/tip) also increased. Once the flow became very high, the amount of
water splashing out of the bucket became very large and the tips became erratic. The
relationship between tips/min and 1/tip was found to be different for each of the tipping
buckets.
Five tipping buckets required calibration. The laboratory setup is shown in Plate 1. Water
dripping into the tipping bucket is shown in Plate 2, and water flowing at a high rate is
shown in Plate 4.
Inlet pipe
bringing
water from
main tank
Tipping
Bucket
Large
container on
w eighing
m achine
P la te 1 laboratory setup for tipping bucket calibration
P late 2 P late 3
The tipping bucket was placed in the large container on a weighing machine. The inlet
Appendix 3.1 3.1-1

Tipping Bucket Calibrations
pipe was secured above the tipping bucket. Once the flow was constant, the weight was
noted, the timer was started and the number of tips were counted. The weight was noted at
the same time as the timer was stopped at the end of each run. This was repeated for
approximately 30 runs of varying flow rates for each of the 5 tipping buckets. The
relationship of tips/minute and 1/tip for each tipping bucket was then found as detailed in
the relevant sections below.
Tips/min was the rate used as this is the data requiring to be calibrated, and the flowrate/
runoff rate is unknown. L/tip is the desired dependent variable as it is required to calculate
the runoff rate in mm/h. Runoff rate is calculated using the basic equation, for tips
recorded in 2 minute intervals:
R unoff rate = tips * volume per tip (1) * 1000 (to get m3) 4 area (to get depth) 4 1000 (to get
mm) * 30 (to get mm/h)
In the ‘summary of calibration’ section for each tipping bucket, tip rate in tips/2min is
referred to also. This is the basic unit used in the Excel spreadsheets, and is the unit used
in the equations (except calculation of 1/tip).
a) EMMOCK WOODS SWALE

35 runs were assessed. The data shows that up to 5.4 tips/min the tip volume is 1 1/tip.
Beyond this value there is a linear relationship. The highest two calibration tip rates of 35.1
and 34.6 tips/min have been excluded from the linear regression as they did not follow the
linear relationship, and exceeded the maximum tip rate recorded on site at Emmock Woods
(30 tips/min). The last tip rate recorded which follows the linear relationship is 27.7
tips/min. Figure 1 shows the relationship calculated with linear regression, to be used on
tip rates between 5.4 and approximately 28 tips/min.
Appendix 3.1 3.1-2

Figure 1 Tipping bucket calibration for Emmock Woods swale
Summary of calibration:
> Up to 5.4 tips/min (11 tips/2min) the tip volume is 1 1/tip. Runoff rate is calculated
using Equation 1.
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tips (in 2 min interval) * 0.068
Equation 1
> Between 5.4 and approx. 28 tips/min (11 and approx. 56 tips/2min) use Equation 2 to
calculate 1/tip and Equation 3 for the runoff rate.
1/tip = 0.0097*tips/min +1.0086
Equation 2
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip (see Equation 2}
14.67
Equation 3
> Beyond approximately 28 tips/min (56 tips/2min) the flow is very turbulent with a lot
of splashing, and does not follow the linear regression relationship. It is unknown at
what point between 27.7 and 34.6 tips/min the relationship ceases, justifying use of the
term ‘approxim ately 28 tips/m in\ The maximum tip rate recorded on site was 30
tips/min, consequently it is considered justifiable to use the linear regression equation
up to that rate.
A ppendix 3.1 3.1-3

T ipping B ucket C alibrations
b) EMMOCK WOODS ROAD
35 runs were assessed. Three extreme tip rates of 33.3, 35.6 and 35.7 tips/min were
removed, as they did not fit into any relationship. With these tip rates removed, the
relationship was best described using a quadratic regression obtained in Minitab. Figure 2
shows the relationship to be used with tip rates up to approximately 32 tips/min. The
nominal tip volume is 1 . 1 1/tip.
Figure 2 Tipping bucket calibration for Emmock Woods road
> Up to approx. 32 tips/min (64 tips/2min) use Equation 4 to calculate 1/tip and
Equation 5 for the runoff rate:
1/tip = 1.09504 - (0.000139* tips/min) + (0.00024* (tips/min*tips/min))
Equation 4
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip

8.33
Equation 5
^ Beyond approx. 32 tips/min (64 tips/2min) the flow is very extreme and does not
follow the quadratic regression relationship. The maximum tip rate recorded on site
was 29 tips/min.
A ppendix 3.1 3.1-4

T ipping Bucket C alibrations
c) WEST GRANGE SWALE
33 runs were assessed. 5 outliers were removed as they did not fit into any relationship,
and were possibly outliers due to human error in the laboratory. Linear regression,
quadratic regression and regression using log values were used to assess the data. The
relationship between tips/min and 1/tip is best described with a quadratic equation forced
through the intercept (carried out in Minitab). Figure 3 displays this relationship, which
should be used on tip rates up to approximately 54 tips/min. The nominal tip volume is 0.8
1/tip.
Figure 3 Tipping bucket calibration for West Grange swale
> Up to approx. 54 tips/min (108 tips/2min) use Equation 6 to calculate 1/tip and
Equation 7 for the runoff rate:
1/tip = 0.8 + (0.000044* tips/min) + (0.000159* (tips/min*tips/min))
Equation 6
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tips (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip

14.83
Equation 7
> On site the equipment was placed in a container with an outlet pipe which, unknown at
the time, restricted extreme flows. In the lab it was found that tip rates over
A ppendix 3.1 3.1-5

approximately 35 tips/min (70 tips/2min) would fill the container resulting in flooding
of the mechanism and causing inaccurate results. Therefore caution was exercised
when using tip rates over 35 tips/min. The maximum tip rate recorded on site was 58
tips/min.
d) WEST GRANGE ROAD

26 runs were assessed. 3 outliers were removed as they did not fit into any relationship,
and were possibly outliers due to human error in the laboratory. 2 extreme tip rates of 44.1
and 46.9 tips/min were also removed, as they did not fit into any relationship with the
lower tip rates. From the remaining data it is quite apparent that there is a cluster of
readings around 0.7 1/tip, then above approx. 16 tips/min there is a linear relationship, as
illustrated by Figure 4.
As the maximum tip rate recorded on site is 16 tips/min, the tip volume of 0.71/tip is used.
Up to 16 tip s /m in th e tip volum e is 0 .7 l/tip,

M ax. tip s re c o r d e d on
as th e e q u a tio n in this ra n g e is s ta tis tic a lly
site : 16 tip s/m in
in s ig n ific a n t a n d th e m ean is 0.7. T he
e q u a tio n f o r tip s a b o v e 16 tips/m in a p p lie s
Figure 4 Tipping bucket calibration for West Grange road
Summary of calibration
> Up to 16 tips/min (32 tips/2min), the tip volume is 0.7 1/tip. Runoff rate is calculated
using Equation 8 :
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tips (in 2 min interval) * 0.42
Equation 8
A ppendix 3.1 3.1-6

e) NATS TARMAC CAR PARK
30 runs were assessed. 6 extreme events above 31 tips/min were removed, as they did not
fit into any relationship. The relationship between tips/min and 1/tip is best described using
quadratic regression forced through the intercept obtained in Minitab. The relationship to
be used with tip rates up to approximately 31 tips/min is shown in Figure 5. The nominal
tip volume is 0.9 1/tip.
Figure 5 Tipping bucket calibration for NATS tarmac car park
> Up to approx. 31 tips/min (62 tips/2min) use Equation 9 to calculate 1/tip and Equation
1 0 for the runoff rate:
1/tip = 0.9 - (0.00107* tips/min) + (0.000395* (tips/min*tips/min))

Equation 9
Runoff rate (mm/h) = tins (in 2 min interval) * 1/tip

14.73
Equation 10
> Beyond approx. 31 tips/min (62 tips/2min) the data sets recorded in the lab did not
follow the quadratic regression relationship. The maximum tip rate recorded on site
was 58 tips/min. Consequently, caution was exercised when using tip rates exceeding
62 tips/2min, as the calibration may have been inaccurate. In the lab it was not
A ppendix 3.1 3.1-7
Tipping B ucket C alibrations
possible to obtain rates higher than 33.75 tips/min, an indication that the tipping bucket
may be have been behaving on site in a manner not possible to simulate in the lab. It
must be borne in mind that this tipping bucket had the far ends of each bucket ‘wedge’
cut off so it would fit into the small gully on site. This may have an effect on its
behaviour in high flows. Also, on site there was a funnel (with 4 sides) above the
tipping bucket. This meant runoff from the tarmac car park was flowing onto the
funnel from 4 sides and entering the tipping bucket with less velocity than it would
from the single pipe that was set up in the lab.
Appendix 3.1 3.1-8

APPENDIX 3.2
TYPICAL WATER QUALITY VALUES
The following two tables show typical values for urban runoff water quality, and water
quality standards from a variety of sources. Table 1, showing typical values, is taken from
a variety of studies, and also states available information on the area e.g. ‘highway runoff.
Table 2, showing water quality standards, is sourced from several regulations and guide
values, and states if the standard is for e.g. ‘excellent water’ or ‘seriously polluted’.
The fifteen references displayed in the tables are as follows:
1. Akan, 1993
2. Schueler,1987
3. Waller & Hart, 1985
4. Ellis, 1985'
5. Urbonas et al, 1999
6. Ellis, 1998
7. Schueler, 1997
8. ASCE, 1992
9. Novotny & Olem, 1994
10. Makepeace et al, 1995
11. Rushton, 2001
12. Butler & Davis, 2000
13. Gray, 1999
14. SEPA, 2000c
15. Sawyer et al, 1994
Appendix 3.2 3.2-1

Typical Water Quality Values
Table 1 typical values for urban runoff water quality
1 1 (7-22 ) |
1.45 (0.2-4.6) |
11.24 190(21-2582)1
300 (10-3680)1
210(10-3100)1
0.4 (0.09-2.8)
CN
ui saSjnqasip uiojs/Cs
jotBAvmiojs jnoidXx
npuou •o- o VO
0.133
- o © >n P
-o-1
‘ndurex ui qnqd sy o'
1-49000 |
o
0.05-13700
300 (30-3100) 0.57-26000
0.3-25,000
0.7-22000
0.06-1410
00 oO
1-36,200
1-2300
o
saam os >n C"~~
JO yCjaUBA b UIOJX
650 (3-11,000)
30 (10-250)
ON
saam os
JO XjaiJBA B UIOJJ
VALUES FOR URBAN RUNOFF WATER QUALITY
ouiurejSojd OO CN On
CO OO
CO CO CO
m
dH O M Y S n ra ojj <N CN •n CO
JOJBAVUUOtS OOO oCO in (N OO o o
ireqjn jnaidXx <N co
4.8 (0.12-25.9)
300 (10-3680)
190 (2 1-2582)
21 0 (1 0 -3 1 0 0 )
1.45 (0.2-4.6)
11 (7-22)
NO
saujunoa
uBadoing ui S3p\jg
oo •o; ;o
(jaAuaQ) padojaAapun "sr o
o ;d
0.96 0.65
(J3AU3Q) jBpuapisa>i CS
<n CO in
(J9AU9Q) JEI9J9UIUI03 CO <NCN
O Onn ON
(j9AU9Q) JBUJSnpUI nn O CO o
co
<NH oin
0.02
jjou tu XBwqSiH
!> CN oCO
J9M9S UUOJS OJBJBdaS O
O
f" VO
BpBUB3 ‘OUBJUO CO r—I r-
On
'3 'd -qsn^V tn sajis OO 00
zro
(N <n
0.26
25.8
o 1I CO
d H flN 8 6 £ J °
C o a -qsB ^) VO On OO © or- o«n
p ip sip ssauisng m © CO <N
9§BJ9AB On ©o t" VO
r-
0.96
2.35
1 Kpms x g f lN puopBM OO o-
-
I (ajounqng) <N On OON o«n
OCO ON
0.26
00 CO
b/d = below detection limit
unqin ja p io
C oa <o O
o-O OO t"
Zl'O
•qsByVV) unqmqns Majq in o' CO

[ArnmN (mg/1)
/—N
Determinand
V
|o-phos (mg/1)
"Sb § "Sb /—■>/*~\ /■—\ ✓—S

6 "bi) "Bb
[reference
[Hyd.carb.
& s_^ 6 'Sb

| B9.IB jjounj Q CO g ,
£ =3. =L 'ob § 'Si) §
v=L' =L =L d.
l(m g/l)
O CO T3 x> 3 u
u Ph o U X Nd
I UO UOpBUIJOJUJ XP-t i
PQ H U H
Appendix 3.2 3.2-2
N3 g o-! o3 "C
/— \ cr no. DO O on H a T3ffi Regulation or source
tT T= /—
1=V /■n“N (Z) 1o 0
0 51
9s ? ?
§ S
[reference
'-S ? g ?
'w'
1
|o-phos (mg/ )
|Determinand
fAmmN (mg/1)
[Cond. (uS/cm)
|Hyd.carb(mg/l)
S
G\ EC Surface Water Directive
OO oUi oto o H-* obUi •o V ob oo SS
o L/l o
tot U)A Ln■ 00
(75/440/EEC)
l/« EXCELLENT WATER
Ol EC Surface Water Directive
ooi—* o o Lh
o © - oto U)V I—* loo—l
o o A in■
so (75/440/EEC) GOOD
WATER
1—1 © O toUi O4^ © EC Drinking Water
© SJ\
oo Ui © o© Uio L/i b O Directive (80/778/EEC)
1
U—>* World Health Organisation
to
too o oo o U) Ol drinking water guide values
o O
00
o EC Bathing Waters
to
os'O1 (76/110/EEC)
o
Appendix 3.2
British EQS for List II
<1 o1—‘ too o Ho-k asso substances from EA 1998

OS Rivers Classification
oo
V oto
o sn A
bi so Scheme for Scotland
EXCELLENT
A Rivers Classification
os©V u> A Oi
to £ Scheme for Scotland FAIR
V Rivers Classification
&
o SO »—
Vk
cn Scheme for Scotland
SERIOUSLY POLLUTED
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES
Ui 1—* US EPA Drinking Water

oo 1o—l o u> HL/i-* Standards
o o o oo o Ui
3.2-3
APPENDIX 4.1
EQUIPM ENT INSTALLATION PHOTOGRAPHS & DIAGRAM S
The following plates and figures show photographs and diagrams of equipment installation
at NATS, Emmock Woods and West Grange. These are referred to in Chapter 4 and the
equipment is discussed in sections 3.3 and 3.4.
NATS
funnel for the tipping bucket
sonde attached to a metal bar

placed across two wooden slats
Isodaq
Sonde logger attached to step

irons
Plate 1 Looking into the porous car park soakaway manhole
Security cabinet
Solid pipe with hose pipe and

trigger cable for EPIC connected
from manhole to security cabinet
Soakaway manhole
Plate 2 Surface of the porous car park
A ppendix 4.1 4.1-1

E quipm ent Installation Photographs & D iagram s
Tipping bucket above gully pot.
The sonde was located below this,
with the probes inside the gully pot
Plate 3 Looking into the tarmac car park gully pot
trigger cable
for EPIC'Â
Exit water via
perforated pipe Isodaq/ Vegason
level measuring
device
Overflow to
Stank Burn
Tipping bucket
to trigger EPIC'
water quality
support beam sonde
/ Permanent
& 1 00mm water
Figure 1 Cross-section of NATS porous car park soakaway manhole
Figure 2 Cross-section of NATS tarmac gully pot
A ppendix 4.1 4.1-2

Equipm ent Installation P hotographs & D iagram s
EMMOCK WOODS
Isodaq
Sondes placed in vertical pipes in
the false floor
Pipes directing road and swale
runoff to relevant tipping bucket
Tipping bucket in plastic
containers, located on a false
floor in the soakaway manhole
Plate 4 Looking into Emmock Woods soakaway manhole
EPIC sampler in security hut which

was pushed back to permit access to
a manhole with a second EPIC
Loggers and battery packs also

kept in security cabinet
Pipe underground connecting

manhole with security cabinet
Soakaway manhole as shown in

Plate 4
Plate 5 Security cabinet at Emmock Woods
A ppendix 4.1 4.1-3

NOTE - tipping bucket, sonde and EPIC
trigger cable sampler setup was duplicated in the same
Sample hose for EPIC manhole, once each for swale and road runoff
Runoff from
Isodaq/ Vegason swale/ road
level measuring Tipping bucket with
device switch to trigger EPIC
Plastic container
Overflow to false floor

storm sewer
water quality
sonde
pipe to hold sonde, with holes near
base to permit drainage but keep
base o f sonde permanently wet
Figure 3 Cross-section o f Emmock Woods and West Grange soakaway manhole
WEST GRANGE
See Figure 3 also.
EPIC sampler in security cabinet

with battery packs and loggers
Soakaway manhole as
shown in Plate 7
Additional manhole for

second EPIC
Plate 6 Security cabinet at West Grange
A ppendix 4.1 4.1-4

Pipes directing road and
swale runoff to relevant
tipping bucket
False floor
Tipping bucket in
plastic containers
Sondes placed in vertical
pipes in the false floor with
hose pipes connected to
EPICs in security cabinet and
second manhole
Plate 7 Looking into West Grange soakaway manhole
A ppendix 4.1 4.1-5

Equipm ent Installation Photographs & D iagram s
APPENDIX 4.2
CALCULATION OF EXIT WATER FLOW RATE AT NATS
It was not possible to directly measure the exit water flow rate at NATS, hence it has been
calculated using recorded water levels in the manhole. The water level was recorded using
an Isodaq logger and Vegason ultrasonic level measuring probe.
A) CALCULATION
Calculation of exit water flow rate (I/s) is expressed by Equation 11:
Flow rate (1/s) = Q1 +Q2 +Q3
Equation 11
Ql - volume related to change in water level over a timestep. Use Equation 13.
Q2 - exfiltration rate based on average level of the timestep. Select rate using Table 1.
Q3 - flow discharging from the chamber via outlet pipe. Use Equation 4.
Flow intensity (mm/h) is calculated using Equation 12 (for Isodaq data logged at 15
minute intervals):
Intensity (mm/h) = flow rate (1/s) * 900 /1401 (area in m2) * 4 (to get hours)
= flow rate (1/s) * 2.5696
Equation 12
Bf EQUATIONS
Ql The Isodaq recorded change in water level every 15 minutes, and the area of the
manhole is known. The change in volume (1/s) can be calculated as shown in Equation 13.
Diameter of manhole = 1.04m
Area of manhole = 7ir9 = 0.849m9
Volume change (1/s) = change in Isodaq reading in time interval (Ah) * 0.849
= Ah * 0.849 * 1000 (m3 into litres) / 900 (15 mins into seconds)
= 0.943 * Ah
Equation 13
Appendix 4.2 4.2-1

Calculation of Exit Water Flow Rate at NATS
Q2 The exfiltration rate has been calculated using the Isodaq data from the end of events,
when the water level in the manhole is gradually decreasing & rainfall has ceased. The
exfiltration rates for 6 events were calculated, and an average rate obtained, as shown in
Figure 1. The average rates are listed in Table 1.
Exfiltration Rate
-♦ — march '98 —a — may '98 —a — august '98 —a — October '98

■A— january '99 —A— may '00 —A— average
Figure 1
Depth Stage Exfiltration

(m) Rate (1/s)
0.15-0.2 0.001647
0.2-0.3 0.00322
0.3 - 0.4 0.00492
0.4-0.5 0.01026
0.5 -0 .6 0.01036
Table 1 Average exfiltration rates
Q3 To calculate the flow discharging from the chamber via the outlet pipe, a full scale
model was built in UAD laboratories. Details are given in section C below. The data was
adjusted to allow for 5mm surface tension. A quadratic equation was obtained in Minitab,
and forced through the intercept. The result is displayed in Figure 2. The equation for the
relationship between head (m) and flow (1/s) is shown in Equation 14:
Flow (1/s) = 542*Head(m)2 - 0.91 *Head(m)
= 542*(Isodaq reading - 0.615)2 - 0.91*(Isodaq reading - 0.615)
Equation 14
A ppendix 4.2 4.2-2

C alculation o f Exit W ater Flow Rate at N A T S
Equation 14 is used when the Isodaq reading is 0.615m or more. 0.615m is the height of
the invert of the outlet pipe from the base of the manhole. This figure is a compromise
based on calibration readings, presumed surface tension effects, and a thorough review of
the data.
C) DETERMINATION OF RELATIONSHIP FOR FLOW VIA OUTLET PIPE

The rate of flow discharging from the chamber via the outlet pipe was determined by
building a full scale model of the manhole in UAD laboratories.
Method
A large tank was set up in the laboratory to represent the manhole. At the correct height a
pipe was installed to represent the outlet pipe of the same diameter. The water entered the
tank at the base via a pump. The Isodaq logger and Vegason ultrasonic level measuring
probe was installed at the top of the tank and calibrated for the dimensions. The water
exiting the outlet pipe flowed into a weighing tank.
The part of flow of interest was when water was discharging from the outlet pipe, so the
tank was filled to the point where water sat at the invert of the outlet pipe. When this had
settled the pump was switched on. As the flow commenced water discharged via the outlet
pipe and was weighed in the weighing tank. A clock was started when the level at the
outlet pipe reached a constant high and the weighing tank was used. The flow was then
calculated using this data (weight/time). 25 runs were carried out with increasing flow,
and a further 9 runs were carried out to confirm some of the flows.
Discussion
5mm was added to the head values to allow for surface tension. Linear regression gave a
good result, however a quadratic equation provided a more accurate fit. The quadratic
equation was obtained from the data using Minitab, and the intercept fitted (forced through
zero). The resulting graph and equation is displayed in Figure 2:
Appendix 4.2 4.2-3

Calculation of Exit Water Flow Rate at NATS
Relationship of Head & Flow for Determining
Discharge from Manhole Outlet Pipe
♦ Flow (l/s) --------- q u a d ra tic e q u a tio n fo rc e d th ro u g h z e ro
Figure 2 Relationship of Head and Flow for determining discharge from manhole outlet pipe
The resultant equation of:

Flow = 542Head2- 0.91 Head
is used in Equation 14.
A ppendix 4.2 4.2-4

C alculation o f Exit W ater Flow Rate at N A TS
APPENDIX 5.1
EVENTS MONITORED
Table 1 displays basic details of all events recorded at NATS, Table 2 is for events
recorded at Emmock Woods, and Table 3 for West Grange.
Table 1 All events recorded at NATS
A L L E V E N T S R E C O R D E D A 1rN A T S T Table 1 cont’d
Month Rainfall Tarmac* Porous* Detailed Month Rainfall Tarmac* Porous* Detailed
(mm) analysis* (mm) analysis*
Apr 1998 1 .6 ? X 1.8 V X
1 6 .4 ? V 11.2 V V
2 6 .6 ? V A ug 1998 1.6 V X
1 .2 ? X 3.6 V X
0 .8 ? X 15 V V V(6)
7 .2 ? V 1.2 ? X
1 V X 0.8 ? X
2 .8 V X 1 ? X
5 .4 V V V(l) 8.2 ? V
1 .4 V X 13.4 ? V
4 .2 V X 0.6 ? X
1 .4 V X Sep 1998 12.2 >/ V
5 .6 V V V (2 ) 1.2 V X
4 .8 V V 1.6 V X
0 .6 X X 3.8 V X
1 .4 V X 1.4 V X
1 .2 V X 1.4 ? X
May 1998 2 .6 V X 11.6 ? V
5 V V 1.2 V X
1 6 .6 V V 2.6 V X
8 .8 V V V (3 ) 2.2 V X
0 .8 X X Oct 1998 9.2 V V V(7)
0 .6 V X 16 V V V(8)
1 .6 V X 1.2 V X
0 .8 V X 7 V V V(9)
3 .8 V X 2.2 V X
2 .8 V X 1.4 V X
4 .4 V X 4 V X
2 1 .4 V V V (4 ) 4.2 ? X
1 6 .8 V V 23 ? V V(10)
June 1998 1 1 .6 V V 6.8 ? V VCio)
7 .8 V V 6.8 ? V V(ii)
7 X V 4 ? X
5 X V 1.8 V X
July 1998 1 .2 V X 9 V V V(12)
0 .6 V X 12.8 V V V(13)
0 .6 V X N ov 1998 1.2 V X
2 .6 V X 4.4 V V V(14)
3 3 .2 V V V (5 ) D ec 1998 1.2 X X
5 V X 0.8 V X
17 V V 1.4 V X
Appendix 5.1 5.1-1

Events Monitored
Table 1cont’d Table 1cont’d
Month Rainfall Tarmac* Porous" Detailed M onth Rainfall Tarmac* Porous* Detailed
(mm) analysis** (mm) analysis**
2 V X 8.6 >/ V (24)
2 V X 6.6 V(25)
0.8 V X June 2000 1.6 X
2.2 V X 16.2 V V(26)
0.8 V X 1 X
1.8 V X 7 V V(27)
23.8 v V ^ (15) 1.6 X
1.4 V X 1.2 X
Jan 1999 2 V X 1.4 X
0.6 V X 5.4 V V(28)
9.4 V V 1.8 X
15.8 V V 1 X
1.8 ? X 0.8 X
3.2 ? X July 2000 5.4 X
0.8 ? X 32 V V(29)
13.6 ? V 1 X
11 ? V 18.6 V V(30)
1.2 ? X 10.8 V V(31)
1.2 ? X 10.4 V V(32)
25.2 V V Aug 2000 5 V V(33)
Feb 1999 0.6 V X 9.4 V V(34)
0.8 V X 14 V V(35)
3.8 V X t = data below double line (May’OO) is from Ng
3.6 V X ( ), when no tarmac data was collected
2000
* = see Key
0.6 X X
2 V X -ft = data from this event analysed in detail. No. in
9.8 V V V(16)
bracket refers to event number in Table 5.1 and
Table 1 in Appendix 6.1 and throughout report
Mar 1999 4.6 V X
0.8 V X
Feb 2000 5 V X KEY
1 V X V = runoff/ exit water occurred
8.2 V V V(17) x = no runoff/ exit water occurred
6.8 V V V(18) ? = no data i.e. equipment not working
Mar 2000 6.6 V X V(19)
0.8 V X
Apr 2000 7.8 V V V(20)
16.8 V V V(21)
1.8 ? X
?
3.4 X
?
9.8 yj V(22)
?
3.8 X
1.6 ? X
1.8 ? X
3.6 ? X
85.2 ? V
May 2000 3 V X
10 V V V (23)
1.2 X
2 X
Appendix 5.1 5.1-2

Events Monitored
Table 2 All events recorded at Emmock Woods
ALL EVENTS RECORDED AT
EMMOCK WOODS Table 2 cont’d
Month Rainfall Road* Swale* Detailed Month Rainfall ------
Road
7*-----
Swale" Detailed
(mm) analysis* (mm) analysis*
Feb 1999 16.8 V V V(l) 0.8 ? X
Mar 1999 6.6 V
2.4 V
V
V
V( )
2
V(3)
6.4 ? V V(14)
3.2 ? X
1.6 V V V (4) 0.2 ? V
2.2 V X 1? X
1.6 >/ X 1.2 ? X
1 V X 9.2 ? V
15.8
2?
V V
V
V (5) 5.4 ? V
1? X
Apr 1999 1.2 ? X Oct 1999 1.8 V X
10 ? V V(6) 2.2 V V V 05)
2? V Nov 1999 15.2 V V(16)
1.4 ?
5?
X Jan 2000 3.6 V V V(17)
V 8 v X
5.2 ? V Feb 2000 4.2 v X V(18)
0.8 ? X 1 V X
36.2 ?
3.6 ?
V
V
V (7) 3.2 V V V0 9 )
0.8 X X
May 1999 7.8 ? V 2.4 V X
3.4 ?
10 ?
V Mar 2000 19 ? V V(20)
V 1? X
3? X 1? X
10.8 ? V 0.8 ? X
4? V 1? X
8? X 4.2 ? X
8.8 ? V V( ) Apr 2000 7.2 ? X
V(9) V V(21)
8
17.4 ? V 5.2 ?
Jun 1999 2.6 V X 1.8 ? X
11.2
2.6
V
V
V
V
V( )
10 23 .6 ? V V(22)
VOD 1.2 ? X
9.6 V V V( )
12 May 2000 3.2 ? X
1.6 ? V 5.4 ? X
1.2 ? V 1.4 ? X
0.8 ? >/ 1.2 ? X
5.2 ? V 18.6 ? V
1.2 ? X 3.2 ? X
3 ? X 3.2 ? V
1.6 ? V 2.6 ? X
6.8 ? V 3.2 ? V
12.2 ? V V 03) 2.8 ? X
Jul 1999 1.2 ? X 2.8 ? X
1? X 2.2 ? X
Appendix 5.1 5.1-3

Events Monitored
Table 2 cont’d
Month Rainfall Road* Swale* Detailed
(mm) analysis*
4? V
3? X
3? X
0.2 ? V
0.4 ? V
Jun 2000 5.6 ? X
13.8 ? yl
1.6 ? X
5.4 ? V
6.4 ? V
7.8 >/ V V(23)
1.2 V X
1 V yl
Jul 2000 2.6 V X
2 yj X
Aug 2000 2.2 V X
1.4 V X
0.8 V X
8.2 V X V (24)
1.2 V X
11.4 V X V(25)
4.2 V yl V(26)
* = see Key
-$• = data from this event analysed in detail. No. in
KEY
V = runoff occurred
x = no runoff occurred
? = no data i.e. equipment not working
Appendix 5.1 5.1-4

Events Monitored
Table 3 All events recorded at West Grange
ALL EVENTS RECORDED AT WEST
GRANGE Table 3 cont’d
M onth Rainfall Road* Swale* Detailed Month Rainfall Road* Swale* Detailed
(mm)* analysis* (mm) analysis*
Sep 1999 ? V V 1.2 V X
? V V 2.8 V V
? V V Apr 2000 7.2 V V V( )
V V
12
Oct 1999 ? 4.6 V ?

? V X 17 V ?
?
?
V X 0.6
0.4
V ?
?
a/ X V
3 >/ 9 V(D 1.2 V ?
5 V V VO) 4 V ?
Nov 1999 ? V V V(2) 2.2 V ?
0.8 V X V(3) 1 V ?
2.8 V V V(4) 3 V ?
10 V V V(5) 23.8 V ? V(13)
Dec 1999 1 V X May 2000 1 V ?
17 V V 4 V ? V(14)
0.6 V X 6.2 V ?
0.2 V X 0.4 V ?
4.2 V V V(6) 6 V ?
0.6 V V 1.4 V ?
15.4 V V V ( 7) 0.2 V ?
Jan 2000 0.4 V X 0.8 V ?
3.6 V V V(8) 5 V 9
8 V V 2.4 V V
Feb 2000 1.2 V V 0.8 V V
1.4 V V 16 V V V(15)
0.4 V X 5.4 V V
0.8 V V 3.2 V V V ( 16)
0.2 V V 2.2 V V
1.6 V V Jun 2000 5.6 V V
0.4 V X 13.8 V V
5 V V V(9) 1.6 V V V(17)
2.4 V V 5.4 V V
0.4 V X 6.4 V V
0.6 V V 0.6 V V V(18)
2.2 V V 0.6 V V
3.4 V V 0.2 V X
Mar 2000 0.2 V X 0.4
7.8
V X
1.4 a/ X V
V V V
a/
1 1.2 V(19)
V V V(10) V
a/
3.8 1
V V V
a/
13.4 V(ll) Jul 2000 1.6 a/

0.4 V X 1.8 V V
0.4 V X 2.8 V V A/(20)
Appendix 5.1 5.1-5

Events Monitored
Table 3 cont’d
Month Rainfall Road* Swale* Detailed
(mm) analysis*
2.6 V V
V V
V (2 1 )
2.4
3.6 V V a/ (22)
Aug 2000 0.2 V X
0.4 V X
5.2 V a/
1.4 V V
10.8 a/ V
V V
a/ (23)
1.8
0.6 V X
6.6 V V
3.6 V V
V V
V (2 4 )
12.4
V V
V (2 5 )
Sep 2000 1.2
13 V V
V V
V (2 6 )
4.2
34.2 V V
V
A/(27)
2 X
* = see Key
= data from this event analysed in detail. No. in
KEY
V = runoff occurred
x = no runoff occurred
? = no data i.e. equipment not working
Appendix 5.1 5.1-6

Events Monitored
APPENDIX 5.2A
HYDROGRAPHS - NATS
Section 5.2 in the main text gives hydrographs for two of the 34 events analysed in the
detail (events 3 and 12). The remaining 32 are given here. Figure 1 shows the water level
data (Isodaq) at NATS soakaway manhole for October 1998.
W a te r Level in S o a k a w a y M an h o le (Isodaq)
O ctober 1998
oo oo
9/ o9?
ot—
oo
o■*9?“
oo
o9?
oo
9/
o
oo
9?
o
oo oo
CD G>
O O
a>
O OCT> o9! T9o—? To9—? OOT COD 9?o 9?o
co oo oo oo OO OO OO oo oo
CM 55
T" T— X
CNJ oj
—
o oC\J oCO CM co
■V— t—
o co
o
o C\j
— T— X—
o5
D ate
— — * D epth (m )
Figure 1 Water level data in NATS soakaway manhole, with exiltration time, October 1998 (used as
example)
Figure 2 to Figure 34 show hydrographs for 33 of the 35 events at NATS analysed in

detail.
KEY for Figures 2 to 34
Rainfall
intensity (mm/h) Tarmac Exit water
runoff (mm/h) flow (mm/h)
E vent 1 E vent 2
14 16th A pril 1998 14
S'7=toft
12 12
■C -|Q -]0 S' JC
Ee A
c ° 8° 1E EE ° z EE
■— g 14-
2 ^
o 6 ô
4 ^
75 4
<5 i n
1 3i-
IU l o u.
2
0 0 IM JL 11 i
16/04/98 16/04/98 16/04/98 16/04/98 16/04/98 24/04/98 24/04/98 24/04/98 25/04/98 25/04/98
10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 17:30 20:30 23:30 02:30 05:30
date date
Figure 2 NATS hydrograph event 1 Figure 3 NATS hydrograph event 2
A ppendix 5.2A 5.2 A- 1

H ydrographs - N A TS
E vent 4 E vents
28th - 30th M ay 1998
14
12
10 £
8 EE
6 Sio
4 c3
2
0
28/05/98 29/05/98 29/05/98 29/05/98 30/05/98 12/07/98 12/07/98 12/07/98 13/07/98 13/07/98
22:00 06:00 14:00 22:00 06:00 05:00 12:00 19:00 02:00 09:00
date date
E vent 6 E vent 7
7th - 8th August 1998 31st S e p - 1st O c to b e r 1998
7 7
6 6
€ 5
E 5€
E_ 4 4
75 3 3 Sio
■i 2 2§
M—
1
1 __ 1
k_
0 ■ l/W w S r 0
07/08/98 07/08/98 07/08/98 08/08/98 08/08/98 30/09/9801/10/9801/10/9801/10/9801/10/98
12:00 17:00 22:00 date
03:00 08:00 23:00 02:00 05:00 08:00 11:00
Date
Figure NATS hydrograph event

6 6 Figure 7 NATS hydrograph event 7
E vent 8 E vent 9
4-5 O ctober 1998
18 18
16 16
^14 14
£12 12
E_10 10
=8
«- 4 I î 1ji i . 8 3=
mmjlL
04/10/98 04/10/98 04/10/98 05/10/98
05:00 14:00 23:00 08:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00
Date date
A ppendix 5.2 A 5.2A- 2

H ydrographs - N A T S
E v e n t 10 Event 11
16th -1 7 th O cto b er 1998 20-21 October 1998
WWTBBinimHnBHBnf
16/10/98 16/10/98 16/10/98 17/10/98 17/10/98 20/10/98 20/10/98 21/10/98 21/10/98 21/10/98
03:00 12:00 21:00 06:00 15:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00
date Date
E v e i fit 13 E v e n t 14
18
26th - 28th C)cto ber 1998
12 28th N ovem ber 1998
9 6
10 8
—K14 _7 5
8£ j='
E bE "FE 6D 4£
c 10 E5 4e
=re ft0 e l 3 5:!
**—i
c 6 4 23 <*-c ^3
re
2 3=
2 4 f t- C*-O2 L ,
2 1 2 1
k.
I/.PPI .
n jfijU L ...1. 0 L -J m n
26/10/98 27/10/98 27/10/98 27/10/98 28/1 0/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98
20:00 05:00 14:00 23:00 08 00 01:00 06:00 11:00 16:00
Date date
E v e n t 15 E v e n t 16
27th -2 8 th F e b ru a ry 1999
14 14
12 12
£10
E
E8
15 6
I 4 _______ _ III
2
f t-
I‘ I
0 1 1 irtii/
24/12/98 25/12/98 26/12/98 26/12/98 27/02/99 27/02/99 28/02/99 28/02/99
22:00 14:00 06:00 22:00 14:00 22:00 06:00 14:00
date date
A ppendix 5.2A 5.2A- 3

H ydrographs - N A T S
Event 17 Event 18
3.5
26th - 27th February 2000 3.5 28th - 29th F ebruary 2000
7 t 7
3 3
2.5 2.5 S' €5
E 5£
2 2I £4 435:
75 1.5
**- IL 1.51Co 75 3
i*- o
c
'cs 1 1 3 «2 2§
k-
0.5 i ul 0.5
k_
1 1 1 1
0 11 0 0 JL.L ..1 .... K ii 1 1 0
26/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 28/2/00 28/2/00 28/2/00 28/2/00 29/2/00
21:00 04:00 11:00 18:00 05:00 11:00 17:00 23:00 05:00
Date Date
23rd M arch 2000 2nd A pril 2000
7
6
5i f
433=
o
2§
1
k.
0 ^rirfnrntinimfriHHiiniiiiiliiiimii'iTifiTiTnininninniTOiTifimniiiiiiiniiini'int
23/03/00 23/03/00 23/03/00 23/03/00 23/03/00 02/04/00 02/04/00 02/04/00 02/04/00
13:00 15:40 18:20 21:00 23:40 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00
Date date
8
17th - 18th April 2000
7 11th -1 2 th April 2000 7 7
6 7 6 6
€5 - 62 if 5 No tarmac 5 if
E E
E,4 -
5E
4* E,4 data
4
75 3
**- 3 co 75 3
■ s2 22 12
U tJ ML
11/4/00 11/4/00 11/4/00 12/4/00 12/4/00
1 1
0 UninmiwiMiiiwiiifiTiwnl 0
17/4/00 17/4/00 17/4/00 18/4/00 18/4/00
06:00 14:00 22:00 06:00 14:00 08:00 14:00 20:00 02:00 08:00
date Date

Event 23 E vent 24
16th - 17th M ay 2000 27th M ay 2000 2
7 T7
1.8
1.6
No tarmac 1.4
data 1.2 EE
1
0.8
JII ■ ^tm t i
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
16/05/00 16/05/00 17/05/00 17/05/00 27/05/00 27/05/00 27/05/00 27/05/00
17:30 23:30 05:30 11:30 02:00 08:00 14:00 20:00
date Date
E v e n t 25 E ve nt 26
14
28th - 29th M ay 2000
14 3rd - 4th J u n e 2000
12 12
10 No tarmac 10
EE 8 data 8
»*-75c 6 6
'55 4 4
2 2
0i ifc J
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiii 0
28/05/00 28/05/00 29/05/00 29/05/00 29/05/00 03/06/00 04/06/00 04/06/00 04/06/00
16:00 22:00 04:00 10:00 16:00 23:30 05:30 11:30 17:30
Date Date
E vent 28
3.5
3
2.5 Z
21.5 itI
co
1 2
0.5
0
09/06/00 09/06/00 09/06/00 09/06/00
11:30 15:30 19:30 23:30
Date

Event 29 Event 30
14 90 20
12 80 1 18
10 S' _70 II 16
"g60 IT 14 S'
o E
8 E E50 Mr 12 E
I■ 10 ~
6 Sc .Ere30
-
4 = *"20 1 -
2 10 ]
0 0 111I'm1111nTn'IT'ITTITHTl
08/07/00 09/07/00 09/07/00 10/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00
14:30 03:30 Date16:30 05:30 15:30 16:00 16:30 Date
17:00 17:30
20 25 31st July 2000
25
18
16 20
14 S No tarmac
12 E data 15
10 ^
1
8 o
6 §
4 k.
2
0
28/07/00 28/07/00 28/07/00 29/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00
14:00 18:00 Date22:00 02:00 11:00 12:30 Date14:00 15:30
E v e n t 33 E ve n t 34
9 1st August 2000
2 35 2nd August 2000
35
8 1.8 30 30
No tarmac 1.6 No tarmac
1.4 S' S25 25
IE56 data 1.2 E E£20 data 20
1 £
i=43
re !
H-
*"2
0.8
0.6 a
0.4 *"
"re15
210 .| II 15
10
1 0.2 5 5
0* 1 0 0 1\ 0
01/08/00 01/08/00 01/08/00 01/08/00 02/08/00 02/08/00 02/08/00 02/08/00
02:30 05:30 Date08:30 11:30 09:00 13:00 Date 17:00 21:00

Event 35
30
0
13/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00
23:00 00:30 02:00 03:30
Date
Figure 34 NATS hydrograph event 35

APPENDIX 5.2B
HYDROGRAPHS - EM M OCK W OODS
detail (events 2 and 10). The remaining 24 are given here in Figure 1 to Figure 24.
Rainfall Road Sw ale runoff
Event 1 Event 3
27th - 28th Februarv 1999
-ffllTOl 'Il1l!i!l!ill!ll!l!lilllllllll!!lli
12:00 20:00 04:00 12:00 20:00
27/2/99 27/2/99 28/2/99 28/2/99 28/2/99
Date Date
Figure 1 EW hydrograph event 1 Figure 2 EW hydrograph event 3
Event 4 Event 5
13th March 1999
14 28-29th M arch 1999
8
12 7
10 6?
8 5E
6 4 ■
4 3o
2
0 o
13/03/99 13/03/99 13/03/99 13/03/99 13/03/99 28/3/99 28/3/99 29/3/99 29/3/99 29/3/99
04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 21:00 04:00 11:00 18:00
Date Date
Figure 3 EW hydrograph event 4 Figure 4 EW hydrograph event 5
A ppendix 5.2B 5.2B- 1

H ydrographs - Em m ock W oods
Event 6 Event 7
14 5-6 April 1999

14 21 April 1999
12 12
10 No road data 10
8 available 8
6 6
4 4
is 2
U - i iTiinifTiffrimnniTinnninTnTiiinrinni’iTnfimfiiiTinmml 0 20/04/99
05/04/99 05/04/99 06/04/99 06/04/99
08:00 17:00 02:00 11:00 17:30
Date Date
F igure 5 EW hydrograph event 6 F igure 6 EW hydrograph event 7
Event 8 Event 9
20 7
15
6_
of
4£
10
o 3 ot
6i 2J
21/05/99 21/05/99 21/05/99 21/05/99

0
28/05/99 28/05/99 28/05/99 29/05/99
08:30 12:30 16:30 20:30 05:30 14:30 23:30 08:30
Date Date
F igure 7 EW hydrograph event 8 Figure 8 EW hydrograph event 9
Event 11 Event 12
4th June 1999
20
15€
E
10$
O
5i
0
4/6/99 4/6/99 4/6/99 4/6/99 4/6/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99 05/06/99
11:00 11:40 12:20 13:00 13:40 15:00 17:40 20:20 23:00
Date Date

H ydrographs - Em m ock W oods
Event 13 Event 14
27th June 1999
Date Date
Event 15 Event 16
20 10th Oct 1999
7 4 - 5 N o vem b er 1999
€15 4- N o road data
E - 3i
available
#10 £4
ro z23=
co
75 3
15 ■ j=2 .J 2 £=
-
i£ 51
0 ■ iwJBnwJLwWWWMi..Illilll.
....Ilin u B LniminiriniiinL _ 0 III
10/10/99 10/10/99 10/10/99 10/10/99 4/11/99 4/11/99 5/11/99 5/11/99 5/11/99
08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 20:30 23:30 02:30 05:30 08:30
Date Date
F igure 13 EW hydrograph event 15 Figure 14 EW hydrograph event 16
Event 17 Event 18
8
30th Jan 2000
8
_ 7 7
N o rain data w as
6€
:i
available during
this period
53 3 o
M0 2£
1
09:00 13:00 17:00 21:00 0
30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00 30/01/00 8/2/00 8/2/008 /2 / 0 0 8 /2 / 0 0 9/2/00
Date 10:00 14:00 18:00 2 2 : 0 0 02:00
Date
Figure 15 EW hydrograph event 17 F igure 16 EW hydrograph event 18

H ydrographs - E m m ock W oods
23rd - 24th March 2000
23/3/00 23/3/00 23/3/00 24/3/00

12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00 15:30 18:30 21:30 00:30
Date Date
F igure 17 EW hydrograph event 19 F igure 18 EW hydrograph event 2 0
Event 21
10th April 2000
14 5
12
N o road data 4 if
E 10 available
E 8 3I
if®
c 4
6
s 2 ■ II 1 i
0 J1------- r m I 0
10/4/00 10/4/00 10/4/00 10/4/00
18:30 19:50 21:10 22:30
Date
F igure 19 EW hydrograph event 21 Figure 20 EW hydrograph event 2 2
Event 23
8 21 June 2000 8
7 N o Rain Data w as
7
S6 6S
u
available at this period
i l ns, l\i |\
*2 3 / L | \J \ 1 3 ?c
2 1M T\ ft
<2 1 A A.! \_______ 1 £ 2
-■ imiii......iiirimiiriltnQlIliiiNiimiwinimimnniniitiimiiiminiflminmiwmmimii- 0
21/06/00 21/06/00 21/06/00 21/06/00
07:00 09:00 11:00 13:00
Date
Figure 21 EW hydrograph event 23 F igure 22 EW hydrograph event 24

14th August 2000 20 14
12 —
15 £
E 10 .c
101o
2
16/8/00 16/8/00 16/8/00 16/8/00
00:30 02:30 04:30 13:30 15:30 17:30 19:30
Date Date

APPENDIX 5.2C
HYDROGRAPHS - WEST GRANGE
detail (events 10 and 25). The remaining 25 are given here in Figure 1 to Figure 25.
Rainfall Road Sw ale runoff
Event 1
Figure 1 WG hydrograph event 1 F igure 2 WG hydrograph event 2
Event 3 Event 4
1.4 25th November 1999 1.4
1.2 1.2
_ 1 nr rJo sw ale runoff
| 0.8 p w as produced 0.8o
& £| 0.4
0.6
0.2
s*
0.2
0 ...—■ 0
15:30 17:30 19:30 21:30 23:30 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00
Time Time
Figure 3 WG hydrograph event 3 Figure 4 W G hydrograph event 4
A ppendix 5.2C 5.2C- 1

H ydrographs - W est G range
Event 5 Event 6
14 8th D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 9 14
19 19
10 10
.EAS ZeI o 8 o |
dc ■— E• 4b 6 = 1
o O
0 i____ £4....... 1.. 0
09 00 14:00 19:00 00:00
Date
F igure 5 WG hydrograph event 5 F igure 6 WG hydrograph event 6
Event 7 Event 8
11th - 12th D e c e m b e r 1999
06:00 1 2:00 18:00 0 0 : 0 0 06:00 1 2:00

Time
F igu re 7 WG hydrograph event 7 Figure 8 WG hydrograph event 8
Event 11
7
6
_5
~2
1
0
15:30 18:30 21:30 00:30 03:30
Time
F igure 10 W G hydrograph event 11

E v e n t 15
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00

Time
Figure 14 WG hydrograph event 15
Event 16 Event 17
8
t E
4c E
2£
o
11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00
Time Time
F igure 15 WG hydrograph event 16 Figure 16 W G hydrograph event 17
Event 18 Event 19
2 10th June 2000 2 22nd June 2000
1.5
« £^ 15
£ E 1 1 c E
2 £ 0.5 <2 £
0.5
0 lllllllililllllilllit gH I 0
19:00 21:00 23:00 01:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00
Time Time
Figure 17 WG hydrograph event 18 Figure 18 W G hydrograph event 19
Event 20 Event 21
2 9th July 2000 t 2 25 25th July 2000 25
20 20
1 €15 15**“ -c
.E E 15i i
5 £10 105 E
o mm ^ri11n■ ■ l1M III*STg

III11ii11III 0
19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 05:00 05:30 06:00 06:30
Time Time
Figure 19 W G hydrograph event 20 Figure 20 WG hydrograph event 21

E v e n t 23
14th August 2000
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00

Time
F igure 21 W G hydrograph event 22 F igure 22 W G hydrograph event 23
Event 26
14 6th S e p te m b e r 2000 . 14
12 12
10 10
II 8
8. 46
o8 o ^-
6 § $
2 2
0- n
00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00
Time
F igure 23 W G hydrograph event 24 F igure 24 W G hydrograph event 2 6
Event 27
10th 11th S e p te m b e r 2000
i f
9 * £
21 :00 23 :40 02:20 05:00

Time
F igure 25 WG hydrograph event 27

APPENDIX 5.3A
W ATER QUALITY DATA PLOTS - NATS
Section 5.2.2 in the main text shows water quality data for four events, one for sonde data
(event 12) and one each for EPIC sanitary, metals and hydrocarbons (events 18, 31 and 29
respectively). The remaining water quality data are given here.
• sonde data (11 events) - Figures 1 to 55 and Tables 1 to 11

• EPIC sanitary suite determinands (5 events) - Figures 56 to 96 and Tables 12 to 16
• EPIC metals data (2 events) - Figures 97 to 108 and Tables 17 to 18
• EPIC hydrocarbon data (3 events) - Figures 109 to 111 and Tables 19 to 21
Data from only the porous car park, not the tarmac, was collected for event 30 to 35.
For events with plots that state ‘no tarmac data’, this means no tarmac runoff data was
collected. This means that although the plots show the tarmac sonde recordings, the value
could not be extracted from the dataset and therefore there are no entries for the tarmac
data in the relevant table for that event.
SONDE DATA
Tarmac Porous Tarmac Porous
runoff exit water

W ater Q uality D ata Plots - N A TS
EVENT 10 n 6 ‘h - 17th October 19981
No tarmac runoff data was collected during this event. Figure 1 to Figure 4 show that the
tarmac sonde recordings were lower than the porous.
te m p e r a tu r e PH
.C
£E
16/10/98 16/10/98 17/10/98 17/10/98

date 3:00 15:00 date 3:00 15:00
F igure 1 N A T S sonde temperature (event 10) F igure 2 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 10)
c o n d u c tiv ity a m m o n iu m
3:00 15:00 date 3:00 15:00

date
Figure 3 N A T S sonde pH (event 10) F igure 4 N A T S sonde am m onium (event 10)

16,h - 17th O ctober 1998
N o. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 29.8 Notes: no tarmac runoff data
readings: Porous ==90 (mm): Tarmac = ? therefore couldn’t calculate
Porous = 1 5 .3 sonde values. N o data for D O
& turbidity. In graphs tarmac
values lower than porous.
Parameter Unit M IN MyAX M l IAN
T em perature °C 9.5 10.1 9.73
pH 7.89 8.08 8.03
C onductivity ps 222.8 299.1 237.78
DO %
T urbidity N TU
A m m onium ppm 1.8 2.2 1.89
T able 1 sonde values for N A TS event 10

EVENT 13 (26th - 28th Oct 19981
te m p e r a tu r e pH
10/26/98 10/27/98 10/27/98 10/28/98 10/26/98 10/27/98 10/27/98 10/28/98

2 0 :0 0 6 :0 0 16:00
date 2 :0 0 20:00 6:00 date 16:00 2:00
Figure 5 N A T S sonde temperature (event 13) F igure 6 N A T S sonde pH (event 13)
c o n d u c tiv ity
2 0 :0 0 6 :0 0 16:00
date 2 :0 0
F igure 7 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 13) F igure 8 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 13)
F igure 9 N A T S sonde ammonium (event 13)
Sonde values Even 1 13

26"' - 28th October 11998
N o. o f Tarmac =78 Total Rain = 1 2 .8 Notes: N o data for DO
readings: Porous =72 (mm): Tarmac = 6.6
Porous = 2.2
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X M l LAN
T em perature °C 4.8 8.3 7.6 8.7 6.12 8 .4 9
pH 6.56 7.66 7.05 8 6.77 7 .8 6
C onductivity ps 59.1 267.1 159.9 294.5 107.2 2 78.4
DO %
T urbidity N TU 25.2 17.2 100.2 44.4 49.5 3 3 .4
A m m onium ppm 0.5 2 1.1 2.3 0.8 2.1

EVENT 14 r28lh Nov 1998^
4
3 3= _j= 3 3=
c E 2c
2 E
1
0
28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/9828/11/98 28/11/9828/11/9828/11/98
1:00 5:00 9:00 13:00 17:00 1:00 5:00 9:00 13:00 17:00
date date
F igure 10 N A TS sonde temperature (event 14) F igure 11 N A T S sonde pH (event 14)
c o n d u c tiv ity t u r b id it y
70 Event 14 4
pin
S'fin ^
3= £
Z 40 V \ _____________
' '^n
jQ OU
2c E
*- on 12 -
^ 10
n n
28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98 28/11/98
1:00 5:00 9:00 13:00 17:00 1:00 5:00 9:00 13:00 17:00
date date
Figure 12 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 14) F igure 13 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 14)
a m m o n iu m
4
3 3= _-c
2c E
2 E
28/11 /98 28/11 /98 28/11 /98 28/11 /98 28/11 /98
1:00 5:00 9:00 13:00 17:00
date

28th November 1998
N o. o f Tarmac =8 Total Rain = 4.4 N otes: N o data for DO
readings: Porous =17 (mm): Tarmac = 1 .1 3
Porous = 0.28
Parameter Unit M IN M i\X m :IAN
T em perature °C 6 6.3 8.5 6.5 7.025 6.43
pH 6.81 7.51 7.17 7.87 7.02 7.75
C onductivity _____ 36.3 344.5 109.5 383.1 80.9 358.14
DO %
T urbidity N TU 35.7 21.6 59.9 38.7 43.7 29.88
A m m onium ppm 0 1 0.2 1.1 0.11 1.04

EVENT 17 (27lh Feb 20001
2 2
1-5, 1.5 3= _-c
1 1 gE
0.5 0.5 2 ^
0
27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00
0:00 5:00 date 10:00 15:00 0:00 5:00 date 10:00 15:00
F igure 15 N A T S sonde temperature (event 17) F igure 16 N A T S sonde pH (event 17)
c o n d u c tiv ity d is s o lv e d o x y g e n
-r 2 2
1.5 3= _-e 1.5
1 gs 1
0.5 2 ^ 0.5
0 0
27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00
0:00 5:00 date 10:00 15:00 0:00 5:00 date 10:00 15:00
F igure 17 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 17) F igure 18 N A T S sonde DO (event 17)
a m m o n iu m
1
0.5
0
27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00 27/02/00
0:00 5:00 date 10:00 15:00

27th February 200C
N o. o f Tarmac =56 Total Rain = 8.2 N otes: N o data for turbidity
readings: Porous =49 (mm): Tarmac = 2.46 or for porous ammonium
Porous = 2.3
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X M £AN
T em perature °C 5.5 5.1 8 5.4 7.1 5.14
pH 6.11 8.06 6.92 8.29 6.5 8.27
C onductivity jiS_ 15.5 477.7 87.2 506 37.47 482.3
DO % 34.1 66 91 82.7 75.8 77.2
T urbidity N TU
A m m onium ppm 0.2 2.1 0.64

EVENT 18 (28th - 29th February 20001
In addition to sonde data, EPIC samples were also collected for this event and analysed for
sanitary suite determinands, and these are shown in the main text.
9 Event 18 2
O 1-5 mH—. -C■£
7
X
e - 1 is
^- 0.5 2 t
4 n
28/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 29/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 29/02/00
13:30 18:30 date 23:30 4:30 13:30 18:30 date 23:30 4:30
F igure 20 N A T S sonde temperature (event 18) F igure 21 N A T S sonde pH (event 18)
100 Event 18 2 100 Event 18 o
.to_. 0U
on
3 fin Jl 15* 2
"2 40 j 1 j 1 c E
8 90 _1 0.5 i2 S
0 0
28/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 29/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 29/02/00
13 30 18:30 date 23:30 4:30 13:30 18:30 date23:30 4:30
F igu re 22 N A TS sonde conductivity (event 18) F igure 23 N A T S sonde D O (event 1 8)
a m m o n iu m
2.5 Event 18 2
o 1.5 3= s~i
CE 1loR / V ^ — ^
1 c E
2- 1 /
n^ 0.5 2 ^
n n
28/02/00 28/02/00 28/02/00 29/02/00
13:30 18:30 date 23:30 4:30
F igure 24 N A TS sonde ammonium (event 18)

28th-29"1February 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =27 Total Rain = 6.6 N otes: N o data for turbidity
readings: Porous =37 (mm): Tarmac = 1.64 or for porous conductivity,
Porous = 0.38 DO and ammonium
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X Ml £AN
T em perature °C 3.5 5.1 4.7 5.2 4.42 5.17
PH 6.16 8.2 6.73 8.24 6.5 8.22
C onductivity ps 62.4 94 84.7
DO % 48.3 82.9 66.5
T urbidity NTU
A m m onium ppm 1.1 2 1.59

EVENT 20 (2nd April 2000)
No tarmac runoff data collected for this event, but the recordings were lower than the
porous
te m p e r a tu r e
5
4 •4—
3o
2 U3.
1
0
2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00
13:00 16:00 date19:00 22:00
Figure 25 N A T S sonde temperature (event 20) F igure 26 N A T S sonde pH (event 2 0 )

100 Event 20 5
on A
N) CO J
Co QQ K , . ________________
nm/h)
unoff
Qa 40 —i c ^ _________ «- C
on -I
0 no tarmac data 0
2/0^1/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00
13:00 16:00 date
19:00 22:00 13 00 16:00 date 19:00 22:00
Figure 27 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 20) Figure 28 N A T S sonde DO (event 20)
t u r b id it y a m m o n iu m
1200 Event 20 5 1.4 Eve nt 20 5
_1000 4 1.2 4
£ 800 V 1
\ no tarmac data 3*0
.c
I l r E 0.8 0C =
~ 600
i 2 u=. £0.6
1 - w1
£ 400 l 0.4
*' 200 h V 1 0.2 no tarmac data
0d J — — -------- o 0 iiiiiiiiiiian.ffifuniiiiiimiinninimrrr c i 0
2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00 2/04/00
13:00 16:00 date 19:00 22:00 13:00 16:00 date19:00 22:00
Figure 29 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 20) F igure 30 N A T S sonde ammonium (event 20)

2nd April 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 7.8 N otes: no tarmac runoff data
readings: Porous =27 (mm): Tarmac = ? therefore couldn’t calculate
Porous = 3.6 sonde values. In graphs tarmac
values lower than porous.
Parameter Unit M IN M \X
j IV1EAN
T em perature °C 8.4 8.6 8.5
PH 8.2 8.27 8.25
DO % 32.3 74.7 47.94
T urbidity NTU 44 808 140.5
A m m onium ppm 0.7 0.8 0.7
EVENT 30 (27th July 2000)
8 Event 30 20
3= -c 7.5 15*_**- 5~
c2 EE i. 7 10c E
6.5 52 E
6 rrmTfTnnmi 11n111n111inirn ui i"m111n1111n11 0
m m ii
27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00
15:30 16:10 date 16:50 17:30
F igu re 31 N A T S sonde temperature (event 30) F igure 32 N A T S sonde pH (event 3 0 )
20
153= ~jz
10 c E
5
27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00
15:30 16:10 date 16:50 17:30 15:30 16:10 date 16:50 17:30
F igu re 33 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 30) F igure 34 N A T S sonde DO (event 30)
t u r b id it y
20
15*.
10g= CE
5
0
27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00 27/07/00
15:30 16:10date 16:50 17:30
F igure 35 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 30)
Sonde values E vent 30

27th July 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =/ Total Rain = 1 8 .6 Notes: N o ammonium data
readings: Porous =4 (mm): Tarmac = / collected
Porous = 2.1
Parameter Unit MIN M j\X M EAN
T em perature °C 18.5 19.5 19.2
pH 7.53 7.77 7.69
DO % 63 77.5 70.6
T urbidity N TU 691 1250 998.5
Am m onium m 2_____

EVENT 31 (28lh - 29th July 20001
metals, and these are shown in the main text.
9 Event 31 20
8 5
8 15* S'
^0 7• -OK __ f 10? 1£
7 r 103
r^ 5 *" ~
r 0
28/07/00 28/07/00 28/07/00 29/07/00
14:00 18:00 date
22:00 2:00 14:00 18:00 date 22:00 2:00
F igu re 36 N A T S sonde temperature (event 31) F igure 37 N A T S sonde pH (event 3 1 )
t u r b id it y
28/07/00 28/07/00 28/07/00 29/07/00

14:00 18:00 date 22:00 2:00
F igure 40 N A TS sonde turbidity (event 31)

28th- 2 9 th July 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =/ Total Rain = 1 0 .8 Notes: N o ammonium data
readings: Porous =44 (mm): Tarmac = / collected
Porous = 5.12
Parameter Unit MIN M AX m : ilAN
T em perature °C 18.2 19.4 18.74
PH 7.76 7.92 7.89
C onductivity ps 322.1 352 328.17
DO % 26.5 72.6 39.4
Turbidity N TU 32 237 65.8
Am m onium ppm

EVENT 32 (31st July 2000)
hydrocarbons, shown in Figure 111 and Table 21 in this appendix.
9 Event 32 20
8 «5 -----------
15 sc 2 ..... '" 1 15 3= 2
cE ^ 75 . 10 2 c
2£ 7
fi S 5 2J.
6 0
31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/0 7/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/0(3
11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30 11 :00 12:30 14:00 15:30
Date Date
F igure 41 N A T S sonde temperature (event 32) F igure 42 N A T S sonde pH (event 3 2 )
c o n d u c tiv ity
20
15lt£
10 c E
5
0
31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00
11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30
Date
F igure 43 N A TS sonde conductivity (event 32) F igure 44 N A T S sonde DO (event 32)
t u r b id it y
150 Event 32 20
1no 15 te 2
fc 50 10 c E
5
n n
31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00 31/07/00
11:00 12:30 14:00 15:30
Date
F igure 45 N A TS sonde turbidity (event 32)

31st July 2000
N o. o f Tarmac = / Total Rain = 1 0 .4 Notes: N o ammonium data
readings: Porous = 8 (mm): Tarmac = / collected
Porous = 2.69
Parameter Unit MIN My\X M l £AN
T em perature °C 18 19.7 19.4
pH 7.89 7.99 7.97
C onductivity ps 308.3 340.6 31 9.6
DO % 63.9 70.2 67.7
Turbidity NTU 70 129 99.75
A m m onium ppm
EVENT 34 (2nd August 20001
sanitary suite determinands, shown in Figures 85-89 and Table 15 in this appendix.
25 Event 34 20 9 Event 34 20
o 20 15 jto 8 15 !C x:
CL 15 10 10 °c Ec
E 10 7
QJ 5 5 2E 5 2E
0 ~Hiininiii!ini!iiinnii»ii!innii[im!iiniiniHii!iiii!iiiiiinnnMniniii!Hiniiii!inii!iininimiiini!i 0 6 i i u 'rmrnmi n mn 11mi 0
2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
date date
F igure 46 N A TS sonde temperature (event 34) F igure 47 N A T S sonde pH (event 3 4 )
c o n d u c tiv ity
400 Event 34 20
■5o ~^ 200
300 10 ° E
100 5 ^
0 i nmrnmn r0
2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00 2/08/00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
date
Figure 48 N A T S sonde conductivity (event 34) F igure 49 N A T S sonde DO (event 34)
Figure 50 N A TS sonde turbidity (event 34)

2nd August 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =/ Total Rain = 1 3 .4 N otes: N o ammonium data
Porous = 4.8
Parameter Unit M IN My\X M l EAN
T em perature °C 18.3 19.7 19.45
pH 7.76 7.96 7.92
C onductivity
ps 246.5 310.8 262.95
DO % 63.5 77.7 71.3
A m m onium ppm
Table 10 sonde values for N A T S event 34

EVENT 35 0 4111August 2000)
sanitary suite determinands, shown in Figures 90-96 and Table 16 in this appendix
te m p e r a tu r e
23:00 0:20 1:40 3:00

date
F igure 51 N A TS sonde temperature (event 35) F igure 52 N A T S sonde pH (event 3 5 )
F igure 55 N A T S sonde turbidity (event 35)

I4lh August 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =/ Total Rain = 1 4 N otes: N o ammonium data
Porous = 3.53
Parameter Unit M IN M \X Ml IAN
T em perature °C 18.8 19.5 19.3
pH 7.88 8.01 7.98
DO % 60.6 71.4 65.84
A m m onium ppm
EPIC DATA - Sanitary suite
The plots here show interpolated data for each determinand. On each plot the values that
represent the actual samples collected are indicated with a circle or square at the tip of the
column, as illustrated in the key below.

Tarmac ■ Tarmac sample Tarmac runoff
interpolated data
• Porous sample ---- Porous exit
— —mmPorOUS Manual sample of porous water
interpolated data • exit water (event 21)
EVENT 7 (1st October 1998)

Samples were collected for only the porous exit water, and analysed for seven of the
determinands from the sanitary suite. 12 samples were collected at 20 minute intervals.
Not every sample was analysed for all seven determinands.
pH C o n d u c tiv ity
6
5
45: S
2E 32 E
2 E 2 E
06:30 07:40 08:50 10:00 11:10

Time Time
F igure 56 N A TS EPIC pH (event 7) F igure 57 N A T S EPIC conductivity (event 7)

O r th o -p h o sp h a te
F igu re 60 N A TS EPIC Am m N (event 7) F igure 61 N A T S EPIC o-phos (event 7)
C h lo r id e
6
5
4m_
3 Oc3 £
0
2 *“ £
1
0
06:30 07:40 08:50
Time
10:00 11:10
F igure 62 N A T S EPIC chloride (event 7)

1st October 1998
N o. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 9.2 N otes: N o tarmac
samples: Porous =12 (mm): Tarmac = 6.67 samples taken
Porous = 0.8
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X M E AN
pH 8 8.3 8.15
EC fis/cm 315 373 328
TSS mg /1 18.4 31.85 23.9
BO D mg /1 1.5 3.4 2.2
Am m N m g /1 0.054 0.62 0.112
TO N mg /1
o-phos m g /1 0.046 0.087 0.06
chloride mg /1 3.4 5.7 4.65
T able 12 EPIC values for N A T S sanitary suite event 7

EVENT 19 (23rd March 2000)
No porous exit water was produced during this event, however samples from the tarmac
runoff were collected for analysis for additional data. Seven samples collected at 24
minute intervals were analysed for eight of the determinands from the sanitary suite, plus
Total Alkalinity.
B ic > c h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e r m a n d A m m o n ia c a l N itr o g e n
14 Event 19 4 1.2 Event 19 4
12 3.5 \ , 3.5
3 3
2.5t S
n a
2.5s: S"
E 0
“ 8
o' 0 _____ _________________________ : 2 c E ^>0 R 2
zl 2 "c
c c
1.5 2 E 1.5 2 E
V 1
04
1
O_ L 0 2
n v
0.5
n n - V
\ 0.5
n
13:40 15:40 17:40 19:40 21:40 13:40 15:40 17:40 19:40 21:40
Time Time
F igure 65 N A T S EPIC BO D (event 19) F igure 66 N A T S Am m N (event 19)

T o t a l A lk a lin it y (as C a C 0 3)
14 Event 19 4
12 __________________
10 3
5: £
■a
C (5 I 2c E
4 2 E
V M J
2
n V) \ .J V.... :
13:40 15:40 17:40 19:40 21:40
Time
Figure 69 N A T S EPIC chloride (event 19) F igure 70 N A T S EPIC total alkalinity (event 19)

23rd March 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =7 Total Rain = 6.6 N otes: N o porous exit
samples: Porous =0 (mm): Tarmac = 3.49 water runoff. A lso
Porous = 0 analysed for Total
alkalinity
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X M E AN
pH 6.3 6.5 6.4
EC ps/cm 30.1 97.4 62
TSS mg /1 15.6 154 50.9
BO D Eg/1_____ 2.5 12.5 5.83
AmmN mg /1 0.083 0.998 0.478
TO N mg /1 0.35 2.32 1.42
o-phos mg /1 0.015 0.213 0.04
chloride mg /1 3.9 11.6 7.49
T otal alkalinity mg /1 7.4 12.6 9.04
T able 13 EPIC values for N A TS sanitary suite event 19

EVENT 21 (1 l lh - 12th April 2000')
Samples were collected for both the porous exit water and the tarmac runoff. 15 samples
were analysed from each site. The samples from the porous were collected at 12 minute
intervals and at 24 minute intervals from the tarmac. In addition to this, one manual
sample or porous exit water was taken at 13:35 on the 12th. This sample was taken straight
from the end of the perforated pipe, where it flows into the manhole, therefore it is ‘pure’
exit water, not the composite of exit water which is in the manhole. The samples were
analysed for seven of the determinands from the sanitary suite, plus some were analysed
for an additional six. The additional six determinands (the last six in Table 14) were
analysed for up to three samples.
A value of 1.5mg/l for Organic Suspended Solids and BOD represents a value of <2mg/l
F igure 72 N A T S EPIC conductivity (event 21)
B io c h e m ic a l O x y g e n D e m a n d
35 T o t a l S u s Event
p e n d e d S o lid s
21 4
Event 21
30 3.5
^25 3
g20 0)2.5
wC/) 15 l 2
•—10 Q1 5
5 “ 1
0.5
0 IM S
iiii m iiim
0 A
14:46 19.46 00:46
Time
05:46 10:46 14:46 19:46 00:46 05:46 10:46
Time
F igure 73 N A T S EPIC TSS (event 21) F igure 74 N A T S EPIC BO D (event 2 1 )
A m m o n ia c a l N itr o g e n 1I6D T o t a l O x i d i s e d N i t r o ag e n^ 4
02 Event 21 -4 Event 21 J
3.5
0.15
05 o.1
0.05
11fflthIIM
r
14:46 19:46 00:46
Time
05:46 10:46 14:46 19:46 00:46 05:46 10:46
Time
Figure 75 N A TS EPIC AmmN (event 21) Figure 76 N A TS EPIC TON (event 21)

C h lo r id e
35 Event 21
30
_25
o)20
noE s
10
r
lm
14:46 19:46 00:46
Time
05:46 10:46
F igure 78 N A T S EPIC chloride (event 21)
F igure 79 N A T S EPIC tot. org. solids (event 21) F igure 80 N A T S EPIC organic sus. sol.(event 21)
T o ta l S o lid s
4
3.5
-3
2.5 it
2 2
1.5 2
1
0.5
0
14:46 19:46 00:46
Time
05:46 10:46
Figure 81 N A TS EPIC tot. diss. solids (event 21) F igure 82 N A T S EPIC total solids (even t 21)
T o ta l A s h
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 2E
14:46 19:46 00:46

Time
05:46 10:46 14:46 19:46 00:46 05:46 10:46
Time
F igure 83 N A TS EPIC ash. sus. sol.(event 21) Figure 84 N A T S EPIC total ash (even t 21)

EPIC values (sanitary suit<i) E vent 21
11th - 1 2 th April 20 0 0
N o. o f Tarmac =15 Total (mm): Rain = 16.6 N otes: 1.5m g/l for B O D & organic
samples: Porous =15 Tarmac = 4.68 suspended solids represents a value <2
Porous = 4.12
Parameter Unit MI M MA X M E/ \N
Tar. Por. Manual P. Tar. Por. M anual P. Tar. Por. M anual P.
pH 6.8 8.1 7.2 8.2 6.85 8.19 8.2
EC ps/cm 31.8 369 71.3 387 41.25 376.3 349
TSS mg/1 9.8 11.8 27.6 30.6 15.8 15.13 17.4
BOD m g/1 2 1.5 3.8 3.3 2.8 1.6 1.5
AmmN mg/1 0.057 0.026 0.166 0.047 0.095 0.033 0.036
TON mg/1 0.274 1.21 0.576 1.43 0.468 1.36 1.3
o-phos mg/1 0.015 0.064 0.034 0.079 0.026 0.07 0.074
chloride mg/1 3.71 29.6 17.3 32.3 6.5 30.4 26
T otal O rganic mg/1 14 26 20 42 48
Solids
O rganic Sus. mg/1 7.6 9.8 8.9 1.5 1.5
Solids
T otal D issolved mg/1 28 244 38 252 33 248 242
Solids
T otal Solids mg/1 44 82 63 276 262
A shed Sus. mg/1 5.8 11.2 8.4 13.6 18.4
Solids
T otal A sh mg/1 18 68 43 234 214
T able 14 EPIC values for N A T S sanitary suite event 21
Appendix 5.3A 5.3A- 19

Water Quality Data Plots - NATS
EVENT 34 ('2nd August 2000)
22 samples collected at hourly intervals were analysed for five sanitary suite determinands,
with every second sample analysed for BOD (1.5mg/l represents a value of <2mg/l).
Sonde data was also collected for this event, shown in Figures 46-50 and Table 10 in this
appendix.
Figure 85 N A TS EPIC pH (event 34) F igure 86 N A T S EPIC conductivity (event 34)
F igure 88 N A T S EPIC BO D (event 34)
A m irlo n ia c a 1 N it r o g e n
2.5 Evenlt 34 T 15
2
■— st
O) I.J
1 c. 10
E 1 1i |i , 1 c E
h i tii. 5 2 £
0.5 h ill
0 m u iiiiii m uni 0
17:00 23:00 5:00 11:00
Time
F igure 89 N A TS EPIC AmmN (event 34)

2nd - 3rd August 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 13.4 N otes: 1.5m g/l for BO D
samples: Porous =22 (mm): Tarmac = N/A represents a value < 2 .
Porous = 4.8 Samples analysed at U A D
Parameter Unit M IN M/AX M EAN
pH 7.19 8.57 7.74
EC ps/cm 95.8 268 209.75
TSS mg/l 7 114 22
BOD m g /1 1.5 1.5 1.5
Am m N mg/l 0.34 2.3 1.13

EVENT 35 0 4 th August 20001
11 samples collected at hourly intervals, for the porous exit water only, were analysed for
six sanitary suite determinands. 7 of the samples were analysed at UAD laboratories, and
the other four at SEP A. Those analysed at SEPA are indicated by a black line. A value of
1.5mg/l for BOD represents a value of <2mg/l. Sonde data was also collected for this
event, shown in Figures 51-53 and Table 11 in this appendix.
pH C o n d u c tiv ity
14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/0014/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00

01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00 01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00
Time Time
F igure 90 N A TS EPIC pH (event 35) F igure 91 N A T S EPIC conductivity (event 35)
1' o t a l S u s p e n d e d S o l i d s B io c h e m ic a l O x y g e n D e m a n d
70 Event 35 6
fin 5
oPu 4 5= £
(/}C5U 3c E
Won
10
n- ] 11 I 1 1
n
1
14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00
01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00 01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00
Time Time
F igure 92 N A TS EPIC TSS (event 35) F igure 93 N A T S EPIC BO D (event 35)
A m m o n ia c a l N itr o g e n O r th o -p h o sp h a te
1.2 Event 35 6
1 5
08 & =£=
"on r 3? P
cn 4 22 E
0.2 1
0 o
14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/ 00
01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00 01 00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00
Time Time
Figure 94 N A TS EPIC AmmN (event 35) F igure 95 N A T S EPIC o-phos (event 35)

W ater Q uality D ata P lots - N A T S
C h i. o r id e
7 Eve nt 35 6
5
i
4 9= £ “
io 3c E
09 2 ^
A | 1« 1 1
n Z L L JZ o
14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00 14/08/00
01:00 04:00 07:00 10:00 13:00
Time
Figure 96 N A T S EPIC chloride (event 35)

14*11August 2000
N o. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 14 N otes: 1.5mg/l for B O D
samples: Porous =11 (mm): Tarmac = N /A represents a value <2. 4
Porous = 3.53 samples analysed at
SEPA, others at UAD
Parameter Unit M [N Ml ME AN
pH 7.7 8.1 7.89
EC ps/cm 224 288 252.5
TSS mg /1 1.9 61.2 19.3
BO D mg /1 1.5 1.5 1.5
AmmN mg /1 0.14 0.74 0.33
TON mg /1
o-phos mg /1 0.24 0.96 0.65
chloride mg /1 1.1 6.2 3.04

EPIC DATA - Metals

Tarmac Tarmac sample Tarmac runoff
interpolated data
Porous sample Porous exit
mmmmm PorOUS
Manual sample o f porous water
interpolated data
exit water (event 8)

EVENT 8 - (4th - 5th October 19981
10 samples of tarmac runoff collected at 20 min intervals were analysed for metals. A
manual sample of porous exit water was taken from the manhole after flow ceased (10am
on the 5th).

4lh - 5th October 1998
No. of Tarmac =10 Total Rain = 16 Notes: 0.288 ug/1 for Cd
samples: Porous =1 (mm): Tarmac =10.1 represents a value <0.288; 0.9
Porous = 3.8 for Pb = <0.9; 0.5 for Cr = <
0.5; 0.64 for Ni = < 0.64.
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X :MEAN
Cd ESd_____ 0.288 0.43 0.3 0.288
Pb Pg/1 0.9 13.3 2.76 0.93
Cu ESd_____ 2.21 10.7 5.05 3.76
Cr ESd_____ 0.5 1.76 0.68 4.63
Ni 0.64 27.4 4.64 1.7
Zn Pg/1 17 62 29.45 17
Table 17 EPIC values for NATS metals event 8
EVENT 33 (1st August 2000)
9 samples of porous exit water, collected at hourly intervals, were analysed for metals &
TSS.
Lead
Time
Figure 104 NATS EPIC Pb (event 33)
Chromium
E ven t 33
N)
5
A
bn
->■
( m m /h )
ru n o ff
! *
bn
O
<->1
O
9:00 16:00 23:00 6:00
Time
Figure 105 NATS EPIC Cu (event 33) Figure 106 NATS EPIC Cr (event 33)
Figure 107 NATS EPIC Ni (event 33) Figure 108 NATS EPIC TSS (event 33)

1st August 2000
No. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 5 Notes: 0.64 ug/1 for Ni
samples: Porous =9 (mm): Tarmac = / represents a value <0.64
Porous = 0.32
Cd Pgd 0.08 0.15 0.12
Pb Pg/1 2.94 6.33 4.19
Cu Pgd_____ 4.43 8.99 5.94
Cr 3.55 4.42 3.85
Ni ESd 0.64 1.79 0.95
Zn EEd_____
TSS mg/1 6.1 17.1 11
Table 18 EPIC values for NATS metals event 33

EPIC DATA - Hydrocarbons

Tarmac M Tarmac sample Tarmac runoff
interpolated data
m Porous sample Porous exit
mmmmmm PoiOUS
• Manual sample o f porous water
interpolated data
exit water (event 11 & 22)
EVENT 11 - (20th October 19981

9 samples of tarmac runoff, collected at 9 minute intervals, were analysed for
hydrocarbons. A manual sample of porous exit water was taken from the manhole after
flow ceased (3pm on the 21st).
Figure 109 NATS EPIC hydrocarbons (event 11)

ll" 1October 1998
No. of Tarmac =9 Total Rain = 6.6 Notes: No tarmac runoff
samples: Porous =0 (mm): Tarmac = ? data. Manual sample for
Porous = 0.48 porous exit water
collected at 15:00 on 21st
Parameter Unit M [N MAX MEAN
Hydrocarbon mg/1 0.493 2.14 1.07 0.327
Table 19 EPIC values for NATS hydrocarbons event 11

EVENT 22 - (17th April 20001
2 manual samples of porous exit water were collected at 16:00 on the 17th near the start of
the runoff. One sample was collected from the composite in the manhole, the other was
taken from the exit water flowing into the manhole.
Hydrocarbons
8
6 5: £
4 c E
2 2 E
0
17/4/00 17/4/00 17/4/00 18/4/00 18/4/00
08:00 14:00 20:00 02:00 08:00
T im e
Figure 110 NATS EPIC hydrocarbons (event 22)

17th April 2000
No. of Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 9.8 Notes: 2 manual samples taken at
samples: Porous =2 (mm): Tarmac = ? 16:00 - one from composite in
Porous = 6.5 manhole, other from flow o f exit
water entering manhole
Parameter Unit MIN M AX MEAN
Tar. Por. Tar. Por. Tar. Por. - Por. -
composite in exit water
manhole flow
Hydrocarbon mg/1 0.15 0.1

EVENT 32 - <3 1st July 20001
6 samples of porous exit water, collected at hourly intervals, were analysed for
hydrocarbons. Sonde data was also collected for this event, shown in Figures 41-45 and
Table 9 in this appendix.

31s' July 2000
No. o f Tarmac =0 Total Rain = 10.4 Notes:
Porous = 2.69
Tar. | Por. Tar. | Por. Tar. | Por.
Hydrocarbon mg/1 0.14 2.03 1.21

APPENDIX 5.3B
WATER QUALITY DATA PLOTS - EMMOCK WOODS
Section 5.3.2 in the main text shows water quality data for two events, one for sonde data
(event 15) and one for EPIC sanitary suite (event 20). The water quality data for the
remaining two events are given here.
• sonde data (2 events) - Figures 1 to 8 and Tables 1 & 2
SONDE DATA
Road Swale Road Swale
runoff runoff
Appendix 5.3B 5.3B- 1

Water Quality Data Plots - Emmock Woods
EVENT 15 (10th October 1999)
Sonde data was collected for both the road and swale runoff, at 10 minute intervals, and all
probes except turbidity and ammonium were working. No flow data for road runoff was
collected, hence although the plots show the road runoff sonde recordings, the value could
not be extracted from the dataset and therefore there are no entries for the road runoff data
in the table. The difference between road and swale runoff can be observed in the graphs
however.

10th October 1999
No. o f Road =/ Total Rain = 2.2 Notes: No road runoff data
readings: Swale =3 (mm): Road = ? therefore couldn’t calculate
Swale = 0.05 sonde values. But in graphs
the difference between road
and swale runoff can be
seen. No data for turbidity
and ammonium.
Parameter Unit M rN M \X IV[EAN
Temperature °C 13.3 13.4 13.37
PH 8.36 8.66 8.54
Conductivity (IS 95.5 119.1 103.97
DO % 60.3 81.4 68.6
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium ppm
Table 1 Sonde values for Emmock Woods event 15

EVENT 19 (11th - 12'"th February 20001
probes except DO and turbidity were working, and also ammonium for the swale.
Temperature pH
Event 19 9 Event 19
8.5
g 6 z 3 5: j= xa.
8
O- 5
E
t 2c E 7.5
7
5 4
6.5
6
11/2/00 11/2/00 11/2/00 12/2/00 11/2/00 11/2/00 11/2/00 12/2/00
12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00• f 1 12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00
date date
Figure 5 EW sonde temperature (event 19) Figure 6 EW sonde pH (event 19)
Ammonium
0.7 - Event 19 3.5
0.6 Q
05 \A h h n 9 t; _
c 04 - 2 o «
9- n ^ 15=|
02 i I 2§
01 05
0 — J W . _____________ L 0
11/:1100 11/2/00 11/2/00 12/2/0 0
12 00 16:00 20:00 00:00
date
Figure 7 EW sonde conductivity (event 19) Figure 8 EW sonde ammonium (event 19)

11“ - 12th February 20019
No. o f Road =24 Total Rain = 3.2 Notes: No data for DO
readings: Swale =3 (mm): Road = 0.4 and turbidity for both
Swale = 0.11 sondes and no amm. for
swale..
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X Ml IAN
Temperature °C 4.1 4.1 6.1 4.5 5.72 4.27
pH 8.1 8.13 8.4 8.53 8.2 8.39
Conductivity (IS 33.1 46.8 96.9 77.4 60.7 65.3
DO %
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium ppm 0.2 0.5 0.5
Table 2 Sonde values for Emmock Woods event 19

APPENDIX 5.3C
WATER QUALITY DATA PLOTS - WEST GRANGE
Section 5.4.2 in the main text shows water quality data for four events, one for sonde data
(event 25) and one each for EPIC sanitary, metals and hydrocarbons (events 17, 22 and 16
respectively). The remaining water quality data are given here.
• sonde data (6 events) - Figures 1 to 27 and Tables 1 to 6

• EPIC sanitary suite determinands including 4 manual samples (6 events) - Figures 28
to 66 and Tables 7 to 12
• EPIC hydrocarbons data (2 events) - Figures 67 & 68 and Tables 13 & 14
SONDE DATA
Road Swale Road Swale
runoff runoff
sanitary suite determinands, and these are shown in the main text.
Appendix 5.3C 5.3C- 1

Water Quality Data Plots - West Grange
EVENT 1 t20th October 1999)
Sonde data was collected at 10 minute intervals. All probes except turbidity and
ammonium were working. No flow data for swale runoff was collected, hence although
the plots show the swale runoff sonde recordings, the value could not be extracted from the
dataset and therefore there are no entries for the swale runoff data in the table. The
difference between road and swale runoff can be observed in the graphs however. EPIC
samples were also collected for this event, with sanitary suite analysis. Results are shown
as Figures 28-35 in this appendix.
Temperature pH
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00

20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99
Date Date
Figure 1 WG sonde temperature (event 1) Figure 2 WG sonde pH (event 1)

1000 Event 1 120 Event 1
co 600 100 6 _
800
M n «E- £ no sw ale data
TcJ 400
3
no sw ale data Co 80
THl \t ........-..- '
4c E
9S 60 V
2 200 $;,M, 1,.!*?.,zr*
. ....
40
20
-
0 no,:,™™,...................„..
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00
20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99
Date Date
Figure 3 WG sonde conductivity (event 1) Figure 4 WG sonde DO (event 1)

20th October 1999
No. o f Road =54 Total Rain = 3 Notes: No swale runoff data
readings: Swale =/ (mm): Road = 1.59 therefore couldn’t calculate
Swale = ? sonde values. But in graphs
the difference between road
and swale runoff can be seen.
No data for turbidity and
ammonium.
Parameter Unit M IN M j\X IVIEAN
Temperature °C 7.8 12.4 10.7
pH 8.39 9.07 8.65
Conductivity ps 75.2 932 298.9
DO % 32.6 91.4 57.1
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium ppm
Table 1 Sonde values for West Grange event 1

EVENT 19 (22nd June 20001
probes except turbidity and ammonium were working, and also DO for the swale.
Temperature
Date
Figure 5 WG sonde temperature (event 19)
Dissolved Oxygen
35 Event 19 -r 2
30
20
25
~ ; s! f
8 15
10 n
0.5
I E"
iiminiimnmiluminminminiminiminim timiniunmil~ 0
01:30 03:10 04:50 06:30
22/6/00 22/6/00 22/6/00 22/6/00
Date

22nd June 2000
readings: Swale =7 (mm): Road = 0.3 turbidity and ammonium
Swale = 0.06 for both sondes, and no
DO for swale
Parameter Unit MIN Mi \X Ml LAN
Temperature °C 14.2 14 14.7 14.1 14.34 14.07
pH 7.31 7.51 7.68 7.58 7.6 7.54
Conductivity ps 96.1 27.9 106.2 69.8 100.17 50.1
DO % 1.5 32.6 23.2
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium ppm

EVENT 20 (9 th July 20001
probes except turbidity and ammonium were working.
Temperature pH
19:00 21:00 23:00 01:00 19:00 21:00 23:00 01:00

9/7/00 9/7/00 9/7/00 10/7/00 9/7/00 9/7/00 9/7/00 10/7/00
Date Date
19:00 21:00 23:00 01:00

9/7/00 9/7/00 9/7/00 10/7/00
Date Date

9th July 2000
No. o f Road =20 Total Rain = 2.8 Notes: No data for
readings: Swale =17 (mm): Road = 1.2 turbidity and ammonium.
Swale =1.1
Temperature °C 13 13.5 15.7 15 13.6 13.96
pH 7.37 7.53 7.76 7.73 7.47 7.62
Conductivity ps 31 39 99.8 103.4 63.5 65.5
DO % 41 49.5 88.9 57.9 73.1 53.95
Turbidity NTU
Ammonium EE1___

EVENT 22 (3 1st July 2000)
Sonde data was collected at 10 minute intervals. All probes except ammonium were
working. EPIC samples were also collected for event 22, and results are shown in the main
text.

250 Event 22 2 -inn Event 22 2
in
900 1.5^ _
3 150 iC .c
1 =E
o° 0.5
<2 ~E
50 . m Xfr
0 ri 0
12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30 20:30 12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30
Time Time
Figure 17 WG sonde turbidity (event 22)

31st July 2000
Swale = 0.5
Parameter Unit M IN M \X Ml LAN
Temperature °C 17 19.6 19.6 20.1 18.65 19.87
pH 7.7 7.7 8.15 7.91 7.86 7.76
Conductivityps 3.7 117.2 196.8 174 89.9 140.25
DO % 20.6 67.4 79.5 74.1 63.1 70
Turbidity NTU 0 40 173 86 55 55
Ammonium ppm

EVENT 23 (T4lh August 20001
working.
Temperature pH
conductivity
Figure 20 WG sonde conductivity (event 23)
Turbidity
300 Event 23 12
9^0 10
? onn l j||
^ 1RO 6 2 P
"3F 100 4 E
’ 2
0 0
0:00 1:20 2:40 4:00
Time

14th August 2000
Swale = 3.2
Parameter Unit M IN My\X m :£AN
Temperature °C 16 15.8 16.8 16.5 16.3 16.1
pH 7.34 7.22 7.95 7.45 7.74 7.3
Conductivity ps 24.5 16.3 96 53.1 58.5 33.6
DO % 36.7 69.4 96.3 85.3 68.5 80.3
Turbidity NTU 0 0 249 57 100 31.5
Ammonium ppm
EVENT 24 August 2000)
working. EPIC samples were also collected for this event, and are shown as Figure 67 in
this appendix.
Temperature pH
Event 24 6 8.5 Event 24
8
4 3= S' \ —
° c X 7 5 ®E
2fi E
c e
E 7 iii
14-nmimimin«immimrimiinimininrnrmriihi 0 6.5 imimimiuiiTTTnnnTrmumimimninrnrnimiinnminnmiinnmimimiiihnilmimiinnnilnnmin~ 0
16:30 17:50 19:10 20:30 16:30 17:50 19:10 20:30
Date Date

27th August 2000
Swale = 0.63
Temperature °C 17 18.2 20.5 20.3 18.9 19.1
PH 7.53 7.37 7.77 8.3 7.64 7.63
Conductivity ps 32.4 4.5 97.6 107.3 62.7 67.4
DO % 21.5 61.8 75.5 79.7 60.1 69.97
Turbidity NTU 34 29 213 188 104 91
Ammonium ppm

EPIC DATA - Sanitary suite
Results of EPIC samples from two events and manual samples from four events are shown
here. The plots for EPIC samples show interpolated data for each determinand. On each
plot the values that represent actual samples collected are indicated with a circle or square
at the tip of the column, as illustrated in the key. The manual samples are illustrated as bar
graphs.

Road water
quality data Road sample Road runoff
Swale water Swale sample Swale runoff
quality data
EVENT 1 (20th October 19991

Samples were collected at 20 minute intervals. 11 road runoff samples and two swale
runoff samples were analysed for eight determinands from the sanitary suite. Road runoff
had already commenced before the samples were taken. No swale runoff data was
available. Sonde data was also collected for this event, shown in Figures 1 to 4 and Table
1 in this Appendix.
PH Conductivity
Event 1
800 I0
Event 1
600 1_____________ If
400 ill! -r 4
200 ...m ill If 2
0 ir m n n iiM iiiiiiiii 1 3 0
08:30 11:30 14:30 17:30
20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99
Date Date
Figure 28 WG EPIC pH (event 1) Figure 29 WG EPIC conductivity (event 1)
Total Suspended Solids Biochemical Oxygen Demand

80
Event 1
10 Event 1
1 60 8 3= -c
6 cE
& 40
to 20
to
0 a
08:30
20/10/99
11:30
20/10/99
14:30
20/10/99
4 2 E
2
0
17:30
20/10/99
08:30
20/10/99
11:30
20/10/99
14:30
20/10/99
17:30
20/10/99
c2 EE
Date Date
Figure 30 WG EPIC TSS (event 1) Figure 31 WG EPIC BOD (event 1)

Ammoniacal Nitrogen Total Oxidised Nitrogen
1.5
Event 1
10 2.5
Event 1
10
-o> 1 8 3= = 2 8 it -c
°c cE
j
1.5 a ll 6 cE
E 0.5 is - 2 E 1 __ . . ..«! 4 2 E
2
—i—
■■ ■MMM
0 nunUflI ..~
0.5
.... inintiin 0
M
08:30 11:30 14:30 17:30 08:30 11:30 14:30 17:30
20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99
Date Date
Figure 32 WG EPIC ArranN (event 1) Figure 33 WG EPIC TON (event 1)
Chloride
120 Event 1
10
100 1_________________ Jrmi 8 3= -c
80
____ ll HIE 6 2E
60
_______ v m m i III! 4 2 E
40
20 — iim m m iiiE 2
0 m im m iiii 0
08:30 11:30 14:30 17:30
20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99 20/10/99
Date
Figure 35 WG EPIC chloride (event 1)
EPIC (sanitary suite) Event I

20lb October 1999
No. o f Road =11 Total Rain = 3 Notes: 22.25 mg/1 for road
samples: Swale =2 (mm): runoff BOD represents a
Road = 1.59
Swale = ?value o f >22, 7.25mg/l for
swale BOD = <7.5; 0.015mg/l
for AmmN = <0.02
Parameter Unit M IN M i\ X MI£AN
pH 7.4 7.5 8.1 7.8 7.58 7.65
EC (us/cm 93.3 101 679 176 253.8 138.5
TSS mg/1 8.6 17 58.4 41.4 29.4 29.2
BOD mg/1 2.6 7.25 22.25 7.4 6.4 7.3
AmrniN mg/1 0.015 0.02 1.19 0.04 0.15 0.03
TON mg/1 0.31 0.299 2.23 0.328 0.85 031
o-phos mg/1 0.027 0.141 0.377 0.178 0.08 0.159
chloride mg/1 14.1 16.2 103 16.4 39.2 16.3
Table 7 EPIC values for West Grange event 1

EVENT 2 f4th - 5th November 19991
Samples were collected at 12 minute intervals. 24 samples of road runoff and 21 samples
of swale runoff were analysed for live determinands from the sanitary suite.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Ammoniacai Nitrogen
Puonf 9 0.2 Event 2 T 8
23:30 _. 2:30 20:30 23:30 T. 2:30 5:30

T im e Time
Figure 36 WG EPIC BOD (event 2) Figure 37 WG EPIC AmirfN (event 2)
Figure 40 WG EPIC chloride (event 2)
EPIC (sanitary suite) Event 2

4th - 5th November 1999
No. of Road =24 Total Rain = ? Notes: 5.75 mg/1 for road runoff BOD
samples: Swale =21 (mm): represents a value <6, 3.75mg/l for
Road = 12.56
swale BOD = <4, 2.75mg/l for swale
Swale = 4.38
BOD = <3, 0.05mg/l for TON =<0.1,
1.75mg/l for Cl = <2
Parameter Unit M IN M j\ X MI: a n
BOD mg/1 3.75 2.75 6.7 6.9 5.4 4.5
AramN mg/1 0.073 0.025 0.156 0.095 0.1 0.04
TON mg/1 0.192 0.05 0.616 0.266 0.45 0.07
o-phos mg/1 0.04 0.064 0.095 0.164 0.07 0.1
chloride mg/1 3.7 1.75 19.9 13.2 14.3 7.7

EVENT 11 (23rd - 24lh March 20001
2 manual samples for swale and road runoff, collected on the 23rd March at 18:00 and
another at 22:25, were analysed in the laboratory at UAD for six determinands from the
sanitary suite.
1000 ts s
18:00 22:15
Figure 41 WG sample pH Figure 42 WG sample Figure 43 WG sample TSS

(event 11) conductivity (event 11) (event 11)
BOD O-phos
Figure 44 WG sample BOD Figure 45 WG sample Figure 46 WG sample o-

(event 11) AmmN (event 11) phos (event 11)
M anual sam ple (sanitary suite) Event 11

23rd - 24th M arch 2000
No. o f Road =2 Total Rain = 13.4 Notes: Analysed at UAD
samples: Swale =2 (mm): Road = 10.43 laboratory. Samples at
Swale = 12.8 18:00 &22:25 on 23rd
pH 8.02 7.77 8.18 7.94 8.1 7.85
EC (is/cm 97.1 111.3 161.8 741 129.45 426.15
TSS mg/1 335 70 823 243 579 156.5
BOD mg/1 0.9 0.9 2.4 8.4 1.65 4.65
AmmN mg/1 0.72 0.66 3.2 0.82 1.96 0.755
TON mg/1
o-phos mg/1 0 0.16 0.38 0.16 0.19 0.16
chloride mg/1
Table 9 Manual sample values for West Grange event 11

EVENT 12 (2nd April 2000)
A manual sample was collected for both the swale and road runoff at 14:30. The samples
were analysed in the laboratory at UAD for five determinands from the sanitary suite.
Figure 47 WG sample pH Figure 48 WG sample Figure 49 WG sample TSS

(event 12) conductivity (event 12) (event 12)
Figure 50 WG sample BOD Figure 51 WG sample

(event 12) AmmN (event 12)

2nd April 2000
No. o f Road =1 Total Rain = 7 Notes: Analysed at UAD
samples: Swale =1 (mm): Road = 3.96 laboratory. Sample at
Swale = 6.38 14:30 on 2nd
Parameter Unit M IN M \X ME AN
pH 7.8 7.5
EC ps/cm 196 53.1
TSS mg/l 215 140
BOD mg/l 5.48 4.58
AmmN mg/l 0.24 0.52
TON mg/l
o-phos mg/l
chloride mg/l

EVENT 13 (24th - 27th April 2000~)
A manual sample was collected for both the swale and road runoff at 16:30 on the 26 tVi
April, after rain had been falling for almost 2 days. The samples were analysed for eight
determinands from the sanitary suite, plus Total Alkalinity. Some values were below
detectable limits.
7.5
Figure 52 WG sample pH
(event 13) Figure 53 WG sample Figure 54 WG sample TSS
conductivity (event 13) (event 13)
2.5 0.06 0.2

0.05
0.04
|> 0.03
0.02
0.01
0
BOD Am m N TON
Figure 55 WG sample BOD Figure 56 WG sample Figure 57 WG sample TON

(event 13) AmmN (event 13) (event 13)
Figure 58 WG sample o- Figure 59 WG sample Figure 60 WG sample

phos (event 13) chloride (event 13) alkalinity (event 13)

M anual sam ple (sanitary suit e) E vent 13
24‘6 - 2 7 t h A pril 20<)0
No. of Road =1 Total Rain = 23.8 Notes: sample at 16:30 on 26to
samples: Swale =1 (mm): Road = 10.2 April. 1.75 mg/1 for BOD
Swale = ? represents a value <2.
0.015mg/l for AmmN =<0.02
0.05mg/l for Cl = <0.1
Parameter Unit M [N Mi\X MEiVN
pH 7.4 7.1
EC ps/cm 103 72.6
TSS mg/1 102 21.5
BOD mg/1 2.2 1.75
AmmN mg/1 0.056 0.015
TON mg/1 0.164 0.095
o-phos mg/1 0.107 0.042
chloride mg/1 2.2 0.05
Total mg/1 53.1 42.2
Alkalinity
Appendix 5.3C 5 .3 0 14
EVENT 14 (15th May 20001
A manual sample was collected for both the swale and road runoff at 14:45. The samples
were analysed in the laboratory at UAD for three determinands from the sanitary suite,
plus Volatile Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorous and Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Figure 61 WG sample TSS Figure 62 WG sample Figure 63 WG sample

(event 14) AmmN (event 14) chloride (event 14)
140 0.8 350
vss Total P COD
Figure 64 WG sample VSS Figure 65 WG sample Total Figure 66 WG sample COD

(event 14) P (event 14) (event 14)

15th May 2000
No. of Road =1 Total Rain = 4 Notes: sample analysed at
samples: Swale =1 (mm): Road = 1.43 UAD
Swale = ?
Parameter Unit M [N Mi-\X ME;^N
pH
EC (is/cm
TSS mg/1 957 156
BOD mg/1
AmmN mg/1 0.37 0.08
TON mg/1
o-phos mg/1
chloride mg/1 7.5 7.4
VSS mg/1 123 30
Total P mg/1 0.67 0.04
COD mg/1 304 170
Table 12 Manual sample for West Grange event 14

EPIC DATA - Hydrocarbon
The plots here show interpolated data for hydrocarbon analysis. On each plot the values
that represent actual samples collected are indicated with a circle or square at the tip of the
column, as illustrated in the key.
Road water Road sample
quality data Road runoff
Swale water Swale sample Swale runoff
quality data
EVENT 24 (27th August 2000)

From samples of swale and road runoff collected at 12 minute intervals, two from each
were analysed for hydrocarbons. Sonde data was also collected for this event, and is
shown as Figures 23 to 27 and Table 6 in this Appendix.
Hydrocarbon
2 Event 24 16
1 r L _ . ______________________ i 19
it 2T
U) A 8 c E
E 1 i 2 E
n n I 4
0 AJb» ffPrr -rfrr rrrH- j'T’rn-m- 0

17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30
27/8/00 27/8/00 27/8/00 27/8/00
Date
Figure 67 WG EPIC hydrocarbon (event 24)

27th August 2000
No. o f Road =2 Total Rain = 3.6 Notes:
samples: Swale =2 (mm): Road = 0 .9 8
Swale = 0.63
Hydrocarbon mg/l 0.7 0.76 1.75 0.86 1.22 0.81

EVENT 25 C31sl Aug - 1st Sep 20001
From samples of road and swale runoff collected at 12 minute intervals, four from each
were analysed for hydrocarbons. Sonde data was also collected for event 25, and is shown
as Figures 5.42 to 5.46 and Table 5.13 in Chapter 5.
Figure 68 WG EPIC hydrocarbons (event 25)

31st A u g -1 st Sep 2000
No. o f Road =4 Total Rain = 12.4 Notes:
samples: Swale =4 (mm): Road = 6.25
Swale = 3.12
Road Swale Road Swale Road | Swale
Hydrocarbon mg/1 0.97 0.94 2.25 1.34 1.4 1.2

APPENDIX 6.1
TABLES OF HYDROLOGICAL DATA
The tables in this Appendix show the hydrological data for all three sites. There are four
tables, detailing the events that were analysed in detail:
Table 1 - NATS (35 events)
Table 2 - Emmock Woods (26 events)
Table 3 - West Grange (27 events)
Table 4 - West Grange, with original design of drainage arrangement at swale (24 events)
The tables detail the following parameters for each events:
■ total rainfall
■ duration
■ maximum rainfall intensity
■ Api5
■ Mm rain before runoff commences
■ Total runoff
■ Percentage runoff
■ Benefit factor
■ Peak runoff intensity
■ Lag time
This data is used and referred to throughout the main text, and summary tables of
minimum, maximum and mean are shown in Chapter 6.
Appendix 6.1 6.1-1

Tables of Hydrological Data
Table 1 NATS hydrology data analysis
Lag time
intensity
Outflow
Percent
(mm/h)
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
(mins)
before
Total
(mm)
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No. *
reduction
NOTES
(mm/h)
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Date
ft
◄
%
1 16.4.98 5.4 4 12 2.44 0 3.8 2.95 0.49 54.6 9.1 83.4 11.9 0.19 98.4 -13.5 86.5
2 24-25.4.98 5.6 9.5 12 2.36 0 5.4 1.2 0.14 21.4 2.5 88.3 1.13 0.05 95.6 -4.7 137.3
3 11-14.5.98 8.8 8 6 0.72 0.4 8.6 4.64 0.41 52.7 4.7 91.2 4 0.47 88.2 37.4 125.5
4 28-30.5.98 21.4 33.5 6 4.72 0.2 5.6 9.8 1.8 45.8 8.4 81.6 2.46 0.35 85.8 16.5 277.1
Tables o f Hydrological Data
5 12-13.7.98 33.4 27.25 12 1.13 0.4 17.2 24.3 7.5 72.8 22.5 69.1 10.99 2.76 75 122.6 142.6
6 7-8.8.98 15 16.5 6 0.28 0.4 8.6 8.6 1.6 57.3 10.7 81.4 2.9 0.98 66.2 / /
Appendix 6.1
7 1.10.98 9.2 8 12 2 0.4 5.6 6.67 0.8 72.5 8.7 88 11.7 1.72 85.3 65.5 101.5 EPIC san. (por)
8 4-5.10.98 16 31.25 12 1.12 0.6 7.6 10.1 3.8 63 23.75 62.4 17 1.2 93 -24.2 123.8 EPIC metals
9 9.10.98 7 2.25 6 0.98 0.4 7 4.27 0.95 61 13.6 77.8 4 0.87 78.2 20.7 100.7
10 16-17.10.98 29.8 29.5 12 2.39 N/A 7.4 N/A 15.3 N/A 51.3 N/A N/A 3.3 / N/A 124.9, sonde
34.6
11 20-21.10.98 6.6 17.75 3 2.56 N/A 4.8 N/A 0.48 N/A 7.3 N/A N/A 0.07 / N/A 249.7 EPIC hydrocarbons
12 24.10.98 8.4 11.25 6 2.08 1 6.6 3.19 1.1 38 13.1 65.5 2.06 0.37 82 13.7 219.7 Sonde
13 26-28.10.98 12.8 31.25 18 2.19 1.4 4.8 6.6 1.96 51.6 15.3 70.3 4.85 0.51 89.5 26, 29, 111,209 Sonde
21,59
14 28.11.98 4.4 10 9 1.26 0.8 3.6 1.13 0.28 25.3 6.4 75.2 1.3 0.11 91.5 -13.4 170.6 Sonde
15 24-27.12.98 23.8 52 24 0.58 2.6 4.8 16.6 8.1 69.7 34 51.2 6.4 1.66 74 11.3 201.5
16 27-28.2.99 9.8 14.5 12 1.32 1.6 7 4.4 3.9 44.9 39.8 11.4 4.98 1.75 64.8 13.1 123.6
17 27.2.00 8.2 15.25 3 1.42 1 5.4 2.46 2.3 30 28 6.5 0.93 0.71 23.7 -64 105.7 Sonde
Events 24 to 34 are from Ng (2000)
6.1-2
Table 1 cont’d
Lag time
intensity
Outflow
Percent
(mm/h)
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
(mins)
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No. *
reduction
NOTES
Tarmac
Tarmac
(mm/h)
Tarmac
Tarmac
Tarmac
NATS hydrology data analysis

Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Date
"5-
<
%
18 28-29.2.00 6.6
21.75 6 4.33 1.7 4.6 1.64 0.38 24.8 5.8 76.8 2.4 0.12 95 21.1 232.8 EPIC san. & sonde
19 23.3.00 6.6
8.5 6 0.19 0.6 / 3.49 0 52.9 0 100 3.59 0 / 6.6 / EPIC san. (tarm)
20 2.4.00 4
7.8 12 0.69 6.4 N/A 3.6 N/A 46.2 N/A N/A 3 / N/A 60.3 Sonde
21 11-12.4.00 16.6
37.75 6 0.17 0.4 9.8 4.68 4.12 28.2 24.8 12 2.14 1.3 39 -158 277.9 EPIC san.
22 17-18.4.00 9.813 6 3.12 N/A 5.4 N/A 6.5 N/A 66 N/A N/A 1.51 / N/A 240.1 EPIC hydroc.(por.)
23 16-17.5.00 10
18.75 6 1.64 0.6 9.2 4.9 1.8 49 18 63.3 3.59 1.55 56.8 15.7 119.7
27.5.00 /
Appendix 6.1
24 14.75 6
8.6 0.9 N/A 7 N/A 0.2 N/A 2.3 N/A N/A 0.08 N/A 509
25 28-29.5.00 9.411 12 3.4 N/A 7 N/A 1.4 N/A 14.9 N/A N/A 0.95 / N/A 211
26 3-4.6.00 21
16.8 6 0.5 N/A 8.8 N/A 6.8 N/A 40.5 N/A N/A 1.48 / N/A 325
27 6-7.6.00 8
7 18 4.5 N/A 2.6 N/A 3.8 N/A 54.3 N/A N/A 1.15 / N/A 75
28 9.6.00 5.6
11 3 2.6 N/A 5.4 N/A 0.14 N/A 2.5 N/A N/A 0.13 / N/A 389
29 8-10.7.00 32
35.5 12 1 N/A 9 N/A 8.8 N/A 27.5 N/A N/A 2.6 / N/A 74 EPIC hyd
30 27.7.00 0.75 84 0.1
18.6 N/A 12.8 N/A 2.1 N/A 11.3 N/A N/A 8.57 / N/A 600 Sonde
31 28-29.7.00 11
10.8 36 11.9 N/A 7 N/A 5.12 N/A 47.4 N/A N/A 6.58 / N/A 109 Epic metal & sonde
32 31.7.00 10.4
4 24 3.4 N/A 8.7 N/A 2.69 N/A 25.9 N/A N/A 3.95 / N/A 162 Epic hyd & sonde
33 1.8.00 5
4.5 8 10.2 N/A 5 N/A 0.32 N/A 6.4 N/A N/A 0.32 / N/A / Epic metal
34 2.8.00 1 13.4
14.25 30 7.9 N/A 12.8 N/A 4.8 N/A 35.8 N/A N/A 9.8 / N/A 29 Epic san & sonde
3514.8.00 | 14 6 24 4.4 N/A 12.6 N/A 3.53 N/A 25.2 N/A N/A 5.5 / N/A 61 Epic san & sonde
Benefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
* Events 24 to 34 are from Ng (2000)
6.1-3
Table 2
Lag time
intensity
(mm/h)
Runoff
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
(mins)
<mm>
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
Emmock Woods hydrology data analysis

Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No.
reduction
NOTES
(mm/h)
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
*5*
Date
%
◄
1 27-28.2.99 16.6 25 6 0.81 0.8 4 6.80 3.6 41 21.5 47 2 2 0 6.6,13, 17,17.5
15.5
2 2.3.99 4.6 8 7.2 4.73 0.4 4 1.09 0.34 24 7.5 69 1.05 0.68 35 14.9 18.9
3 12.3.99 3.2 7.5 18 0.04 0.8 2.8 0.76 0.07 24 2 91 2.41 0.87 64 10.2, 8.2 10.2
4 13.3.99 1.6 5.75 6 2.36 0.8 4 0.44 0.06 27.5 4 86.5 1.72 0.55 68 8.5 14.5
5 28-29.3.99 17.8 29 12 0.31 0.6 2.4 (2.14) 2.6 (20) 4.1 3.7 10 4 2,19, brackets indicate
Appendix 6.1
(5.6) (1.72) 10.7, 9.5 values up to 16:00

when road data ends
6 5-6.4.99 10.2 29.25 12 0.93 N/A 5 N/A 1.08 N/A 10 N/A N/A 2.27 / 10.5,
9.25
7 20-21.4.99 34.2 15 6 3.67 N/A 1.2 N/A 12.3 N/A 36 N/A N/A 4.78 / 6.1
8 21.5.99 8.8 13.25 18 0.01 N/A 3.4 N/A 0.42 N/A 4.8 N/A N/A 4.78 / 3
9 28-29.5.99 17.6 32.25 6 0.2 N/A 5.6 N/A 0.27 N/A 1.5 N/A N/A 0.95 / 29.7
10 2-3.6.99 13.8 26.75 6 0.67 0.8 4.4 7.81 1.01 57 7 87 3.11 1.34 57 21 4.7, 21
11 4.6.99 2.4 1.2 3 6.23 0.8 1.2 1.62 0.11 67.5 4.5 93 2.27 0.48 79 10 14
12 5.6.99 9.6 6.75 30 4.35 2.8 2.8 1.6 0.38 16 4 80 5.05 3 40 1.6 1.63
13 27.6.99 12.2 7 12 0.38 N/A 1.2 N/A 0.96 N/A 7.9 N/A N/A 2.45 / 6.9
14 5.7.99 6.4 5 18 0.95 N/A 2.4 N/A 0.15 N/A 2.3 N/A N/A 3.76 / 5.7
15 10.10.99 2.2 3.5 18 0.34 N/A 2.2 N/A 0.05 N/A 2.3 N/A 0.79 0.612 22 sonde
16 4-5.11.99 14.4 14 6 0 N/A 7.5 N/A 0.35 N/A 2.4 N/A N/A 0.272 /
TBenefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
6.1-4
Table 2 cont’d Emmock Woods hydrology data analysis
Lag time
intensity
(mm/h)
Runoff
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
(mins)
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
%
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No.
reduction
NOTES
(mm/h)
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
9lBMS
VI
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Date
%
◄
17 30.1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5 0.025 N/A N/A 99.3 6.9 0.34 95 Sonde
18 8-9.2.00 4.2 18.25 6 0.41 0.2 / 3.6 0 85.7 0 100 3.11 0 / 3
19 11-12.2.00
3.2 14 19.2 1.17 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.11 12.5 3.5 72.5 3.11 1.18 62 Sonde
20 23-24.3.00 19 10.5 6 2.14 N/A 12.4 N/A 0.13 N/A 0.7 N/A N/A 0.27 / Manual sample
21 10.4.00 5.2 4.5 12 0 N/A 3.4 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.4 N/A N/A 0.27 /
Appendix 6.1
22 11-12.4.00 23.4 18.75 12 3.8 N/A 10.8 N/A 0.31 N/A 1.3 N/A N/A 0.87 /
23 21.6.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.3 0.09 N/A N/A 98.6 4.74 0.27 94
24 9.8.00 8.2 7.75 12 0.96 0.4 / 7.12 0 86.9 0 100 7.63 0 / 10.4, 1.7
25 14.8.00 11.2 4 18 1.36 0.4 / 5.1 0 45.5 0 100 9.6 0 /
26 16.8.00 4.2 6.5 12 1.96 N/A 0.7 N/A 0.3 N/A 7 N/A N/A 1.03 /
TBenefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
6.1-5
Table 3 West Grange hydrology data analysis
Lag time
intensity
(mm/h)
Runoff
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
runoff
before
(mins)
(mm)
Total
Peak
Rain
Mm
Benefit Factor*
%
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No.
reduction
NOTES
(mm/h)
tfi
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Date
a
<
%
1 20.10.99 3 16.5 12 0.17 0.2 2.2 1.59 N/A 53 N/A N/A 6.72 N/A / EPIC san. & sonde
2 4-5.11.99 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 12.56 4.38 N/A N/A 65 3.78 2.92 23 EPIC san.
3 25.11.99 0.8 2.5 1.2 0.01 0.4 / 0.35 0 44 0 100 0.42 / /

4 26.11.99 2.8 4 15 0.55 0.2 1.1 1.69 0.33 60 11.8 80.5 5.46 2.49 54 -1.3 4.7
5 27-28.11.99 10.4 25 6 1.62 0.2 1.4 6.8 4.28 65 41 37 1.68 3.2 +90 -13, 24 11,44
Appendix 6.1
6 8.12.99 4.2 13 12 0.23 0.2 1.2 3.6 1.02 85.7 24.3 71.7 5.88 3.95 33 52 60
7 11.12.99 15.2 24 6 1.21 0.4 1.2 11.2 4.25 74 28 62 1.68 2.84 +69 -16 38
8 30.1.00 3.6 11 6 0.14 0.4 2 2.6 0.6 72 16.7 77 4.62 3.87 16 1 7
9 17.2.00 5 25.5 6 0.29 0.2 0.8 2.73 1.79 55 36 34 2.1 3.14 +49 -26 -20
10 9-10.3.00 3.8 16 3 1.1 0.7 1 1.97 1.33 52 35 33 2.1 1.95 7 14, -2 18,30
11 23-24.3.00 13.4 10 6 1.74 0.4 0.6 10.43 12.8 78 95 +24 3.36 4.67 +39 77 87 Manual sample san.
12 2.4.00 7 4.5 6 1.07 0.6 1 3.96 6.38 56 91 +61 2.52 4.67 +85 -74 -70 Manual sample san.
13 24-27.4.00 23.8 46 6 1.73 0.4 N/A 10.2 N/A 43 N/A N/A 1.26 N/A / Manual sample san.
14 15.5.00 4 3 18 0 0.2 N/A 1.43 N/A 36 N/A N/A 4.2 N/A / -16, 6 Manual sample san.
15 27.5.00 16 18 3 0.76 0.4 0.8 10.1 9.7 63 60.5 4 1.26 1.52 +21
16 29.5.00 3.2 4.5 18 7.3 1 1.2 1.04 0.92 32.5 29 11.5 5.04 2.42 52 2,5.5 6, 9.5 EPIC hydrocarbon
^Benefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
6.1-6
Table 3 cont’d West Grange hydrology data analysis
___________ runoff__
Lag time
intensity
(mm/h)
Runoff
Runoff
Total Rainfall (mm)
runoff
before
(mins)
(mm)
Total
Peak
iiaiu
Mm
n •
Benefit Factor*
%
Max. Intensity
Duration (hrs)
Event No.
reduction
NOTES
(mm/h)
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Swale
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Date
•a
_ ,
<
%
17 6.6.00 1.6 2 7.2 2.76 0.4 0.8 0.66 1.04 40 65 +58 3.78 5.89 +56 -0.75 3.25 EPIC san.
10.6.00
18 0.6 1 1.5 2.36 0.2 0.6 0.15 0.11 25 18 27 0.42 0.6 +43
19 22.6.00 1.2 4 1.2 2.35 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.06 25 5 80 0.42 0.16 62 Sonde
20 9.7.00 2.8 4 1.5 2.45 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.1 43 39 8 1.26 1.4 +11 0 2 Sonde
Appendix 6.1
21 25.7.00 2 1 24 0 1.4 1.6 0.69 0.52 34 26 25 5 3 40 4.5 8.5

22 31.7.00 3.6 18.75 3 0.76 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.5 42 14 67 1.26 1.26 0 -7 EPIC metals &
sonde
23 14.8.00 10.8 4 18 1.37 0.4 1 7.8 3.2 72 30 59 11.3 4.8 57 -14 -4 Sonde
24 27.8.00 3.6 6 12 3.25 0.4 1 0.98 0.63 27 17.5 36 3.8 1.8 53 0.25 4.25 EPIC hydr. & sonde
25 31.8-1.9.00 12.4 22 48 0.63 0.4 1 6.25 3.12 50 25 50 9.24 3.78 59 2.75, 12.75, EPIC hydr. & sonde
22, 13 28, 15
26 6.9.00 13 10.5 6 0.94 0.4 1.4 12.1 7.2 93 55 41 13 7.2 45 33, 18 31,20
27 10-11.9.006.6 9 6 0.71 0.4 1.2 3.9 3 59 45 23 2.9 3.2 +10 -4 -2
' Benefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
6.1-7
original design - hydrology data analysis (Bryce,. 2001)
Table 4 West Grange with drainage arrangement returned to
Xjisudju!
(q/uiui)
jjon nn
jjou n x
(ram) n cju ica jb; ox
Jjounj
jjounj
ajojaq
(nun)
IBjox
q n aj
uibh
ui[\[
^jojobx jijauag
Xqsuajui *xbj\[
(sjq) uoijBjna
•OJSI
uoponpai
(q/uiui)
9lBMS co «o -
91BMS ©o ©o -
9lBMS
pncra © o © ©
pBoa
pcoy
oiBa
sjdy
%
24-25.12.00 | 4.2 0.33 0.002 28.1 99.83 0.91 0.084 90.77
m
ts
oo
r~~ Tt
CN
<N VO
11.5 0.24 +14.5 99.96 1.82 95.88
co
vd
<N
oo
© -
oo
© -
o00
m
©o
o
ri
J3
1-2.1.01 | 2 21.5 4.67 0.76 37.8 0.45
-
<N ts
-
3-4.1.01 1 5.8 10.5 2.13 2.24 0.146 38.6 | 2.52 93.48 1.36 0.506 62.79
CO VO VO VO n oo VO VO VO fN m vO CO
co «o
Appendix 6.1
22-23.1.01 | 9 0.28 8.87 0.03 98.5 0.33 99.66 0.253 92.2
ci <N
co
co
CN OO
<u <*x D£ S3 •pn
23-24.1.01 | 5 14.25 5.49 0.28 2.62 52.4 92.37 1.278 29.78
T}*
OV -
(N
©
3-4.2.01 | 11.8 6.77 2.53 2.09 2.08 17.7 17.6 1.36 2.461 +80.9
*n o
© o CO © o © CO ©
cs
© - - -
00
5-7.2.01 I 32.8 7.03 16.2 0.91
rf
- - - tn vd VO
CO 00
- - -
uS
26.25 1.97 N/A 3.54 N/A 6.08 N/A
00 00 t"- Tj-
r|
o14
r—
o^4
o +
CO
27-28.2.01 17.25 5.74 0.45
©
VO CVJ
-
- o
©
- 00
6-7.3.01 0.02 2.33 3.87 55.3 72.87 2.28 20.57
ov o6
<n
& -
0.33 2.46 1.17 1.68 11.25 +43.6 2.28 3.254 +42.72

o
^41
<n <n
fO
©*■ 4
14.3.01 I 3.2 0.712 0.193 22.3 72.9 2.75 1.72 37.45

00
CO
cs
m (N
s a o a
22-23.3.01 I 4.6 9.75 0.67 1.35 0.067 29.3 1.45 2.28

ZVO
81.57
fS ON
as VoO
*
27-28.3.01 I 6.6 0.82 0.64 2.35 0.94 35.6 14.2 2.75 34.18
<n
00
28-29.3.01 I 5.6 7.75 4.59 1.92 1.68 0.146 91.3 1.36 0.51 62.5
©
<N
VO
CO
o
Benefit Factor is defined in Section 3.7
6.1-8
Table 4 cont’d West Grange with drainage arrangement returned to
original design - hydrology data analysis (Bryce,, 2001)
uoipnpai in -
tN
53.29
99.92
67.55
19.11
95.91
99.9
% +
OO
(q/uiui) ©©
N/A 0.79
0.39 99.71 87.9 0.07
16.2 +209.3 2.28 2.85
0.85
31.2 9.09 2.95
96.27 8.07 0.33
Xnsuaiui 9lBMS
jjonnj tN
pno^ OO
62.27 1.36
99.7 82.8
-
94.68
^jopBx qpuag
ON OO tN ©in
© co
tN tN
jjouny o o»o tN
ON ro
co OO
CV+O v
<n
<n -
0.07 55.3
% +
1.26 0.067
99ro
©
1.72
0.19
2.66
0.23
91BAVS
(mm)
jjouna «o
Pôa oi
N/A
0.44
1.88
0.86
74.3
35.1
IB|OX
iionnj <N <N >n tN
00 «n
3.32
0.87 0.76 2.75
2.48
a-ioiaa 9^MS
UIBH
raj\[
OO CM•**
ptJO'jj © © O 911 r-<N
©‘
1.96
1.07
0.99
0.56
0.18
4.55
sidy 0.02
(q/rara) VO VOVO Tj- OO OO
^psuajuj *xbj\[ cs cs
*n
co
in o
17.75
co .2
6.25
16.4 20.5
10.6 26.5
G
(sjq) uoijBjnQ u
C<Zu3
in (N
O
O co .s
co
46.6
25.8
(ram) HBjaiBH lejox
-Ct
T3 <D
-G<C/D>
O
28-29.4.01
15-16.8.01
18-20.8.01
15.6.01
9.6.01
9.4.01
2.8.01
ajBQ o
<t>
•on jnaAg a- u GO** 3 ► £ mCD
G
Appendix 6.1 6.1-9
A P P E N D I X 6.2
TABLES OF WATER QUALITY DATA
The tables in this Appendix show the water quality data for all three sites, The data is used
for summary tables in Chapter 6.
NATS:
• sonde water quality data - Table 1
• EPIC sanitary suite - Table 2
• EPIC sanitary suite loads - Table 3
• EPIC metals - Table 4
• EPIC metals loads - Table 5
• EPIC hydrocarbon - Table 6
• EPIC hydrocarbon loads - Table 7
Emmock Woods
• manual samples sanitary suite (inch loads) - Table 9
West Grange:
© EPIC sanitary suite - Table 11
• EPIC sanitary suite loads - Table 12
• EPIC metals (incl. Loads) - Table 13
• EPIC hydrocarbon - Table 14
• EPIC hydrocarbon loads - Table 15
Appendix 6.2 6.2-1

Tables of Water Quality Data
NATS
Table 1 NATS sonde water quality data

Sonde water quality values
j Event no. 10 12 13 14 17 18 20 30t 31U 32t 33f 34t ua
•oat
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
u u2 iX
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
sw
Unit
dE Tarmac 8.3 4 o 6.1 2.8 7 2.5 e 7.1 2.5 e 4.4 1.2 ©X
+0.34“
©i
Hw u Porous + ©
+
9.7 0.6 9.4 0.2 8.5 0.4 6.4 0.2 5.1 0.3 5.2 0.1 8.5 0.2 19.2 1 18.74 1.2 19.4 1.7 19.5 1.4 19.3 0.7
Tarmac 6.7 0.37 6.8 0.5 7 0.4 r- 6.5 0.8 6.5 0.6 6.7
Ha. Porous
+1.22
+
+ 1.1
+1.8
+1.7
8 0.2 7.9 0.43 7.9 0.3 7.8 0.4 ? 8.3 0.2 8.2 0.1 8.3 0.1 7.7 0.24 7.9 0.16 7.97 0.1 7.9 0.2 7.98 0.13 7.99
Tables ofWater Quality Data
Tarmac 30.5 46 107 101 81 73 37 72 85 31 68

<r+Ns>
+1203%
0
+823%
+342%
+160%
Cond.
Porous 238 76 277 34 279 27 358 39 482 28 408 16 291 15.5 328 30 320 32.3 263 64.3 281 41.7 320 ?
Appendix 6.2
Tarmac 76 57 NS'® 66 35 71 30s

2? Porous + 71 14.2 65.8 10.8 62.8 2+
DO
77 17 48 42 70.6 14.5 39.4 46 67.7 6.3

Tarmac 35.6 26 49.5 75 43.7 24 43
vP
sS
Turbid.
-35.5%
0V -31.4%
-24%
Porous 33.9 34 33.4 27 30 17 140 764 998.5 559 66 205 99.7 59 416 529 161.4 183 220
NTU
Tarmac 0.24 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.11 0.2 0.64 1.9 1.6 0.9 0.68
Ammon
+602%
+796%
+845%
+165%
5 Porous 1.89 0.4 2.15 0.2 2.1 0.3 1.04 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.57
6
Rain 29.8 8.4 12.8 4.4 8.2 6.6 7.8 18.6 10.8 10.4 13.4 14
| Tarmac ?
| Total
? 3.19 6.6 1.13 2.46 1.64 / / / / /

Porous 15.3 1.1 1.96 0.28 2.3 0.38 3.6 2.1 5.12 2.69 4.8 3.53
f Data from Ng (2000)
-L From only one event
6.2-2
TABLE 2 NATS EPIC water quality data - Sanitary Suite
NATS
Event no. 7 18 19 21 33t 34f
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
(-/+)*
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
Tarmac 6.8 0.7 6.4 0.2 6.85 0.4 6.68
+1.34
+1.37
+1.4
W
O. Porous 8.15 0.3 8.2 0 8.19 0 .1 7.74 1.38 7.89 0.4 8.03
Tarmac 44.6 li.i 62 67.3 41.25 39.5 49.3
+812%
+822%
+832%
B
O
Porous 328 58 415.9 25 376.3 18 209.7 172.2 252.5 64 316.5
EC
Tarmac 38.2 96.4 50.9 138.4 15.8 17.8 30.03

£
-4.2%
rii
-60%
22
TSS
mg/1
Porous 23.9 13.45 15.24 9.8 15.13 18.8 107 19.3 59.3 19.1
Tarmac 4.2 4.74 5.83 10 2.8 1.8 4.8

-54.8%
-42.8%
-48.8%
BOD
mg/1
Porous 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.74
Tarmac 0.03 0.015 0.478 0.915 0.095 0.109 0.2

o
-65.3%
-32.6%
Amm
0.112 0.566 0.03 0.021 0.6

mg/1
Porous 0.013 0.033 1.13 1.96 0.33 0.32
j
0 v0O©s 0.68 £
+190.6%
Tarmac 0.15 1.42 1.97 0.468 0.302
+ vo
1/5
TON
0.22 0.86 +
mg/1
Porous 0.36 0.27 1.36
0.02 0.112 +157.1%

+169.2%
Tarmac 0.04 0.198 0.026 0.019 0.029

o-phos
+145%
mg/1
Porous 0.06 0.041 0.049 0.039 0.07 0.015 0.65 0.72 0.207
10.9 2.6 7.49 7.7 6.5 13.59 8.3

chloride
Tarmac
+367.7%
+397.8%
+428%
mg/1
Porous 4.65 2.3 57.56 2.1 30.4 2.7 3.04 5.1 23.9
Rain 9.2 6.6 6.6 16.6 13.4 14

| Total
mm
Tarmac 6.67 1.64 3.49 4.68 N/A N/A

Porous 0.8 0.38 0 4.12 4.8 3.53
|
f Data from Ng(2000)

Note: 1.5mg/l for BOD represents a value of <2mg/l, 0.15mg/l for TON represents a value
of <0.2mg/l
Appendix 6.2 6.2-3

TABLE 3 NATS EPIC water quality data - Sanitary Suite LOADS
NATS
EPIC Water Quality - SANITARY SUITE
___________LOADS (mg/m2)
j
Event no. 7 18 19 21 33t 34t
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
(-/+)*
Unit
Tarmac 62.6 177.6 73.9 104.7

-90.7%
-15.7%
-53.2%
1S) Porous
TSS
19.12 5.79 62.3 105.6 68.13 52.2
Tarmac 6.89 20.34 13.1 13.44

-89.5%
-49.6%
-69.5%
BOD
f
E Porous 1.76 0.72 6.6 7.2 5.3 43
Tarmac 0.049 1.67 0.44 0.72
73.25%
-77.5%
-69%
unity
lbE Porous 0.089 0.011 0.136 5.42 1.16 13 6

+155.7%
0.25 4.95 2.19 2.46
+55.2%
Tarmac
-45.2%
1E) Porous
TO N
0.137 5.6 2.86

Tarmac 0.033 0.14 0.121 0.098
+47.8%
o-phos
-42.4%
+138%
1E)
Porous 0.048 0.019 0.288 2.29 0.66
Tarmac 17.88 26.14 30.42 24.8
chloride
+311.6%
+22.5%
+167%
■bd
E Porous 3.7 21.9 125.2 10.73 40.4
Rain 9.2 6.6 6.6 16.6 13.4 14

Total
"s Tarmac 2.95 0.72 1.54 2.07 N/A N/A

Porous 1.12 0.53 0 5.77 6.7 4.95
f Data from Ng(2000)
Appendix 6.2 6.2-4

TABLE 4 NATS EPIC water quality data - Metals
NATS
EPIC Water Quality - METALS
31t 33t
N-•iuaH
Event no. 8
To3>
Difference
Parameter
Average §
u X
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
W
2 1
Tarmac 0.3 0.142 v©

0rfs
031 v®
0rfs*
uT3 'Bb
=L Porous 0.288
i 5.33 24.34 0.12 0.07 1.91
Tarmac 2.76 12.4 2.761
-66.3%
-66.3%
AOh 'Sb Porous 0.93 24.32 74.1 4.19 3.39 9.8
Tarmac 5.05 8.49 5.051

-25.5%
-25.5%
<J3 ~B=Lb Porous 3.76 23.07 39.15 5.94 4.56 10.9
Tarmac 0.68 1.26 0.681

+580%
Uu '5b
=L Porous 4.63 8.73 11.35 3.85 0.87 5.73 +580%
Tarmac 4.64 26.76 4.641

-63%
-63%
z ~5b
=L Porous 1.7 8.69 11.35 0.95 1.15 3.78
Tarmac 29.45 45 29.451

-42.3%
Ne ~5b
=L Porous 17 67 106 42
rfni
n
Rain 16 10.8 5
10.1
Total
mm
Tarmac N/A N/A

Porous 3.8 5.12 0.32
t Data from Ng (2000)
Appendix 6.2 6.2-5

TABLE 5 NATS EPIC water quality data - Metals LOADS
NATS
EPIC Water Quality- METALS
LOADS (pg/m!)____________
Event no. 8 31t 33t
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Parameter
Average §
(-/+) *1
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
Unit
Tarmac 3.03 3.031

-63.7%
-63.7%
U-a bnD Porous 1.1 27.3 0.05 9.5
js Tarmac 27.9 27.91

-87.3%
-82.3% | -87.3%
SiPh b=Q
L Porous 3.53 124.5 1.89 433
6 Tarmac 51 vP
0ns 511
V
s baO Porous 14.3
N001 118.1 2.67 45
Tarmac 6.9 6.91

+155%
+155%
Is
uU bfl Porous 17.6 44.7 1.73 213
CS Tarmac 46.9 46.91

-85.7%
-85.7%
bO
£ a Porous 6.7 44.5 0.43 17.2
Tarmac 267.5 267.51

-75.9%
-75.9%
bO
Ne =JL Porous 64.6 343 203.8
cdO Rain 16 10.8 5

Tarmac 4.46 N/A N/A
Porous 5.3 7.17 0.45
t Data from Ng(2000)
Appendix 6.2 6.2-6

TABLE 6 NATS EPIC water quality data - Hydrocarbon
NATS
EPIC Water Quality - HYDROCARBON
Event no. 29t
ro
11 22
•t—
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Parameter
Average §
(-/+ )*!
Range
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
Tarmac 1.07 1.65 1.07-L

-69.4%
-69.4%
HyddC.
0.2 1.21
mg/1
Porous 0.327 0.15 0.27 1.89 0.47
Rain 6.6 9.8 32 10.4

Total
mm
Tarmac ? ? / /
Porous 0.48 6.5 2.69 8.8
_LFrom only one event
TABLE 7 NATS EPIC water quality data - Hydrocarbon LOADS
NA rs
EPIC Water Quality -HYDROCARBON
LOADS fmg/m2)
29t
nH—
Event no. 11 22
EMC Red./Inc.
Parameter
Average §
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
(-/+)*
Unit
Tarmac
1B) Porous
uiuiy
0.16 0.97 1.76 3.25 1.53
Rain 6.6 9.8 32 10.4

at
OB Tarmac ? ? / /
Porous 0.67 9.1 12.3 3.76
Appendix 6.2 6.2-7

TABLE 8 Emmock Woods sonde water quality data
EMMOCK WOODS
Event no. 15 17 19
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
<D
Range
Range
(-/+)*
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
4.95 6 O 5.72 2
-0.225°
Road
Temp.
+ -1.45°
p Swale 13.37 0.1 5.95 0.3 4.27 0.4
Road 8.37 0.65 8.2 0.3 8.28

+0.19
-0.19
o
S
a. Swale 8.54 0.3 8.18 0.09 8.39 0.4 8.28
Road 77.4 45.9 60.7 63.8 69.05

+7.6%
+6.3%
+5%
Cond.
CO Swale 103.97 23.6 81.35 4.9 65.3 30.6 83.54
Road
N0s*P Swale 68.6 21.1

DO
68.61
Road
Turb
NTU
Swale
Road 0.374 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.437

uiuiy
Ppm
Swale
Rain 2.2 ? 3.2
Total
mm
Road ? 3.5 0.4

Swale 0.05 0.025 0.11
Appendix 6.2 6.2-8

TABLE 9 Emmock Woods EPIC water quality data (manual sample) incl. LOADS
EM M O C K W OODS
M an ual Sam ple - S an itary Suite
Event no. 20
Difference
Parameter
Sf
MEAN
Unit
S &
Road 7.6
-0.19
Sa. Swale 7.41
Road 292
-43%
mg/1
U
w Swale 167
Road 1057 0sO

n *
r-;
mg/1
TSS
Swale 299 *7 38.9
Road 2.4
£
mg/1
BOD
o
Swale 2.4 0.312
Road 1.11
AmmN
+9%
mg/1
Swale 1.21 0.18
Road 0.28 N©
0s
o-phos
O
O
mg/1
Swale 0 0
Rain 19
Total
mm
Road ?
Swale 0.13
Appendix 6.2 6.2-9

WEST GRANGE
Table 10 West Grange sonde water quality data

Event no. 19 20 22 23 24 25 «;a
■Vo
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
&
u X
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
wS i^
Unit
2.6 0.8 2.1

[
00
|
Road 10.7 4.6 14.34 0.5 13.6 2.7 \o 18.65 16.3 18.9 3.5
fS 14.6
o
-0.27“
Temp.
is
+ ? ©l o+
0.1 ?
©
2.1 2.1
°C
Swale 14.07 13.96 1.5 19.87 0.5 16.1 0.7 19.1 14.5
Road 8.65 0.68 7.6 0.37 7.47 0.39 7.86 0.45 7.74 0.61 7.64 0.24 7.7 0.87 7.8
+0.15
-0.17
-0.44
-0.01
ei
900-
B
a. Swale 7.54 0.07 7.62 0.2 7.76 0.21 ©1
7.3 0.23 7.63 0.93 7.53 1.58 7.56
Road 298.9 856.8 100.17 10.1 63.5 68.8 89.9 193.1 58.5 71.5 62.7 65.2 85.7 167 108.5
+55.9%
-31.6%
-42.6%
+7.5%
+3.1%
-9.6%
-50%
Cond.
Appendix 6.2
V3=L Swale 50.1 41.9 65.5 64.4 140.2 56.8 33.6 36.8 67.4 102.8 58.6 120 69.2
'•S
+16.4%
+10.9%
+17.2%
57.1 58.8 23.2 31.1 73.1 47.9 63.1 58.9 68.5 59.6 60.1 54 58.5 72.1 57.7
-26.2%
Road
| +6.1%
nfS
68
DO
0s Swale 53.95 8.4 70 6.7 80.3 15.9 69.97 17.9 65.7 60.7 +
100 104 179 93 186 88 0'■sS
Turbid.
Road 55 173 249
-20.4%
-12.5%
-68.5%
0% IT)
NTU
Swale 55 46 31.5 57 91 159 74 116 62.9
S Road
Ppm
s
< Swale
Rain 3 1.2 2.8 3.6 10.8 3.6 12.4
1.2
| Total
mm
Road 1.59 0.3 1.5 7.8 0.98 6.25

Swale ? 0.06 1.1
0.5 3.2 0.63 3.12
1
6.2-10
TABLE 11 West Grange EPIC water quality data - Sanitary Suite
WEST GRANGE
EPIC Water Quality - SANITARY SUITE
(-/+)*
Event no. 1 2 jM 12™- 1 3 s" 14™ 17
EMCRed./Inc.
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Average §
Parameter
Range
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
Road 7.58 0.7 8.1 0.16 7.8 7.4 7.17 0.1 7.61
+0.13
+0.07
-0.13
-0.25
Q. Swale 7.65 0.3 7.85 0.17 7.5
o
7.1
o
7.3 0.2 7.48
Road 253.8 586 129.4 64.7 196 103 93.1 115.2 155
+13.4%
-14.7%
+229%
-29.5%
-73%
-45%
£
o
426.1 629.7 53.1 72.6 79.4 63.6 154
EC
Swale 138.5 75
Road 29.4 49.8 579 488 215 102 957

0s 114.7 197 332.8
-54.5%
-0.7%
-55%
-35%
-79%
-73%
00 51.8
SSI
^3) 29.2 24.4 156.5 173 140 21.5 156 92 92.5

E Swale
2.2
+14.3%
6.4 19.6 5.4 3 1.65 1.5 5.48 11.3 8.9 5.4
-63.5%
Road -16.4%
-20.5%
+189%
+14%
-17%
BOD
mg/l
Swale 7.3 0.15 4.5 4.1 4.65 7.5 4.58 1.75 4.13 5.45 4.5
0.15 1.175 N©
0 0.1
0.08 1.96 2.48 0.24 0.056
000
0.37 V® 0.06 0.127 0.42
0
-33.6%
Road
-61.5%
+117%
-60%
s -73% s v®
Amm
o s
1 Swale 0.03 0.02op
0.04 0.07 0.75 0.16 0.52 0.015 0.08 ■ 0.06 0.09
O
0.21
Road 0.85 1.92 0.45 0.4 0.164 0.56 1.16 0.5
-63.5%
-45%
-84%
-42%
+9%
0.2
mg/l
O Swale 0.31 0.029 0.07 0.095 0.61 1.09 0.27

H
Road 0.08 0.35 s? 0

s* 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.38 0.107 0.1 0.117 0.11
o-phos
+7.7%
+43%
00 -26%
-61%
-16%
■§> I>
S ©\
Swale 0.159 0.037 + 0.1 0.1 0.16 0 0.042 0.074 0.076 0.11
14.3 16.2 2.2 os00N® 7.5 9.8 14.2 v® 000
s 14.6
-46.2%
C Road 39.2 88.9
-1.3%
-46%
-58%
£
u e
S
Swale 16.3 0.2 7.7 11.4 0.05
C\ 7.4 7.08 10.5 Ni 7.7
Rain 3 ? 13.4 7 23.8 4 1.6

10.2 0.66
Total
mm
Road 1.59 12.56 10.43 3.96 1.43

Swale ? 4.38 12.8 6.38 ? ? 1.04
I
manual sample
Note: 2.75mg/l for BOD = <3,0.015 for AmniN = <0.02, 0.05 for TON = <0.1, 5.75 for
road BOD = <6, 22.5 for BOD = >22, 7.25 for swale BOD = <7.5, 1.75 for Cl = <2, 1.75
for BOD = <2,0.05 for Cl = <0.1
Appendix 6.2 6.2-11

TABLE 12 West Grange EPIC water quality data - Sanitary Suite LOADS
WEST GRANGE
EPIC Water Quality - SANITARY SUITE *
nM IP 1"
(-
Event no. 1 2
- j p r
17
EMC Red./ Inc.

Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
Unit
£) Swale
Road 46.7 6039 851.4 1040 1368.5 75.7 1570
-30.3%
-28.8%
+4.9%
-67%
1
TSS
2003 893.2 53.9 983.4
10.1
I)
67.8 17.2 21.7 22.4 24.4
+41.6%
+34.6%
Road +246% 7.5
-71%
-43%
BOD
E Swale 19.7 59.5 29.2 4.3 28.2
)
Road 0.24 1.3 20.4 0.95 0.57 0.53 0.04 3.43
+247%
+39%
+50%
-87%
-53%
Amm
1 0.17 9.6 3.3 0.06 3.28

E Swale
Road 1.35 5.6 1.67 0.37 2.25
-12.5%
+70%
-95%
TON
*1 Swale 0.3 0.63 0.46

E
0.88 1.1 0.8

'S,E Road
0.13 1.99 0.06
o-phos
-6.3%
+28%
-50%
+3%
Swale 0.44 2.05 0.077 0.86

Road 62.3 179.6 22.4 10.7 6.5 56.3
-81.2%
Chlor.
+13%
-34%
4E Swale 33.7 7.36 20.5
Rain 3 ? 13.4 7 23.8 4 1.6

"a Road
Total
0.7 5.55 4.6 1.75 4.5 0.63 0.29

Swale ? 6.13 17.9 8.9 ? ? 1.45
Appendix 6.2 6.2-12

TABLE 13 West Grange EPIC water quality data - Metals find. LOADS)
W EST G RAN G E
E P IC W ater Q uality - M E T A L S
Event no. 22
Difference
Difference
Parameter
qS
MEAN
Range
s J£
Unit
Road 0.17 0.22 0.255
+72.5%
+423%
U■a 'Sh Swale 0.89 2.78 0.44
Road 8.15 16.3 12.2 v

O'O
Pm
Xi 'Sb
=L Swale 4.64 8.2 -43% 2.32 00
Road 28 42.4 42
0®s
V
00
+85%
Us
=i_ Swale 51.8 165.2 25.9 *?
Road 5.4 9.3 8.1

-47.6%
-82%
UU
Swale 2.83 3.58 1.41
Road 6.3 11.6 9.45

-83.5%
-50.1%
z
~Sb
=l Swale 3.1 4.2 1.55
Road 82.1 154 123.1

+14%
-62%
N
e "Sb
zL Swale 93.7 194 46.8
Rain 3.6
Total
mm
Road 1.5
Swale 0.5
Appendix 6.2 6.2-13

TABLE 14 West Grange EPIC water quality data —Hydrocarbon
WEST GRANGE
EPIC Water Quality - HYDROCARBON
(-/+)*
Event no. 16 24 25
EMC Red./Inc.
Difference
Difference
Difference
Parameter
Average §
Range
Range
Range
EMC
EMC
EMC
Unit
Road 1.47 4.16 1.22 1.05 1.4 1.28 1.36

-33.6%
-59.2%
-14.3%
-35.7%
Hydr.
0.6 1.2
mg/1
Swale 0.78 0.81 0.1 0.4 0.87
Rain 3.2 3.6 12.4

Total
mm
Road 1.04 0.98 6.25

Swale 0.92 0.63 3.12
TABLE 15____ West Grange EPIC water quality data - Hydrocarbon LOADS
WEST GRANGE
EPIC Water Quality - HYDROCARBON #
LOADS(mg/m2) 3T
Event no. 16 24 25 uo
-■a"5
Difference
Difference
Difference
Parameter
O
u2S
Average §
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
!D w
Road 1.53 1.2 8.75 3.83
0OO
-50.2%
-57.4%
X© X©
U V© V1)
s
*§>
e Swale 0.55 0.5 4.35 1.8
73o Rain 3.2 3.6 12.4
H i Swale
Road
1.29
0.46
4.37
0.433
0.88
2.76
Appendix 6.2 6.2-14

A P P E N D I X 6.3
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANECDOTAL OBSERVATIONS
The following plates show photographs related to the anecdotal observations. These
observations are discussed, and the plates referred to, in Chapter 6.
NATS
Plate 1 Oil in ru n o ff at tarm ac car park Plate 2 Evidence o f oil spill at porous car park
Plate 3 L eaf litter in gully pot at tarm ac car park
Appendix 6.3 6.3-1

Photographs of Anecdotal Observations
G row th on
porous bricks
Plate 4 G row th o f plant m atter/ m oss at porous car park
Plate 5 Close up o f plant m atter/ m oss at porous car p ark
Appendix 6.3 6.3-2

EMMOCK WOODS
Sedim ent deposited

in sw ale
Sedim ent Sedim ent deposited
accum ulating along during dry w eather by
side o f road construction vehicles
Plate 6 Sedim ent due to construction vehicles on site Plate 7 Sedim ent during dry w eath er
Appendix 6.3 6.3-3

WEST GRANGE
Plate 9 O il/ petrol at inlet to sw ale
C ontainer fo r road
ru noff - fine
sedim ent is evident
C ontainer fo r sw ale
ru n o ff — o n ly coarser
sedim ent is evident
Plate 10 Sedim ent in base o f containers for tipping buckets
Appendix 6.3 6.3-4

R u n o ff flow ing past R unoff flow ing into
sw ale due to blocked sw ale due to cleared
inlet inlet
Plate 11 B locked inlets to swale Plate 12 C leared inlets to sw ale
T racer dye follow s path o f

ru n o ff and clearly m isses
the dip kerb into the swale
due to the slig h tly raised
tarm ac aro u n d it
Plate 13 T racer dye at sw ale dip kerb
Appendix 6.3 6.3- 5

The tu rf inside the sw ale
has been laid to high to let
ru n o ff easily en ter via the
dip kerb
Plate 14 T u rf laid too high at dip kerb swale
Plate 15 Inlet below head o f swale Plate 16 D eep sw ale w ith irreg u lar shape
W hen sw ale full

w ill overflow
via raised outlet
R u n o ff readily
enters swale
A ttenuation and
storage in sw ale
Plate 17 D ip kerb sw ale - a very effective exam ple Plate 18 Sw ale with sn ow
Appendix 6.3 6.3- 6

A P P E N D I X 7.1
NATS ERWIN MODELS GRAPHS & TABLES
Section 5.3.2 in the main text shows water quality data for two events, one for sonde data
and one for EPIC sanitary suite. The water quality data for the remaining two events are
Plots and for the Erwin models built for NATS porous paved and tarmac car parks are
shown here in the following Figures, along with tables of data not shown in the main text:
• sensitivity analysis for porous paved car park (for event 7) - Figures 1 to 7
• calibration events for porous paved car park - Figures 8 to 13
• verification events for porous paved car park - Figures 14 to 20
• single event v. long term for porous - Figures 21 to 27
• calibration events for tarmac car park - Figures 28 to 31
• verification events for tarmac car park - Figures 32 to 38
• single event v. long term for tarmac - Figures 39 to 42
• porous: verification events Table 1; long term simulated with observed data Table 2
• tarmac: verification events Table 3; long term simulated with observed data Table 4
The key for all Figures, except those for sensitivity analysis, is shown below:
L ong term
I I f R ainfall (m m /h) ' O bserved Sim ulated sim ulated
B - fin al runoff c o e ffic ie n t

0 ~
-C
5I
m ci
. _'«5
15 «-
nNihra^^NoriiSiiiriod'r
CM
o o
T- T- T—CMCM
o o o
T-
o o o o o o o o
riCM (Nud CO ^t- t- tN-
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
Time T im e
■ ■ ■ ra in fa ll (mrrVh) .... . O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2m 3) ■ ■ ra in fa ll (m m /h) ---------- O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2 m 3 )
A 1 (1.51 m3) A 2 (1.1 5 m 3 ) B1 (1.51 m3) B2 (0 .6 2 8 m 3 )

A 3 (0 .8 7 m 3 ) B3 (2 .4 8 m 3 )
Figure 1 A - depression storage Figure 2 B - final ru n o ff coefficient
C - trough infiltration rate D - soil usable fie ld capacity
CM X- T- T- CN CM X—
o o o o o q q q q q q q q
n o j m c o r : '<tNdcooiiho3r:
T im e T im e
wmm ra in fa ll (m m /h) ----------O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2m 3) ■ H ra in fa ll (m m /h) -----------O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2 m 3 )
C1 (1.51 m3) C2(1 6m 3) D1 (1 .6 8 m 3 ) D2 (0 .1 4 7 m 3 )

C3 (1.5 5 m 3 ) D3 (2 .6 2 m 3 )
Figure 3 C - trough infiltration rate Figure 4 D - soil usable field capacity

Appendix 7.1 7.1- 1
NATS Erwin Model Graphs & Tables
E - trench infiltration rate F - trench porosity
CM T- T- Time
r- CMCM Time
M M ra in fa ll (mnVh) ----------O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2m 3] M M ra in fa ll (mrrVh) ---------- O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2m 3 )
E1 (1.3 m 3 ) --------- E2 (2.1 8 m 3 ) F1 (1.51 m 3) F2 (1.51 m3)
E 3 (1 .0 7 m 3 ) E4 (1.8 2 m 3 ) F3 (1 .4 9 m 3 ) F4 ( 1 ,62m 3)
Figure 5 E - trench infiltration rate Figure 6 F - trench porosity
G - soakaway infiltration rate at

0
2 S'
46 EE
8=
10§
12g
oooo ooooooooo 14
CM 1- T- Time
T- CN CM T-
cocsi i ood T-Tjh-ococMijooo-r-
I M M ra in fa ll (mnVh) ----------O b s e rv e d v o l (1 .1 2 m 3 )
G1 - (1.51 m 3) --------- G 2 (1.51 m 3)
G 3 (1.51 m 3) --------- G 4 (1.51 m 3)
Figure 7 G - soakaw ay infiltration rate at sides
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 2

Figure 8 calibration at porous, event 3 Figure 9 calibration at porous, ev en t 6
Event 10 Event 16
0
27th Feb-1st March 1999
2 4=
4 E
68 Bli
10 1
12 2
14
o o o o o o o o o o o o
T-Sr <»<
T- CSMi < S i < bto-Time
ST- i (Si
r c b1-< SCM cb o
Time
Figure 10 calibration at porous, event 10 Figure 11 calibration at porous, e v en t 16
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 3

Figure 14 verification at porous, event 5 Figure 15 verification at porous, ev en t 8
Event 15
24th - 27th December 1998
0
r+ a v 7
0.5
510 €E
\
E E V 15 |
20 £
V> __ V\ 25 |
........ 1UIHU.mil.HIIMI...
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiE 30
(NôcbcNTtocbiSiôcbcNj
o
CNI T-T-CM
o o
- -CM
o o
T-T-CM
o o
t
o
t
o o o o o
Time

Event 18
28th february 2000
0
1
2f
3E
4Hro
-
5f
6u
Figure 20 verification at porous, event 18
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 4

Event 7 Event 8
0 0 .5
■I
4th - 6 th Oct
0
2 2
4 J=
4 !
6 E
SI
10.2
12-i
122
1QE
14
14 -asl 16
O O -M- OO CM CD O o n- oo cm
CM CM t- t- CM
Time Time
Figure 21 long term & single event sim ulation Figure 22 long term & single event sim ulation
at porous (event 7) at porous (event 8)
Event 9 Event 10
9th - 10th Oct 1 6 th -1 8 th Oct
0
ao> 2
S'
-C 4
RE>
c 6
E
E
8
•4—
IE
10 c
12 2
14
Time Time
Figure 23 long term & single event sim ulation Figure 24 long term & single ev en t sim ulation
Event 11 Event 12
20th - 23rd Oct 24th - 26th Oct
0
2
«6 1E
8 5
10 i
12 * >
o
14
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
od^cowfflddôofNCDddtoa
CM T- V- CM t- T- CM TfoawttiddM-cocjmdd^
cococococococococo cocococo
T- TT- CM T- T- CM
Time Time
Figure 25 long term & single event sim ulation Figure 26 long term & single ev en t sim ulation
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 5

Event 13
0
55
>
o
o o o o o o oo o o o oo o o
20
O XTOOC\i CDCM
o o o o o o oo o o o
o o
T- CT-DCMOO M-66
oo cxi
oo o o
time
Figure 27 long term & single event sim ulation

at porous (event 13)
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 6

Event 3 Event 6
0.6 0
11-12 May 1998 7-8th August 1998
T
0.5 III II 1
jo" 0.4 mH 2i
3 £
^
1Jk *75
0.3
n:o o .2
0.1 r1f \t
5.E
6E
0 oooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
r-NCO'JlOCDNOOtJl t- t- t- t- t-'.-t- t-CMCMCNJCM
cMco^bcbr^cbaioT-cMcdoT- bi co ib cbh~
Time Time
Figure 28 calibration event at tarm ac (event 3) Figure 29 calibration event at tarm ac (event 6
Event 16 Event 21
27-28th February 1999 11-12th April 2000
0.6 II n il
0 .7
111w .
« 0-5 fln
I
if
— 0.4
8 75
1 1,
o 0 .3
5 0.2 10 c
0.1 .........._...... _ 1 I 12 B
0 o o O O o o o O o o o o o 14
o o O p o o o O p p o o o
O CO ib h~- CT> X—COib ■*rb—"crr—
<3> CT—MCCM > o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
cbdScNLrioox-ococbcnicsiijood't-
t- t- t-CM i- t- i-CN
Time
Time
Figure 30 calibration event at tarm ac(event 16) Figure 31 calibration event at tarm ac(event 21)
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 7

Event 5 Event 8
12th - 13th July 1998 4th - 5th October 1998
0
2 ___
4
e10 lra
12.5
14
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
#- 16
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
t- t- t- t- t-CNCM
ihrâ^T-rjihrÔTT-coT-coihirâiT-fo
T- t- Time
Time
Figure 32 verification event at tarm ac(event 5) Figure 33 verification event at tarm ac(event 8)
Event 9
9th October 1998
0
o o O o o o
o o O o o o
co CT> o c\i CO
Time
Figure 34 verification event at tarm ac(event 9)
Event 14 Event 15
28th November 1998 24th - 27th December 1998
0.2 0
0.15 ' J 1 2
3:o 0.1 1l
E_
c E
S 0.05 / 8
t H 10
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
Time
CM T- T- t- CM T- T- T- CM
cNCN<bo^ra<SjcN<bo^6dtNi6sicb
Time
Figure 36 verification event at tarm ac(event!4) Figure 37 verification event at tarm ac(ev en t!5 )
Event 18
28th february 2000
0.35
0.3 I I I
□
I .L iu._______
j»0.25
r 0.2 « €
o0.15 L ii -
c E
2E
| 0.1
‘'0.05 ii\ 1
0 1m LJ
n in n a
Time
Figure 38 verification event at tarm ac(eventl 8)
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 8

at tarm ac (event 7) at tarm ac (event 8)
at tarm ac (event 9) at tarm ac (event 13)
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 9

O = observed V E R IF IC A T IO N EVEN TS - NATS POROUS
S = simulated
plus sign (+) denotes the Event no.
simulated data was more than 5 8 9 13 14 15 18
the observed
Total rainfall (mm) 33.4 16 7 12.8 4.4 23.8 6.6
O 10.53 5.36 1.32 2.75 0.39 11.36 0.54
total vol (m3) s 18.2 3.5 0.2 9 1 2.22 / 9.29 /
+72.8% -34.7% -77.5% -19.3% / -18.2% /
o 10:32 22:04 12:00 4:26 7:46 9:46 18:42
s 9:52 23:00 11:34 8:44 / 11:50 /
start of flow
40 min 56 mins 26 min 258 min late / 124 min /
early late early late
O j 11:30 23:02 12:48 10:46 & 12:00 11:18 00:50
2:14
S 11:46 3:30 15:22 14:54 & / 13:00 /
time of peak
23:40
16 min 208 min 154 min 250 late & / 102 min /
late late late 154 early late
o 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.43 & 0.43 0.291 0.43 0.381
s 0.46 0.44 0.166 0.445 & / 0.43 /
peak volume 0.445
(m3) I Same same -0.274 +0.015 & / Same /
(-623%) +0.015
(+3.5%)
O 660 750 258 614 & 206 60 570 60
duration of
S 1094 490 90 180 & 240 / 420 /
peak (min)
I +434 -260 -168 -434 & +34 / -150 /
Table 1 Verification events - comparison of observed and simulated data at NATS porous model
O = observed LONG TERM SIMULATION - NATS POROUS

S = simulated DATE in October 1998 (& event no.)
plus sign (+) denotes
the simulated data
1st (7) 4th (8) 9th (9) 16th (10) 20th (11) 24m (12) 27th (13)
was more than the
observed
Total rainfall 9.2 16 7 29.8 6.6 8.4 12.8
(mm)
total vol O s
1.13 5.36 1.32 21.45 0.67 1.55 2.75
(m3) 1.08
-5%
3.5
-35%
0.3
- 77%
16.29
- 24%
1.33
+ 98%
2.83
+ 83%
3.73
+ 36%
o 6:28 22:04 12:00 8:30 20:02 11:46 4:26
start of flow s 6:50 23:00 11:34 7:44 4:16 9:00
22 mins 56 mins 26 mins 46 mins early 494 mins 166 mins 230 mins early
0:36
late late early late early

o 7:46 23:02 12:48 9:00 & 7:16 6:56 13:16 10:46 & 2:14
s 8:20 3:28 14:50 8:40 & 6:34 3:44 10:16 9:04 & 23:34
time of peak 34 mins 266 mins 122 mins 20 mins early 1248 mins 180 mins 102 mins early
late late late & 42 mins late early & 160 mins
early early
o 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.45 & 0.46 0.38 0.43 0.43 & 0.43
peak s 0.42 0.44 0.16 0.45 & 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 & 0.44
volume(m3) -0.03 same -0.28 same & - + 0.06 + 0.02 + 0.02 (+4.6%) &
_ (-6.7%) (-63.6%) 0.01 (-2.2%) (15.8%) (+4.6%) + 0.01 ( 2 3 % )
614 & 206
—
duration of s 260 258 872 & 454
868 & 480
60 408
502 & 266
peak (min) 234
-26
532
-218
86
-172 - 4 & + 26
250
+ 190
494
+86 -112 & +60
Table 2 Comparison of observed and long term simulated data at NATS porous model (oct 1998)
Appendix 7.1 7.1- 10

O = observed VERIFICATION EVENTS - NATS TARMAC
S = simulated E vent no.
p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s
th e s im u la te d d a ta w a s 5 8 9 13 14 15 18
m o re th a n th e
o b se rv e d
T o ta l ra in fa ll (m m ) 3 3 .4 16 7 1 2 .8 4 .4 2 3 .8 6 .6
total vol O
s
1 0 .7 4 .4 7 1 .8 9 2 .9 2 0 .4 9 8 7 .3 2 0 .7 3
(m3) 1 0 .4
-2 .8 %
4 .2 2
-5 .6 %
1 .8
-4 .7 %
3 .3 4
+ 1 4 .4 %
0 .8 9 5
+ 7 9 .7 %
7 .5 6
+ 3 .3 %
1 .3 2
+ 8 0 .8 %
o 6 :2 8 5 :3 4 1 0 :1 0 2 3 :4 6 5 :1 8 7 :2 8 1 4 :0 4
start of s 6 :2 6 5 :0 8 9 :5 2 2 3 :0 4 4 :4 8 & 1 1 :1 4 6 :5 0 8 :1 6 & 1 4 :0 0
flow 2 m in 2 6 m in s 1 8 m in 4 2 m in e a rly 3 0 m in e a rly 3 8 m in E x tra & 4
e a rly e a rly e a rly & e x tra e a rly m in e a rly
o 1 0 :5 6 5 :5 2 1 1 :2 4 9 :2 2 & 1 3 :3 8 5 :4 2 1 2 :5 8 1 4 :3 8 , 1 7 :0 6
& 2 0 :1 2
time of s 1 1 :1 4 5 :4 6 1 1 :0 2 8 :5 2 & 1 3 :0 8 6 :3 6 & 1 1 :3 4 1 2 :5 2 1 4 :4 8 ,1 7 :3 0
peak 1 8 m in 6 m in e a rly 2 2 m in 3 0 e a rly & 5 4 m in la te 6 m in

& 2 0 :3 2
1 0 la te , 2 4
la te e a rly 3 0 e a rly & e x tra e a rly la te & 2 0
la te
o 1 .3 5 2 .1 0 .4 9 4 0 .5 9 & 0 .5 8 0 .1 6 3 0 .4 2 0 .1 8 , 0 .2 9 &
0 .1 9 8
peak flow
s 0 .8 1 0 .4 5 0 .4 2 0 .2 8 & 0 .2 4 0 .1 4 7 & 0 .2 8 0 .0 6 6 ,0 .1 4 8
0 .0 9 6 & 0 .2
(1/s) -0 .5 4 -1 .6 5 (-79%) -0 .0 7 4 -0 .3 1 (-52%)- 0 . 0 1 6 (-9 % ) - 0 . 1 4 (- - 0 . 1 1 4 (-
(-40%) (-15%) & -0 .3 4 (-5 9 % ) & e x tra 33%) 63%), -0 .1 4 2
(-49%) &
+ 0 .0 0 2 (+ l% )
T a b le 3 v e rific a tio n e v e n ts - c o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d a n d s im u la te d d a ta a t N A T S ta rm a c m o d e l
O= o b se rv e d LONG TERM SIMULATION - NATS TARMAC

S = s im u la te d D A T E (& e v e n t n o .)
p lu s s i g n ( + )
d e n o te s th e 1st (7) 4“ (8) 9tn (9) 2 4 th (12) 27th (13)
s im u la te d d a ta
w as m o re th a n th e
o b se rv e d
T o ta l ra in fa ll 9 .2 16 7 8 .4 1 2 .8
(m m )
total vol Os 2 .9 5 4 .4 7 1 .8 9 1 .4 8 2 .9 2
(m3) 2 .2 9
- 2 2 .4 %
4 .2 7
-4 .5 %
1 .8 7
-1 %
2 .4
+ 6 2 .2 %
3 .5
+ 1 9 .9 %
start of oS 0 :1 4 5 :3 4 1 0 :1 0 8 :3 6 2 3 :4 6
flow 3 :0 6
1 7 2 m in s la te
5 :0 6
2 8 m in e a r ly
9 :5 0
2 0 m in e a rly
7 :5 2
4 2 m in e a r ly
2 3 :0 2
4 4 m in e a r ly
time of oS 7 :1 0 5 :5 2 1 1 :2 4 9 :4 8 9 :2 2 & 1 3 :3 8
peak 6 :5 6
1 4 m in s e a r ly
5 :3 0
2 2 m in e a r ly
1 0 :4 6
3 8 in e a r ly
9 :0 8
4 0 m in e a r ly
8 :3 6 & 1 2 :5 2
4 6 & 4 6 m in e a r ly
o 1 .4 4 2 .1 0 .4 9 4 0 .2 5 0 .5 9 & 0 .5 8
peak flow s 0 .6 5 0 .7 1 0 .3 9 6 0 .4 4 0 .4 9 & 0 .5
(1/s) -0 .7 9 (-55%) - 1 .3 9 (-6 6 % ) - 0 .0 9 8 (-2 0 % ) + 0 .1 9 (+ 7 6 % ) - 0 .1 (-1 7 % ) & - 0 . 0 8
(-1 4 % )
T a b le 4 C o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d a n d lo n g te rm s im u la te d d a ta a t N A T S ta rm a c m o d e l ( o c t 1 9 9 8 )

N A T S Erw in M odel Graphs & Tables
APPENDIX 7.2
WEST GRANGE ERWIN MODEL GRAPHS & TABLES
Plots for the Erwin models built for West Grange swale and road are shown here in the
following Figures, along with tables of data not shown in the main text:
• sensitivity analysis for swale (for event 5, 27th - 28th Nov 1999) - Figures 1 to 5
• calibration events for swale - Figures 6 to 10
• verification events for swale - Figures 11 to 16
• single event v. long term for swale - Figures 17 to 21
• calibration events for road runoff - Figures 22 to 26
• verification events for road runoff - Figures 27 to 32
• single event v. long term for road runoff - Figures 33 to 37
• swale: verification events Table 1; long term simulated with observed data Table 2
• road: verification events Table 3; long term simulated with observed data Table 4
The key for all Figures, except those for sensitivity analysis, is shown below:
Rainfall (mm/h) _______' Observed ______‘ Simulated Long term
simulated
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 1

West Grange Erwin Model Graphs & Tables
E - overflow
oooooooooooooo
doC\| NoCMOoNo^ ot boo ao ooc- Mo- ô f- of l- co o- CodM oCpMi
time
t t t v t
■ ■ ■ Rainfall Intensity (mm/h)--------observed (1.91 m3)

E3 (2.2m3) E1 (2.14m3)
------- E2 (1.84m3)
F ig u re 5 E - overflow
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 2

Event 7 Event 15
11th Dec 1999
0 27th May 2000
1_
3 E
6 re
5.E
ill lM W I-
cbroo<Si^<b66o<Sio<Si^(b66ocsi
t- t - x - •< - t - CM CM t- t -
o o o o o o o o o
oNîbibdN^moddcvi
o o o
time r- T- T- T- r- t\| CM
time
Figure 6 calibration at swale, event 7 Figure 7 calibration at swale, event 15
Event 19 Event 24
27th August 2000
0.5^£
1 E
2.5
n iin ii'i'ii ITrm Tm 1111 in m ii iii ii n n m m 1 rrrmTvrr
3 o o o o o
CO o CO o CO
1^- CO co 6i CT>
time
Figure 8 calibration at swale, event 19 Figure 9 calibration at swale, event 24

Event 27
10th- 11th Sep 2000
0.5
0.4
II
§ 0 .3
1 0.2
0.1
H-
0 oiumn O
IIIIHIIIII1I!
o o o
Itllinm
IlllilllW
o o o O
im
rinifininliiirillllllliiiHiiiiiiiinii
o o o o o o o o o
T- CM cd o T— CM CO ud
CM CM CM
time
Figure 10 calibration at swale, event 27
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 3

Event 9
0
1_
33 1E
4 =re
5*5
el
7
o oo o o o o
cSi o csi cid o
o oo o o o o
CM
06 T- CM ’'T CD 00
time
Figure 12 verification at swale, event 9
Event 23
time
Figure 13 verification at swale, event 22 Figure 14 verification at swale, event 23
Event 26
1 6th Sep 2000
0
0.8 I I 1_.c
£0.6 2i
3E
1 0.4 4 75
0.2 51
liiM iiniiiiTiiiiiiiiiniiM^
in (D N CO 05 o
tim e
Figure 16 verification at swale, event 26
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 4

Event 23 Event 24
14th Aug 2000 27th Aug 2000
0.9 0.25
0.8 n
.c 0.6
® 0.7 5 £
E
m co 0.5
E ^ 0.4
1(£
■E 0.3
0.2 15J5
1-
n HE \\ 20 o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o CO o CO o CO o CO
O O o o o o o CD 1^ r- 66 66 6) <J)
T— T“ T-
Time Time
Figure 17 long term & single event simulation Figure 18 long term & single event simulation
at swale (event 23) at swale (event 24)
Figure 19 long term & single event simulation Figure 20 long term & single event simulation
at swale (event 25) at swale (event 26)
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 5

Event 7 Event 15
0 0
1_ 0 .5 _
1
1.5 £
1
2 75
6 *re"
5.E
25|
3
7
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3.5
cbodocN^cbodoovioog^cbcdocsi
T - T - r - r - T -(M CM t-T -
time t- V- T - T - - r - CM CM
time
Figure 22 calibration event for road runoff Figure 23 calibration event for road runoff
(event 7) (event 15)
Event 19 Event 24
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o CO O CO O CO O CO
cb 66 66 cri ct>
t- c\i co uci cb
CO CO CO CO CO CO
time time
Figure 24 calibration event for road runoff Figure 25 calibration event for road runoff
Event 27
0
1—
£.
2e
3E,
475•4-
6rew
5.E
Figure 26 calibration event for road runoff

(event 27)
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 6

E vent 6 Event 9
0.1 8th Dec 1999
0 1
0.08
11* *
2
-4
Jo.06 6
| 0.04 8
0.02 _________ i__________ 10
12
0J i 14
oooooooooooooo
h- CD < i o d t N d 6 j^ ( b c d d c N ^ ( b c c i d
t- CM CM T-T-T-t-T-CM
time time
Figure 27 verification event for road runoff Figure 28 verification event for road runoff
(event ) 6 (event 9)
E ven t 22
o O o o
o o O o o
c o oc o oc o oc o oc o oc o on coo coo co o co o
(1-NT-^ aT-i oT-d CdMi CNM d c v i t B o d CM CO
time
LO
time
(event ) 2 2 (event 23)
E ven t 25
0
10
20 E
E
30
40
50
60
T— T~ T— T- CM CM
time
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 7

Event 23 Event 24
F ig u re 3 3 long term & single event simulation F ig u re 3 4 long term & single event simulation
for road runoff (event 23) for road runoff (event 24)
F ig u re 3 5 long term & single event simulation F ig u re 3 6 long term & single event simulation
for road runoff (event 25) for road runoff (event 26)
Event 27
0.05
1 0 th
0
0.04
0.03
<0 CO
E E
c 0.02 30i«
c
0.01 402
0 50
Time
F ig u re 3 7 long term & single event simulation

for road runoff (event 2 7 )
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 8

O = o b se rv e d V E R IF IC A T IO N E V E N T - W e s t G ra n g e s w a le
S = s im u la te d E vent no.
p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s th e 6 22 23
9 25 26
s im u la te d d a ta w a s m o r e
th a n th e o b s e rv e d
T o ta l ra in f a ll (m m ) 4 .2 5 3 .6 1 0 .8 1 2 .4 13
O 0 .4 5 4 0 .7 9 6 0 .2 3 2 1 .4 2 5 1 .3 9 3 .1 9
t o t a l v o l ( m 3) s 0 .4 7 3 0 .4 5 8 0 .0 6 3 .1 3 2 .5 5 3 .5 8
+4% -4 2 % -7 4 % +120% +83% +12%
~o~ 1 0 :4 4 1 9 :5 0 1 3 :4 4 0 :5 2 8 :1 0 4 :4 6
s 9 :3 4 1 9 :2 8 1 2 :5 0 0 :3 2 7 :5 6 4 :1 0
s ta rt o f flo w
7 0 m in s 2 2 m in s 5 4 m in s 2 0 m in s 1 4 m in s 3 6 m in s
e a rly e a rly e a rly e a rly e a rly e a rly
o 1 1 :5 6 2 2 :0 6 5 :2 2 1 :2 2 3 :3 6 8 :4 0
s 1 2 :0 2 2 2 :2 0 5 :3 6 1 :2 4 3 :4 2 6 :0 0
tim e o f p e a k
6 m in s 1 4 m in s 1 4 m in s 2 m in s 6 m in s la te 1 6 0 m in s
la te la te la te la te e a rly
o 0 .4 8 9 0 .3 8 9 0 .1 5 6 0 .5 8 9 0 .4 6 8 0 .8 8 7
s 0 .1 8 1 0 .0 9 6 0 .0 2 2 0 .7 7 8 1 .1 9 0 .4 8 6
p e a k f l o w (1 /s)
-0 .3 0 8 -0 .2 9 3 -0 .1 3 4 + 0 .1 8 9 + 0 .7 2 2 -0 .4 0 1
(-6 3 % ) (-7 5 % ) (-8 6 % ) (+ 3 2 % ) (+ 1 5 4 % ) (-4 5 % )
T a b le 1 V e rific a tio n e v e n ts - c o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d a n d s im u la te d d a ta a t W e s t G ra n g e s w a le m o d e l
O = o b se rv e d L O N G T E R M S IM U L A T IO N - W e s t G ra n g e s w a le
S = s im u la te d D A T E (& e v e n t n o .)
p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s th e
1 4 th A u g ( 2 3 ) 2 7 th A u g ( 2 4 ) 3 1 st A u g ( 2 5 ) 6 th S e p ( 2 6 ) 1 0 th S e p ( 2 7 )
s im u la te d d a ta w a s m o r e
T o ta l ra in f a ll (m m ) 1 0 .8 3 .6 1 2 .4 13 6 .6
O 1 .4 2 5 0 .2 7 8 1 .3 9 3 .1 9 1 .3 2
to ta l v o l
s 3 .1 9 0 .5 4 6 2 .5 5 3 .6 4 1 .3 5
( m 3)
+124% +96% +35% +14% +2%
o 0 :5 2 1 7 :1 0 8 :1 0 4 :4 6 1 :5 8
s ta rt o f
s 0 :3 2 1 6 :5 2 7 :5 6 4 :1 0 1 :3 8
flo w
2 0 m in s e a r ly 1 8 m in s e a r ly 1 4 m in s e a r ly 3 6 m in s e a r ly 2 0 m in s e a r ly
o 1 :2 2 1 7 :1 0 3 :3 6 8 :4 0 2 :3 8
tim e o f
s 1 :2 4 1 8 :2 8 3 :4 2 6 :0 0 2 :5 2
peak
2 m in s la te 7 8 m in s la te 6 m in s la te 1 6 0 m in s e a r ly 1 4 m in s la te
o 0 .5 8 9 0 .2 2 6 0 .4 6 8 0 .8 8 7 0 .3 9 8
p e a k flo w
s 0 .8 0 3 0 .1 5 2 1 .1 9 1 0 .4 9 1 0 .3 2 7
(1 /s)
+ 0 .2 1 4 (+ 3 6 % ) - 0 . 0 7 4 (-3 3 % ) + 0 .7 2 3 (+ 1 5 4 % ) - 0 .3 9 6 (-4 5 % ) - 0 . 0 7 1 (-1 8 % )
T a b l e 2 C o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d a n d lo n g te rm s im u la te d d a ta a t W G s w a le m o d e l (A u g -S e p 2 0 0 0 )
Appendix 7.2 7.2- 9

W est Grange Erw in M odel Graphs & Tables
O= o b s e r v e d VERIFICATION EVENT - W e st G ra n g e ro a d ru n o ff
S = s im u la te d E vent no.
p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s th e 22
6 9 23 25 26
s im u la te d d a ta w a s m o re
T o ta l ra in f a ll (m m ) 4 .2 5 3 .6 To.8 1 2 .4 13
O 0 .1 8 0 .1 3 6 0 .0 7 5 0 .3 9 0 .3 1 2 1 0 .6
t o t a l v o l ( m 3) s 0 .0 8 0 .0 9 2 0 .0 2 5 0 .3 6 2 0 .3 4 4 0 .4 3 6
-5 6 5 % -3 2 % -6 7 % -7 % +10% -2 7 %
o 9 :3 0 1 8 :3 8 1 3 :2 2 0 :4 2 7 :5 8 4 :1 4
s 9 :5 0 1 9 :2 8 1 3 :4 6 0 :4 6 8 :0 6 4 :1 0
s ta rt o f flo w
2 0 m in s 5 0 m in s 2 4 m in s 4 m in s 8 m in s la te 4 m in s
o 1 1 :4 8 2 2 :0 2 5 :1 4 1 :1 2 3 :3 4 8 :3 8
s 1 1 :5 6 2 2 :1 0 5 :3 4 1 :2 0 3 :3 6 5 :5 8
tim e o f p e a k
1 2 m in s 8 m in s 2 0 m in s 8 m in s 2 m in s la te 1 6 0 m in s
o 0 .0 8 2 0 .0 2 9 0 .0 1 7 5 0 .1 5 7 5 0 .1 2 8 0 .1 8 1
s 0 .0 3 4 0 .0 1 7 0 .0 0 6 5 0 .1 1 8 0 .2 1 9 0 .0 6 2
p e a k f l o w (1 /s)
-0 .0 4 8 -0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 1 -0 .0 3 9 + 0 .0 9 1 -0 .1 1 9
(-5 9 % ) (-4 1 % ) (-6 3 % ) (-2 5 % ) (+ 7 1 % ) (-6 6 % )
T a b l e 3 V e rif ic a tio n e v e n ts - c o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d a n d s im u la te d d a ta a t W G r o a d r u n o f f m o d e l
O= o b s e r v e d LONG TERM SIMULATION - West Grange road runoff

S = s im u la te d D A T E ( & e v e n t n o .)
p lu s s ig n (+ ) d e n o te s th e
1 4 th A u g ( 2 3 ) 2 7 th A u g ( 2 4 ) 3 1 st A u g ( 2 5 ) 6 th S e p ( 2 6 ) 1 0 th S e p ( 2 7 )
s im u la te d d a ta w a s m o re
T o ta l ra in fa ll (m m ) 1 0 .8 3 .6 1 2 .4 13 6 .6
to ta l v o l
O 0 .3 9 0 .0 4 9 0 .3 1 2 1 0 .6 0 .1 9 5
s 0 .3 7 0 .0 7 5 0 .3 4 5 0 .4 4 0 .1 8 3
( m 3)
-5 % +53% +10% -2 7 % -6 %
s ta rt o f
o 0 :4 2 1 7 :0 2 7 :5 8 4 :1 4 2 2 :1 2
s 0 :4 6 1 7 :0 8 8 :0 4 4 :1 0 0 :1 8
flo w
4 m in s la te 6 m in s la te 6 m in s la te 4 m in s e a r ly 1 2 6 m in s la te
tim e o f
o 1 :1 2 1 7 :0 6 3 :3 4 8 :3 8 2 :2 6
s 1 :2 0 1 8 :1 2 3 :3 6 5 :5 8 2 :4 6
peak
8 m in s la te 6 6 m in s la te 2 m in s la te 1 6 0 m in s e a r ly 2 0 m in s la te
p e a k flo w
o 0 .1 5 7 5 0 .0 5 2 5 0 .1 2 8 0 .1 8 1 0 .0 4 1
s 0 .1 2 1 1 0 .0 2 9 7 0 .2 1 9 0 .0 6 3 0 .0 4 4
(1 /s)
- 0 . 0 3 6 4 (- 2 3 % ) - 0 .0 2 2 8 (-4 3 % ) + 0 .0 9 1 (+ 7 1 % ) - 0 . 1 1 8 (-6 5 % ) + 0 .0 0 3 (+ 7 % )
T a b le 4 C o m p a ris o n o f o b s e rv e d & lo n g te rm s im u la te d d a ta f o r W G r o a d r u n o f f m o d e l, A u g - S e p 2 0 0 0

W est Grange Erw in M odel Graphs & Tables
A P P E N D I X 8 .1
GRAPHS FROM PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF BOTH
MODELS
Figures 1 to 7 show hydrographs comparing the simulated flows from the porous model
and the swale model, using the events listed in Table 8.1, which are discussed in section
8.1.
The key for all Figures is shown below:

| Rainfall (mm/h) porous (1/s) --------------- swale (1/s)
E vent 3
20th -2 1 s t April 1999
1
2!
3E,
41
5i
r- m o>
time
F ig u re 1 simulated data for porous and F ig u re 2 simulated data for porous and
swale models (event )
2 swale models (event 3)
F ig u re 3 simulated data for porous and F ig u re 4 simulated data for porous and
swale models (event 4) swale models (event 5)
Appendix 8.1 8.1- 1

Graphs from Performance Comparison of Both Models
Event 7
1°!
15«
_c
20 £
imwIIT- 25
CM
time
Figure 5 simulated data for porous and Figure simulated data for porous and
6

6 swale models (event 7)
Event 8
9th Aug 00
6£
10!
12 *"
14
time
Figure 7 simulated data for porous and

8
Appendix 8.1 8.1- 2

Graphs from Performance Comparison of Both Models
A P P E N D I X 8 .2
GRAPHS FROM MODELS WITH IMPROVED DETAILING
Hydrographs showing the simulated data fro both the improved porous model and the
improved swale model are shown in the following Figures:
• improved porous model compared to observed data & calibration model - Figure 1 to 6
• improved swale model compared to observed data & calibration model - Figure 7 to 11
The key for all Figures is shown below:
Rainfall (mm/h) observed calibrated improved improved
1 porous swale
E vent 7
o
cra
JZ
E
c
o>
CNI r- OJ T- CM
Time
Figure 1 comparison of improved porous Figure 2 comparison of improved porous

model to observed & calibrated (event ) 6 model to observed & calibrated (event 7)
Figure 3 comparison o f improved porous Figure 4 comparison o f improved porous

model to observed & calibrated (event 10 ) model to observed & calibrated (event 16)
Appendix 8.2 8.2- 1

Graphs from Models with Improved Detailing
Event 21 E vent 23
16th -17th May 2000
0.5
0.4
1 III
,
23E,E
co to0.3
Ec E 0.2 4 *"co
4-
1 \\ 51
0.1 6 *"
7
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o o
tbo-ôocsicSicboxroo
T- T- T~ CN T~ T" T- OJ C\J CO if) O) (O N
CO CO
if) G) CO N
Time Time
Figure 5 comparison o f improved porous Figure 6 comparison o f improved porous

model to observed & calibrated (event 2 1 ) model to observed & calibrated (event 23)
Appendix 8.2 8.2- 2

Event 7 E vent 15
11th Dec 1999 27th May 2000
d(NTf(dradN^(bodd
c\i
1 - T- T- T - T- CM CM
time time
Figure 7 comparison o f improved swale Figure 8 comparison of improved swale

model to observed & calibrated (event 7) model to observed & calibrated (event 15)
Event 19 Event 24
22nd June 2000
2 JO~
4 E
6 £
si
10 c
12 *-
14
time
Figure 9 comparison o f improved swale Figure 10 comparison o f improved swale

model to observed & calibrated (event 19) model to observed & calibrated (event 24)
Figure 11 comparison of improved swale

model to observed & calibrated (event 27)
Appendix 8.2 8.2- 3


Sustainable Drainage System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Drainage System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE

SYSTEMS IN CONTROLLING FLOODING AND POLLUTION FROM

Kirsteen C.B. Macdonald

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

This research programme was carried out in collaboration

1.2. RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1. Guidance on effectiveness based on the three SUDS

2. Design recommendations for flow and pollutant

Aim 2: To synthesise design recommendations for flow and pollutant attenuation.

1.3. THESIS OUTLINE

1.4. ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

2.1 THE URBAN RUNOFF PROBLEM

2.1.1 Rural Hydrology

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 8

2.1.2 Urban Hydrology

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 10

The increase in impermeable surface area reduces infiltration, resulting in reduced

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 11

2.1.3 Urban Pollution

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 14

risk to life , loss o f m ature

am enity value landscape

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 15

Figure 2.8 Innovative ideas for storm w ater m anagem ent

■ Source Control - whereby incident rainfall is detained or infiltrated close to the

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 16

In order of desirability these objectives are:

Chapter 2 Review o f Current Knowledge 17

2.2.1 Preventative Measures

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 18

2.2.2 Structural SUDS

Source Control Site/ regional Control

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 19

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 20

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 21

Plate 2.2 R aised o u tlet w ith grating cover

2.2.3 Promotion of SUDS in Scotland

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 23

2.3.1 Historical Progression of Policy and Reports

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 24

Figure 2.12 The 'Limits To Growth' graph (from Mitcham, 1995)

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 26

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 27

Investment No change 2000

Chapter 2 Review of Current Knowledge 28

2.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF PERVIOUS PAVING AND SWALES

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 29

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 30

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 31

Runoff simulations in Molndal (Niemczynowicz et al, 1985 cited in Backstrom, 1999)

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 32

Measurements of pollutant retention in permeable pavements in Bordeaux showed that 50-

Chapter 2 Review o f Current Knowledge 33

Laboratory studies of hydrocarbons in pervious paving commenced in 1993 with a study of

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 34

Summary of Results from Pervious Paving Research

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 35

LOAD CONCENTRATION Range of mean

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 36

Maryland & Virginia)

France (Reze) Legret

Schlttter etal (2001)

2.4.2 Previous Studies of Swales

Chapter 2 R eview o f Current Knowledge 37