You are on page 1of 17

SEDIMENT REMOVAL BY GRASS FILTER STRIPS

MOHD HAIRUL BIN KHAMIDUN GS24188

Supervisor: Dr BADRONNISA BINTI YUSUF MASTER PROJECT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

al.2000) In Malaysia. Lack of monitoring by Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Municipal Board induce the development neglect to follow the requirement in construction site (Ezaruddin.PROBLEM STATEMENT • Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia (MASMA) was only completed in • • • • • the design and planning stages but not fully implementation in construction site (Shazana. . Construction site cause erosion and results in sediments being deposited and major pollution parameter from construction sites. Design criteria that will maximize the effectiveness of vegetated filter strip are still in the development stage and research is required to support this application in Malaysia (MASMA 2000). environmentally sustainable method still in slow effort. Earthwork phase is a higher sediment load discharge than other phase in construction sites (Owen et.2009). 2006) .

.OBJECTIVE Objective of this study are:• Determine the effectiveness grass filter strips in removing sediment and total suspended solid • Relationship between the characteristic of the grass filter strips with the removal the sediment and total suspended solid.

• The water samples will be collected at inlet and out GFS.SCOPE OF STUDY • Investigate effectiveness of GFS using simulation construction site runoff. • Measuring the percentage sediment removal which depend on characteristics grass. . varies flow and slope GFS.

• To improve the management site construction runoff requiring the MASMA .IMPORTANCE OF STUDY • GSF is a simple and economically to used as water quality control.

and 1. Brandi Lubliner. and biological harm to waters resources (US EPA.LITERATURE REVIEW Construction sites stormwater • Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times • The resulting siltation. and the contribution of other pollutants from greater than those of agricultural lands. 2005).000 times greater than those of forest land (US EPA. For the residential site. EPA 2005 and Alice J. • Sediment loss from the two storms was more than 60% of the total for the . 2007). 2009).2006). 1996. sediment loss from two large summer storms was more than 70% of the total for the period. 2009). Champagne.(Dan Line. period. chemical. et al. construction sites. M. • Transport fertilizers and pesticides by runoff into nearby lakes and rivers (US • That sediment concentration increased during the construction phase followed by a decrease after buildings and paved roads were finished (Les Lampe. can cause physical.000 to 2.

Other Pollutants 1) Nutrient 2) Solids and Floatables Nitrogen and phosphorus are the main nutrients of concern when dealing with urban runoff. sealants. which makes it difficult for sunlight to penetrate to the bottom of a pool of water. If turbidity is controlled in stormwater discharged from a construction site. The source of toxic chemical are come from adhesive. solvent. then phosphorus will also be controlled (Brandi Lubliner. 3) Others Toxic Chemical . 2007) They contribute to the increased turbidity of water. 2000). oil and grease for vehicle and pesticides (MASMA. cleaners.

Grass filter strips are among the simplest and most costeffective form of stormwater control measures (Ana Deletic and Tim D.GRASS FILTER STRIPS (GFS) • Vegetated surfaces that are designed to treat sheet flow • • • from adjacent surfaces.2006. Grass filter strips are often used as a preliminary treatment for an infiltration gallery and detention basin (David Yung. . Ana Deletic 2001). Majed Abu-Zreig et.al.2006.2007.2003. Grass filter strips are widely used as a environmentally measure for the protection water against sediments and associated pollutants from overland flow in catchments (J. Fletcher. Humberto. 2006). Ziegler. 2000). Hussein et.al. Alan D.

Process of GFS 1) Deposition 2) Infiltration 3) Biological & Chemical Process .

Vegetated Filter Strip Design According MASMA .

4m x 5. Slope 1% Swichgrass (SG) P.39. Auerswald Munich (2003) Agriculture On-site collection data Sediment – 77% . Author (year) Region Type runoff GFS design Effectiveness GFS K.SG 51.23.7% CG 41.62% Nutrient .2% .6% .SG 55.4% .97% Coshocton-type wheel runoff Runoff flow – 90% sampler Area 23ha.slope 3.5% . Slope 40:1 Swichgrass (SG) Cool grass (CG) Sediment . Fiener and FAM K.CG 49.69% CG 75% .2m.44% Matt A Sanderson et.5% Phosphorous .5m.2% Phosphorous .31.H Lee et al Central Sediment (1999) Iowa US pumping 1)3m x 1.47% (150kg N) COD 40% .Effectiveness of grass filter strips.5m. Slope 20:1 2) 6m x 1.76% (600kg N) .al (2001) Texas US Dairy Manure16.1% .SG 78% .35.2% . ave.

(0.9% Swichgrass Sediment – 25%-10% Nutrient – 62%-43% Nitrate – 34%-21% Bahram Guelph Gharabaghiet. Sediment concentration of the outflow < 6% of inflow concentration .76-mm sieved soils) Griffith University tiltingflume simulated rainfall facility.Hussein et.98% 95% aggregates > 40 μm trapped in first 5m Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.22m 2)1.15m Sediment – 50% . Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.7m GFS) slope 4.al (2006) Colombio Mexico Simulated Rainfall (66mm/h) 16m x 1. (0.).88m X 8.02mm.6m x18.al Griffith Univ Sediment pumping (2007) Australia (subcritical flow) (<4.22m x 2.Author (year) Region Type runoff GFS design Effectiveness GFS Humberto et.) and Reed Canarygrass J.5m.22m 4)1. Turfgrass al Institute Ontario (2006) US Sediment pumping 1)1.22m 3)1.3m GFS) Slope 5% Vetiveria zizaniodes Particle size in outflow primarily consisted of particles < 0.3m x 0.44m x 4.

METHODOLOGY .

.Schematics of experimental setup (plan view).

Schematics of experimental set-up (cross-section view) .

Turbidity and Conductivity Sediment Analysis • Weighing sample using the evaporation method TSS Analysis • Photometric Method .ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS Physical Parameter • pH. Temperature.

THANKS YOU .

&145..

& .

 .

 .

 .

95. !..

!.95..

&  .

  .

  .

  .

#6:7696:.

#6:7696: .

&  .

  .

.

  .

  .

#6:7696:.

#6:7696: .

  2! .

  2! " .

 .

59  4 4 &367 &09.9 .: & . .51  9:.. &.519:65 .3  # 59 .:: &  903.9 50 "5. ..31  '.

"5.651...06330.:.

6:60.65.

.73 6:60.65.

. &145. :367  &145.  .4739 9. 956:. .

 .

%5636 %5636   .

  .1 %.33 44 4 4   4& :367  &09.6 ..69 .5::& 4/9. .5.3  6364/6 06 &43. &145.9 %65 '7 956 &1:5 0.:: &145..

  . !. !.95.95.

.  .9.. !.9. !.

 . 7475      4 4  4 4  4 4  4 4 &145./. "5... ..:: 5:.9.3  37 '99.  . .4 .9.96 & &145.

 .  &145.

::  ::5 .5.3.4 #955.: 59:.3%9..771 .9. &145..3 36  .99.9.5:: .:4.9. 7475 :/09.51%1.3  9.5::  #6.79..9.:: #6.:: 634 7955 7955 5.79. . 5 :..02 39.0.  .

 .

.5.59:.3. 44:1 :63: 9.

.3. 9.5.59:.

93 065::..03: 44 &145.03.06505.9.167. 34:43.. .03:56.. 6.9.656.19.9.65 .36 6536 06505.561: #.9.9.   4 4& &367 .33 .36794.5.

'""" .

&04.7 73..3:.5 ..0:67945.

3:..0:67945.&04..

..3:.0:67945. &04.

7 096::.

65  096::.:0.

.

516510.4.473:5.3::  5:.654..769..3::  #6.9 '9/1.90 ..61 '&&5.9.9  7 '479.64..61 .. &145.5.3#.!'!&& #:0.

'!&" .