Upload
opal-robertson
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LID Development
Conservation Conservation Minimization Minimization Soil Soil Management Management Open Drainage Open Drainage Rain Gardens Rain Gardens Rain Rain Barrels Barrels Pollution Pollution Prevention Prevention
Disconnected Disconnected Decentralized Decentralized Distributed Distributed Multi-functional Multi-functional
Multiple SystemsMultiple Systems
How Does LID Maintain or Restore How Does LID Maintain or Restore The Hydrologic Regime?The Hydrologic Regime?
• Creative ways to:Creative ways to:– Maintain / Restore Storage Volume Maintain / Restore Storage Volume
• interception, depression, channel interception, depression, channel
– Maintain / Restore Infiltration Volume Maintain / Restore Infiltration Volume
– Maintain / Restore Evaporation VolumeMaintain / Restore Evaporation Volume
– Maintain / Restore Runoff Volume Maintain / Restore Runoff Volume
– Maintain Flow PathsMaintain Flow Paths
• Engineer a site to mimic the natural water cycle functions / relationships
Key LID PrinciplesKey LID Principles “Volume” “Volume” “Hydrology as the Organizing Principle ”“Hydrology as the Organizing Principle ”
• Unique Watershed Design– Match Initial Abstraction Volume– Mimic Water Balance
• Uniform Distribution of Small-scale Controls
• Cumulative Impacts of Multiple Systems – filter / detain / retain / use / recharge / evaporate
• Decentralized / Disconnection
• Multifunctional Multipurpose Landscaping & Architecture
• Prevention
Defining LID Technology Defining LID Technology
Major Components 1. Conservation (Watershed and Site Level )
2. Minimization (Site Level)
3. Strategic Timing (Watershed and Site Level)
4. Integrated Management Practices (Site Level)Retain / Detain / Filter / Recharge / Use
5. Pollution PreventionTraditional Approaches
LID Practices (No Limit!)LID Practices (No Limit!)
• Bioretention / Rain Gardens• Strategic Grading • Site Finger Printing• Resource Conservation • Flatter Wider Swales • Flatter Slopes• Long Flow Paths• Tree / Shrub Depression • Turf Depression• Landscape Island Storage • Rooftop Detention /Retention • Roof Leader Disconnection• Parking Lot / Street Storage • Smaller Culverts, Pipes & Inlets
• Alternative Surfaces• Reduce Impervious Surface• Surface Roughness Technology • Rain Barrels / Cisterns / Water Use• Catch Basins / Seepage Pits• Sidewalk Storage• Vegetative Swales, Buffers & Strips • Infiltration Swales & Trenches• Eliminate Curb and Gutter• Shoulder Vegetation • Maximize Sheet flow • Maintain Drainage Patterns• Reforestation……………….. • Pollution Prevention…………..
““Creative Techniques to Treat,Use, Store, Retain, Detain and Recharge” Creative Techniques to Treat,Use, Store, Retain, Detain and Recharge”
LID Hydrologic Analysis
Dr. Mow-Soung Cheng
Compensate for the loss of rainfall abstraction
Infiltration
Evapotranspiration
Surface storage
Time of travel
LID Design Procedure Highlights
• Site Analysis
• Determine Unique Design Storm
• Maintain Flow Patterns and Tc
• Conservation and Prevention
• Develop LID CN
• Compensatory Techniques. Stress Volume Control then Detention or Hybrid for Peak
Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis and Design
Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis and Design
• Based on NRCS technology, can be applied nationally
• Analysis components use same methods as NRCS
• Designed to meet both storm water quality and quantity requirements
Q
T
Developed Condition, Conventional CN(Higher Peak, More Volume, and Earlier Peak Time)
Existing Condition
Hydrograpgh Pre/ Post Development
Q
T
Developed Condition, with Conventional CN and Controls
Existing
Additional Runoff Volume
Developed
Existing Peak Runoff Rate
Detention Peak Shaving
Q
T
Developed Condition, with LID- CNno Controls.
Existing
Reduced Runoff Volume
Developed- No Controls
Reduced Qp
Minimize Change in Curve Number
Q
T
Developed, LID- CN no controlssame Tc as existing condition.
Existing
More Runoff Volumethan the existing condition.
Developed,LID-CNno controls Reduced Qp
Maintain Time of Concentration
Q
T
Provide Retention storage so that the runoffvolume will be the same as Predevelopment
Retention storage needed to reducethe CN to the existing condition= A2 + A3
A3
A2
A1
Reducing Volume
Q
T
Provide additional detention storage to reduce peak discharge to be equal to that of the existing condition.
Existing
Predevelopment Peak Discharge
Detention Storage
Q
T
Comparison of Hydrographs
A2
A3
LID Concepts
Conventional Controls
Existing
Increased Volumew/ Conventional
Q
T
2
3
4
1
5
6
7
Hydrograph Summary
2
3
4
1 Existing
Developed, conventional CN, no control.
Developed, conventional CN and control.
Developed, LID-CN, no control.
Developed, LID-CN, same Tc.
Developed, LID-CN, same Tc, same CN withretention.
Same as , with additional detention tomaintain Q.
6
5
6
7
Pre-developmentPeak Runoff Rate
Comparison of Conventional and L I D Curve Numbers (CN)
for 1- Acre Residential Lots
Comparison of Conventional and L I D Curve Numbers (CN)
for 1- Acre Residential Lots
Conventional CN
20 % Impervious80 % Grass
Low Impact Development CN
15 % Impervious25 % Woods60 % Grass
Curve Number is reduced by using LID Land Uses.
Disconectiveness
CNC=CNP+[PIMP] (98-CNP) (1-0.5R)
100
CNCC
= Composit
CNP
= Pervious
R=Ratio Unconnected imp. to total imp
PIMP
= Percent of imp. site
LI D to Maintain the Time of Concentration
“Uniformly Distributed Controls”
LI D to Maintain the Time of Concentration
“Uniformly Distributed Controls”
* Minimize Disturbance
* Flatten Grades
* Reduce Height of Slopes
* Increase Flow Path
* Increase Roughness “ n “
Retention LID Storage Options(On-Site)
Retention LID Storage Options(On-Site)
* Infiltration
* Retention
* Roof Top Storage
* Rain Barrels
* Bioretention
* Irrigation Pond
8% BMP
Determining LID BMP Sizing
Methods of Detaining Storage to Reduce Peak Runoff Rate
Methods of Detaining Storage to Reduce Peak Runoff Rate
* Larger Swales with less slope
* Swales with check dams
* Smaller or constricted drainage pipes
* Rain barrels
* Rooftop storage
* Diversion structures
Low Impact Development Objective
Fla
tten
Slo
pe
Incr
ease
Flo
w P
ath
Incr
ease
She
et F
low
Incr
ease
Rou
ghne
ss
Min
imiz
e D
istu
rban
ce
Lar
ger
Swal
es
Fla
tten
Slo
pes
on S
wal
es
Infi
ltra
tion
Sw
ales
Veg
etat
ive
Filt
er S
trip
s
Con
stri
cted
Pip
es
Dis
conn
ecte
d Im
perv
ious
Are
as
Red
uce
Cur
b an
d G
utte
r
Rai
n B
arre
ls
Roo
ftop
Sto
rage
Bio
rete
ntio
n
Re-
Veg
etat
ion
Veg
etat
ion
Pre
serv
atio
n
Increase Time of Concentration X X X X X X X X X X X
Increase Detention Time X X X X
Increase Storage X X X X X X
Lower Post Development CN X X X X X
LID Techniques and ObjectivesLow-Impact Development Technique
Maintain Time ofConcentration (Tc)Maintain Time of
Concentration (Tc)
Low Impact Developmentobjective to Maintain Time ofConcentration (Tc) B
alan
ce c
ut a
nd
fill
onlo
t.
Net
wor
k S
mal
ler
Swal
es
Clu
ster
s of
Tre
es a
ndSh
rubs
in F
low
Pat
h
Pro
vide
Tre
eC
onse
rvat
ion
on L
ots
Elim
inat
e St
orm
Dra
inP
ipes
Dis
conn
ect
Impe
rvio
usA
reas
Save
Tre
es in
Sm
alle
rC
lust
ers
Ter
race
Yar
ds
Dra
in f
rom
Hou
se a
ndth
en R
educ
e G
rade
s
Minimize Disturbance X X X X X
Flatten Grades X X
Reduce Height of Slopes X X
Increase Flow Path (Divert andRedirect)
X X X X
Increase Roughness “n” X X X X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
Low-Impact Development Technique
Summary of LID TechniquesSummary of LID Techniques(1) Recalculate Postdevelopment CN based on LID land use.
(2) Increase Travel Time (TT) using LID techniques to achieve the same Tc as Existing conditions.
(3) Retention: Provide permanent storage (Infiltration/Retention) using LID techniques to maintain the CN and runoff volume of existing conditions.
(4) Detention: Provide additional detention storage to maintain the same peak discharge as existing conditions.
Physical Processes in LID• Continuous rainfall• Interception• Surface ponding• Evapotranspiration• Infiltration• Soil pore space storage• Interflow• Groundwater recharge• Overland flow• Channel and pipe flow• Pollutant generation• Pollutant removal by physical, chemical, and biological
processes• Runoff temperature moderation
The Ideal LID Model• Continuous simulation• Small (lot size) and large (watershed) area• Suitable for new development and re-development• Watershed protection criteria• Models all hydrologic components in catchment• Models all flow components in BMPs• Urban conditions (e.g., pipe flow, regulators)• Detailed land use description• Many BMP options:
– Land-use planning– Conventional– LID– Programmatic (e.g., street sweeping)
• Allows for “precision” placement of BMPs• BMP optimization
The Ideal LID Model (ctd)• Variety of pollutant generation and removal processes:
– Physically-based equations– Unit processes– BMP treatment train– Field data probability distributions
• GIS interface• Various output stats (e.g., duration curves)• Output to:
– Instream water quality models– Ecosystem models
• Planning and design • User-friendly• Well documented• Interactive
Conventional Hydrologic Models• Developed for flooding (large storms),
suitable mainly for peak flows• Intended for large drainage areas• Lumped parameters, do not allow for precise
placement of stormwater controls• Weak infiltration modeling in some models• Submodels do not represent physical
phenomena present in LID• Complex
Available Models
• TR-20/TR-55, HEC-HMS• SWMM• HSPF• SLAMM• Prince George’s County’s BMP model for
LID • MUSIC• LIFE™• SET
TR-20/TR-55, HEC-HMS• Developed by USDA and USACE
respectively
• Intended for large storm events
• Lumped parameters applicable to large drainage areas
• Single event simulation
• Unable to evaluate micro-scale BMPs
• No pollutant generation and removal capabilities
• Not suitable for LID
SWMM (EPA Stormwater Management Model)
• Wayne Huber, Oregon State U.; & CDM
• Best suited for urban hydrology and water quality simulation
• Robust conveyance modeling
• Wide applicability to large and medium watershed hydrology
• Current version (v. 4.4h) can be “adapted” to simulate LID controls using generic removal functions
• Latest beta version (v. 5) capable of simulating some LID BMPs
HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN)
• EPA program for simulation of watershed hydrology and water
quality • Maintained by AquaTerra as BASINS• Produces time history of the quantity and quality of runoff from
urban or agricultural watersheds• Best suited for rural hydrology and water quality simulation • Data intensive, lumped parameter model• Wide applicability to large watershed hydrology• Models effects in streams and impoundments • BMPs simulated as reductions in pollutant load• Latest beta version (v. 5) capable of simulating some LID BMPs• Not recommended for LID
SLAMM (Source Loading and Management Model)
• Dr. Robert Pitt, U. of Alabama, John Voorhees• Evaluates pollutant loadings in urban areas using small
storm hydrology• Heavy reliance on field data• 6 land uses (residential, commercial, industrial,
highway, ...)• 14 source area types (sidewalks, roofs, parking, turf,
unpaved areas ...)• 8 BMP types (infiltration, biofiltration, swales,
pervious pavement, ponds, …)• Calculates runoff, particulate, and pollutant loading
for each land use and source area• Routes particulate loadings through drainage system,
to BMPs and outfalls
Prince George’s County BMP Model
• Uses HSPF to derive flow, pollutant loads
• Applies flow and loads to LID BMPs
• Two generic BMPs: storage/detention, channel
• Simulates flow processes in each BMP
• Water quality processes simulated as first-order decay and removal efficiency
MUSIC
• Tony Wang, Monash U., Australia• Simulates hydrology, water quality (TSS, TN, TP, debris)• Scale from city blocks to and large catchments• Aimed and planning and conceptual
design of SWM systems• User-friendly interface• Event or continuous simulation• Sources: urban, ag, forest• BMPs: buffers, wetlands, swales,
bioretention, ponds, GPT (gross pollutant traps)• Pollutant removal by first-order kinetics• Australia default parameters from worldwide research• Extensive output statistics
LIFETM
(Low Impact Feasibility Evaluation Model)
• Specifically developed by CH2M HILL to simulate LID microhydrology
• Models water quantity (volume, peak flows) and water quality
• Physically-based, continuous simulation
• New development and redevelopment
• Numerous controls: bioretention, green roofs, rainwater cisterns, pervious pavements, infiltration devices...
• Optimization module balances competing priorities
• Drag-and-drop user friendly interface, GIS linkage
HSPF LAND SIMULATION
– Unit-Area Output by Landuse –
BMP Evaluation Method
Existing Flow & Pollutant Loads
Simulated Flow/Water Quality Improvement Cost/Benefit Assessment of LID design
0
50
100
150
200
250
2/20/99 6/20/99 10/20/99 2/20/00 6/20/00 10/20/00
Time
Flo
w (
cfs)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tota
l Rai
nfal
l (in
)
Total Rainfall (in) Modeled Flow
BMP DESIGN– Site Level Design –
SITE-LEVEL LAND/BMP ROUTINGSimulatedSurface Runoff
Overflow Spillway
Bottom Orifice
Evapotranspiration
Infiltration
Outflow:Inflow:
Modified Flow &Water Quality
From Land Surface
Storage
BMP Class A: Storage/Detention
Underdrain Outflow
The Interface
Landuse Menu
BMP Menu
click-and-drag
1
edit attributes
2
connect objects
3
Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390
Peak Flow Reduction 2_1 90.3% 94.7% 98.0% 90.9% 82.1% 69.3% 45.7%
Peak Flow Reduction 6_2 89.7% 95.3% 98.3% 94.4% 91.1% 88.8% 64.0%
General Assessment of BMP Effectiveness
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storm Volume (in)
BM
P P
ea
k F
low
Re
du
cti
on
BMP 2_1 BMP 2_1 in series with BMP 6_2
Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390
Peak Flow Reduction 2_1 96.6% 81.4% 78.8% 57.4% 42.1% 18.9% 13.7%
Peak Flow Reduction 4_2 96.8% 94.6% 93.9% 78.4% 61.0% 53.2% 28.5%
General Assessment of BMP Effectiveness
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Storm Volume (in)
BM
P P
ea
k F
low
Re
du
cti
on
BMP 2_1 BMP 2_1 in series with BMP 4_2
Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390
Total Load from Site (lb): 0.142 0.269 0.303 0.287 0.489 1.379 0.628
Total load after BMP 4_2 (lb): 0.025 0.104 0.168 0.197 0.370 1.264 0.552
Lost or Trapped (lb): 0.117 0.165 0.135 0.090 0.119 0.114 0.075
Total Nitrogen Removal (%) 82.14% 61.23% 44.50% 31.27% 24.40% 8.30% 12.00%
General Assessment of BMP Effectiveness
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
0.18 0.38 0.42 0.79 1.26 2.08 2.39
Storm Volume (in)
Nit
rog
en
Lo
ad
(lb
)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Pe
rce
nt
Re
du
cti
on
Total Load from Site (lb):
Total load after BMP 4_2 (lb):
% Removal after BMP 2_1
% Removal after BMP 4_2
Source Node
Gross Pollutant Trap
Buffer Strip
Vegetated Swale
Vegetated Swale
InfiltrationDry & Wet Detention Pond
Wetlands