Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Kosikee Emma-Iwuoha
Prepared for:
Cape Town Civic Centre Buitengracht St, Cape Town, 8001 South Africa 29th August, 2011
Plagiarism declaration
1. I know that plagiarism is a serious form of academic dishonesty. 2. I have read the document about avoiding plagiarism, I am familiar with its contents and I have avoided all forms of plagiarism mentioned there. 3. Where I have used the words of others, I have indicated this by the use of quotation marks. 4. I have referenced all quotations and other ideas borrowed from others. 5. I have not and shall not allow others to plagiarise my work.
Table of Contents
Table of contents List of Figures List of Tables i iii iv
Introduction General considerations Slope of Site Outflow options Railway Minimal Roadspace SuDS Notable land-uses Minor design
1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-3 3-3 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 5-1 5-1 5-1
3.1 Design considerations 3.1.1 Important requirements 3.1.2 Other considerations 3.1.3 Design Assumptions: 3.2 Layout Choice 3.2.1 Layout one 3.2.2 Layout two 3.2.3 Layout three 3.2.4 Motivation for choice 3.3 Design challenges 3.4 Solutions 3.5 Network Design Features 3.6 Pipe Design 4. SuDS design 4.1 4.2 4.3 Requirements Assumptions Design Process 4.3.1 Swale Design 4.3.2 Swale vegetation 4.3.3 Retention pond Design 4.3.4 Retention pond vegetation Major design Assumptions: Design Challenges:
5. 5.1 5.2
ii
Solutions: Procedure: Recommendations Revise conceptual design Extend use of SuDS Determine quantities for SuDS References
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Standard design of a vegetated swale Figure 1-2 Standard design of a detention pond 4-2 4-3
iv
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Desirable and absolute minimum slopes for stormwater pipes 3-1
1-1
1. Introduction
This report details the design of the stormwater network. All considerations and assumptions which significantly influenced the design are mentioned. Challenges encountered, and the solutions applied are discussed in this report.
2-1
2. General considerations
2.3 Railway
The active railway running through the site may create issues. Because of the constraints surrounding railways (as mentioned in section 3.3) it will be difficult to plan the network in the area of the sight cut off by the railway. All possible options will have to be considered for network design and outlet placement.
2.5 SuDS
There is an increasing move towards the use of sustainable services. City of Cape Town regulations, specifically prescribe the use of SuDS to restore quality of runoff to predevelopment levels. Beyond meeting requirements, SuDS can be used very successfully to store and attenuate flood runoff. SuDS should be used as extensively as constraints allow.
3-1
3. Minor design
3.1 Design considerations
3.1.1 Important requirements
The minimum allowable manhole depth is 1.4m, and the maximum desirable depth is 4m. Each pipe diameter has a corresponding minimum slope at which it can be laid. This is shown in table 3-1 below (CSIR, 2000):
Table 3-2: Desirable and absolute minimum slopes for stormwater pipes Desirable Minimum Absolute Minimum Pipe Diameter (mm) Gradient Gradient 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 1050 1200 80 110 140 170 200 240 280 320 350 440 520 230 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1250 1500
The minimum desirable velocity in pipes is 0.9m/s 1.5m/s. Also, the minimum allowable pipe diameter is 300mm.
3-2
3-3
2 and 3 have an outlet into a wetland for further treating and localized disposal of flows. Layout 3 is most desirable because of added treatment/attenuation of industrial and ARTS depot runoff. Also, it doesnt require a pipe to pass below the railway.
3.4 Solutions
Instead of going under railway, have an outlet at the end of the commercial pipe section going across Jan Smuts Drive to connect to existing stormwater network. Placing a retention pond in the swale such that pipe sections may meet at depth at inflow. The outflow is level with swale bottom thereby recovering height as the pipe section from the end of the swale can begin 1.4m below the base of the swale. Placing a retention pond before the outflow to wetland. This means the inflow pipe can go in at depth and the outflow comes out at 1.4m below ground level. Then slope the outflow pipe such that its end comes out level with the wetland.
3-4
be found in Appendix C.
4-1
4. SuDS design
4.1 Requirements
For improved runoff quality: design for year return peak flow. For stability of downstream channels - 24 hour extended detention of the1-year return flood, 24 hour storm event. For fairly frequent floods: Up to 10-year return flood peak flow reduced to pre-development levels. Extreme Flood Events: Up to 50-year return peak flow reduced to existing development levels (City of Cape Town, 2009).
Figure 4-1: Standard design of a vegetated swale Figure 4-2: Standard design of a vegetated swale
4.2 Assumptions
10 year flood event design requirements are less than 1 year, 24 hour flood requirements. Thus quality design results in specifications which are sufficient for the 10 year event. Swales simply channel flow (not designed for storage of large volumes) therefore not required to store for 1 year 24hour design. Instead storage requirements are met by retention ponds (which are designed for storage).
Armitage & Carden: General format for reports and dissertations Chapter 3: SuDS Network
4-2
There are three swales: s1, s2, s3. S1 is swale from north-east to south west through residential area. S2 is swale directly below s1. S3 is swale section after s1 and s2 meet. Swales: s1=234.36m3, s2=346.68m3, s3=2624.4m3. Manning is then used to determine design dimensions of swales. Chose S1 and 2: base width = 0.5m and S3 base width = 1m The final design specifications can be found in Appendix H
Armitage & Carden: General format for reports and dissertations Chapter 3: SuDS Network
4-3
Two retention ponds were designed. R1 is located at the end of the swale. R2 is located just before the outflow to the wetland Retention pond specifications can be found in Appendix H.
Armitage & Carden: General format for reports and dissertations Chapter 3: SuDS Network
5-1
5. Major design
5.1 Assumptions:
Standard dimensions for local roads: all roads 7.4m wide (two 3.7m wide lanes), and 110mm deep. Assume the critical case where retention ponds fill quickly, thus assume their capacity is negligible in this situation. Runoff coefficient C = 1, as it is assumed the ground is saturated so all precipitation will run off. Assume all pipes are blocked and so roads and swales act as river channels. Assume when a catchment drains into more than one swale of different lengths and areas, they can be modelled as one equivalent swale of an area and length equal to the sum of areas and lengths of the individual swales.
5.3 Solutions:
Design for storm drain passing under the railway. Route runoff from swale to roads to get it going in the desired direction. Use the first retention pond to store swale flows. It is already assumed it not part of major network, so roads and swales can move flows without it. Thus it is free for use as temporary storage.
5.4 Procedure:
Route flows conceptually through road and open space network, more specifically through swales, since it is assumed that the retention ponds have negligible capacity. Selected a return period of 50 years. The Rational Method is used to calculate the discharge. Catchment areas are identified and measured in ArcGIS. The longest watercourse (road or swale) is identified and its length is measured in ArcGIS.
Armitage & Carden: General format for reports and dissertations Chapter 4: Major Network
5-2
The channel profile is obtained using ArcGIS and its average slope is calculated using the 10-85 method. The time of concentration was obtained using the equation 5.1:
(5.1) Tc was then used to obtain the precipitation intensity i from table the discharges from each catchment were calculated using the Rational Method Using the calculated discharges, Mannings equation was used to check if the roads and swales were sufficient to carry runoff from catchments. The results are shown in Appendix I.
Armitage & Carden: General format for reports and dissertations Chapter 4: Major Network
6-1
6. Recommendations
6.1 Revise conceptual design
Much of the design challenges encountered were a direct result of the chosen land-use layout, as set out in the conceptual design. Therefore it is recommended that the conceptual design be reworked, especially the road layout.
6-1
Armitage & Carden: General Report format Chapter 4: Error! Reference source not found.
7-1
7. References
City of Cape Town (2009). Management of Urban Stormwater Impacts Policy. Cape Town: City of Cape Town. CSIR (2000). Guidelines for Development Planning and Design. Pretoria: CSIR.
Armitage & Carden: General Report format Chapter 4: Error! Reference source not found.