Kite Hill Senior Design Mid Term Presentation Fall 2015

1. Kite Hill Stormwater
Management
C. Bury, J. Davis, A. Hough, R. Middlewarth, J. Ossorio
Clemson University - Biosystems Engineering
BE 4750 Fall 2015 Senior Design Presentation
November 23, 2015

2. http://www.clemson.edu/public/hunnicutt/about.html

3. Recognition of Problem
Stormwater runoff from Kite Hill and Kite Hill parking lot
resulting in:
● Erosion
● Pollution transportation
● Destruction of downstream ecology of Hunnicutt Creek
watershed

4. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

5. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

6. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

7. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

8. Define Problem
Lack of infiltration
Pollution runoff
Damage to Hunnicutt Creek

9. Goals of the Project
The goal of this project is to biologically treat stormwater runoff, and
increase infiltration back into the ground to improve the water quality of
the downstream watershed of Hunnicutt Creek.
● Reduce peak flow rates
● Slow velocity
● Improving quality
○ Reducing soil erosion
○ Treating pollution
■ Microbiological and Phytological processes
■ Physical mechanical filtration and ionic exchange capacity
within the soil layers itself

10. Constraints and Considerations
Constraints
Existing Infrastructure
Future Construction
Theoretical data/ Experimental Data
Multiple advisors
Budget
http://fisheyestudios.com/gallery-categories/aerial/
Considerations
Safety
Entering for maintenance
Safety around the area
Prohibiting pollution to groundwater
Sustainability
Self-sustaining
Biological Filtration
Possible Implementation
MS4 Regulations
Riparian Corridor Master Plan
Aesthetics

11. 3 Questions
User - Clemson University
1. Is this going to limit where people can park on campus?
2. How much maintenance is required? What does this entail?
3. Will the design be aesthetically pleasing?
4. What reduction of runoff can be expected?
Client - Clemson University Facilities, Subcontractor/Developer, Stormwater Project Team
1. Can the design system elements be implemented at different times?
2. What is the approximate cost of the design and installation of the project?
3. What is the expected lifetime of the structures and systems being proposed?
Designer - Stormwater Project Team
1. What regulations must we work within?
2. Is the design system resilient?
3. What funding is available for this project? What requirements would need to be met for this design to be implemented?
http://nypost.com/2014/09/24/frat-activities-banned-at-clemson-university/

12. Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Highlighted Areas: J. Davis

13. Elements of Design
● Kite Hill Erosion Control
● Parking Lot Median
BMPs
● Enhanced Swale
● End of Pipe BMPs
Basemap: Google Maps; Highlighted Areas: J. Davis

14. Sub-Goals of Hill Redesign
1.Reduce Erosion from Kite Hill by 75%
per yr
2.Reduce Runoff Volume by 50 % for a
25 yr- 24 hr storm
3.Safe Driving Option: Gameday parking

15. Area
Section
Area of Section
(m2)
Slope
Percent
1 394 14 %
2 272 20 %
3 560 12 %
4 828 11.5 %
5 1052 9.5 %
6 479 19 %
7 1101 8.2 %
8 642 17 %
9 423 5 %
10 290 18 %
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
Area of Interest Defined

16. Universal Soil Loss Equation
T= R*K*LS*C*P
R- Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)
K- Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)
C- Cropping Factor = 0.01 (For complete Meadow)
P- Conservation Practice = 1 (Assume not preventive practice)
LS- Length Slope Factor = (Calculated separately for each area)
Area
Section
Length Slope
Factor
1 2.5
2 2.7
3 2.2
4 2.5
5 1.3
Estimated Soil Loss
T=(250)*(.17)*(.01)*(1)*(22.6) = 9.5625 tons/ acre/ year
9.5625 tons/ acre/ yr *1.54 acres = 14.726 tons =
13.36 metric tonnes of SOIL LOSS per year
Area
Section
Length Slope
Factor
6 3
7 1.1
8 3.5
9 0.7
10 3.1
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

17. Runoff Volume Estimates
Soil-Cover Complex Method
CN- Curve Number= 61 (Urban Area Grass Cover Open Area, HSG B, <75% grass cover)
P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)
S- Surface Storage
Q- Runoff
Vr- Volume of Runoff
S = (1000/CN)-10 = 6.39 in
Q= (P - 0.2S)2/(P + 0.8S) = 2.538 in of runoff
Vr = 2.538 in * (1.54 acres) = 21,850 ft3 =
618.7 m3 of Runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

18. Runoff Flow Rate Estimates
Peak Runoff Rate
Qp = qp*A*Q
Q = 2.538 in
S = 6.39 in
tL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)
tc = tL/0.6
Area
Section
Flow
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)
tC
(min)
qp
(cfs/acre-in)
qp *A
(cfs/in)
1 256 14 4.8 1.8 0.18
2 155 20 2.7 2 0.2
3 282 12 5.6 1.6 0.224
4 325 11.5 6.4 1.5 0.30
5 360 9.5 7.7 1.4 0.364
Area
Section
Flow
Length
(ft)
Slope
(%)
tC
(min)
qp
(cfs/acre-in)
qp *A
(cfs/in)
6 252 19 4.1 1.85 0.222
7 450 8.2 9.8 1.3 0.351
8 330 17 5.6 1.6 0.256
9 411 5 11.8 0.8 0.08
10 375 18 5.8 1.6 0.16
Weighted qp = 1.517 (cfs/ac-in)
Qp= (1.517 cfs/ac-in *2.538 in *1.54 ac = 5.93 cfs
= 0.168 m3/s is the FLOW RATE of Runoff during a 25 yr -24 hr Storm

19. Design Option 1: Terracing with Existing
Driveway at Recycling Center
SDR- Soil Delivery Ratio = 14 %
LS for 60 ft - 13% = 3
LS for 15 ft - 13% = 1
3 = 9.5625 ton/ac/yr
1 = (⅓) * 9.5625 ton = 3.1875 tons per terrace
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio
3 - 15 ft Terraces have the potential to reduce Soil Loss
per year from 9.5625 ton/ ac to 0.518 ton/ac, a 95 %
reduction in erosion.

20. Terrace Designs that encourage more
infiltration and velocity reductions
Design Option 1: Terracing with Existing
Driveway at Recycling Center
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio www. intechopen.com
Driveway already exists, but the proposal is to
allow access to this entrance after hours by
changing Recycling Center enclosure

21. Design Option 2: Create an entrance
driveway to Kite Hill
Driveway allows for safe maneuvering on
and off of Kite Hill
The Paved Area should mimic current
runoff behaviors
Permeable
Surface Storage (S) 6.39 in/ac and Q =
2. 538 in 25 yr- 24 hr to avoid runoff
increase
Asphalt
Has Surface Storage (S) of 0.204 in
[CN = 98] and Q = 6.538 in
Need to decrease curve number of
other areas to compensate
Overall Runoff increased from
2.54 in to 2.94 in
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

22. Design Option 2: Create an entrance
driveway to Kite Hill
Erosion Control (Goal: Reduce by 75%)
Universal Soil Loss
T=R*K*LS*C*P
P: The addition of a Conversation
practice like contouring can reduce
on a slope of 9-12 %
P factor will decrease from 1 to
0.60 for that area
LS: The factor will decrease because
the slope % will need to be cut down
to 12% or less a safe drive
C: Heavier vegetation (erosion control
covers) can be added on sides to
allow for less erosion
Runoff Velocity and Volume (Reduce
Volume by 50%)
Soil-Cover Complex Method
CN: By implementing different land cover
with lower Curve Numbers can reduce the
volume and velocity
Peak Runoff Rate
S: To implement the driveway the % slope
will be decreased, which will help slow
velocities

23. Kite Hill Erosion Reduction
Design Comparison
Option 1
Pros
-Reduce erosion significantly
-Preserve green space of Kite Hill
-Potential to slow velocity and reduce runoff
-Discourages driving up side of Kite Hill
Cons
-Expensive Soil Conservation Practice
-Construction and Maintenance of terraces
-Failure to maintain terraces can result in
degradation of bench (possible landslide)
-Adds heavy traffic volume at the Recycling
Center
Option 2
Pros
-Allows for two entrances for heavy traffic
-Reduce Erosion with implementations
-Allows for safer travel up side of Kite Hill
Cons
-Driveways require slope % of 12 % or less for
safety
-Require extensive cut and fill into the Hill
-If driveway is permeable, extra maintenance to
prevent clogging of the pores
-Reinforce permeable pavement
-May increase runoff velocity

24. Flow Diversion Techniques
Flow Diversion Options:
Concrete cut with apron & stabilization
Grated Trench Drain
Flow Diverting Speed Bumps
Must handle QR=0.168 m3/s
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015 Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth

25. Curb Cut with Apron
Divert flow into swale
Must set stabilizers and apron
Concrete
GCL
Erosion Mat
May disturb swale function
Source: www.lastreetblog.org
Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

26. Grated Trench Drain
Q=(k*A*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q- volumetric flowrate
A- cross sectional area of drain
R - Hydraulic Radius
S- Slope
n - coefficient of friction
Source: www.trenchdrainsupply.com
Source: www.lastreetblog.org

27. Enhanced Swale Design
500ft stretch options:
Grassy Swale
Riprap Swale
Check Dam Swale
Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth

28. Trapezoidal Swale
Used for unlined channels because of side
slope stability
Easy to cut grass and maintain
Large surface area for infiltration

29. Enhanced Grassy and Rocky Swale
Q=(k*A*R2/3*S1/2)/n
Q- volumetric flowrate
A- cross sectional area of drain
R - Hydraulic Radius
S- Slope
n - coefficient of friction
For soil group B reduction
- TSS = 60%
- TP = 32%
- TN = 36%
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

30. Enhanced Grass Swale
V=Q/A
V - velocity (m/s)
Q - Peak Flow rate (m3/s)
A - Cross-sectional area (m2)
Factors affecting velocity include:
- Manning’s coefficient n
- Cross-sectional area
- Slope
- designed hydraulic radius
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

31. Enhanced Rock Swale
Rip-rap lined swales have varying n values
Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

32. Check Dam Design
Primary Design Benefits:
Soil Erosion
Sediment Control
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Flow Attenuation
Secondary Benefits:
Runoff Volume Reduction
Phosphorous
Nitrogen
Heavy Metals
Floatables
BOD
Source: www.riverlink.org

33. Check Dam Design
33 ft intervals @ 6% slope
⅓ - ⅔ of the swale depth
~66% slope on upstream side of dam
Acts as terracing to reduce sedimentation and
velocity
Flow Through a dam
Q = h1.5/(L/D + 2.5 + L2)0.5
L = (ss)*(2d - h)
Q- flow rate exiting check dam
h - flow depth
L - length of flow
D - average stone diameter in feet
ss - check dam side slope (maximum 2:1)
d = height of dam

34. McMillan Road Enhanced Swale
Design Comparison
Check Dams
Pros
- Inexpensive
- Reduces erosion and sediment transport
- Allows infiltration
- May discourage illegal parking
Cons
- Requires periodic repair and sediment
removal
- Allows infiltration
- Doesn’t treat oils
Grassy / Riprap Swale (dry)
Pros
- Simple Installation
- Easy Maintenance
- Aesthetically Pleasing
Cons
- May form rills
- Higher velocity
- Less treatment and infiltration than other
methods

35. Alternatives
Sources: www.austintexas.gov
Source: www.thisoldhous.com
Source: www.lakesuperiorstreams.com

36. Sub-Goals of Median Redesign
1.Reduce the Velocity of Runoff
2.Allow Infiltration into Medians
3.Prevent Sediment Loss

37. Area of Interest Defined
Parking Lot Medians
123
4
5
6
7
Area
(m2)
Slope (%)
H.
Slope (%)
V.
1 385.11 10.8 1.0
2 613.41 4.2 0.9
3 923.9 6.7 0.8
4 929.79 6.1 1.0
5 735.48 6.4 1.2
6 695.93 5.9 1.4
7 601.01 5.0 1.6
Source: Google Maps

38. Design 1 - Vegetated Filter Strip
Manning’s Equation
V = (k/n)*Rh
(⅔)*So
(½)
k: coefficient to convert units
k = 1.486 (US Customary Units)
n: Gauckler-Manning’s coefficient
short vegetation - 2 to 6 inches: 0.04
tall vegetation - 12 to 24 inches: 0.08
Rh: hydraulic radius - Rh = areaCS/wetted
perimeter
So: slope of channel length bed
Parabolic Channel Design
Slope
V (short veg
12”) f/s
V (short veg
6”) f/s
V (tall veg 12”)
f/s
V (tall veg 6”)
f/s
1 0.01 0.330 0.083 0.165 0.041
2 0.009 0.297 0.074 0.149 0.037
3 0.008 0.264 0.066 0.132 0.033
4 0.01 0.330 0.826 0.165 0.041
5 0.012 0.396 0.099 0.198 0.49
6 0.014 0.462 0116 0.231 0.058
7 0.016 0.528 0.132 0.264 0.066

39. Design 1: Vegetated Filter Strip
Excavation - cut and fill using paversCurb cuts versus
curb stops
http://www.lowes.com/Outdoors/Pavers-Retaining-Walls/_/N-
1z0wgaf/pl
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-
image.php?image=3409&picture=parking-lot
http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/fieldguide/e
xamples/swale.htm
http://www.hrwc.net/stormwat
erbmps.htm

40. Vegetated Filter Strip
Soil - gravel layer
Plants http://www.clemson.edu/psapublishing/pa
ges/HORT/IL87.PDF
http://www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov/stormwater/htm/sw_gi_bmp_bioretention.htm
http://www.emuseum.org/alcoa-foundation-outdoor-classroom

41. Design 2 - Erosion Mat
Coconut Fiber Mat
Vegetation
Live stakes
T= R*K*LS*C*P
R- Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)
K- Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)
C- Cropping Factor = 0.01 (For complete Meadow)
P- Conservation Practice = 1 (Assume not preventive practice)
LS- Length Slope Factor
- For the steepest slope - Control Mat 40 (Granite Environmental)
- 80% efficiency of sediment removal
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120404-IR-312120154NRA.xml.html

42. Erosion Mat
Permeable Pavement
Miscanthus Grass
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120404-IR-
312120154NRA.xml.html
http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/NonPBMPSpecsMarch11/VASWMBMPSpec7PERME
ABLEPAVEMENT.html
http://www.hgtvgardens.com/flowers-and-plants/maiden-grass-
miscanthus-sinensis-morning-light

43. Medians
Design Comparison
Option 1
Pros
-Reduce sediment, pollutants and velocity of
stormwater
-Allow more time for infiltration of stormwater
-Adds more green area to Kite Hill (aesthetically
pleasing)
Cons
-Steep slope adds more complex issue
-Maintenance
-Failure of pavers
Option 2
Pros
-Allows for more infiltration
-Reduce erosion with vegetated mat
Cons
-Failure of permeable pavement
-Sediment clogging
-Anaerobic issues
-4 to 6 year life span
-Pollutant removal
-Maintenance

44. End of Pipe “Solutions”
● Upstream reductions are not enough
● Most common designs are:
○Detention Basin
○ Retention basin
■ Submerged gravel wetland

45. Detention Pond
● Reduce peak flows
● Little filtration
● Little to no pollutant
conversion
Source: https://stormwater.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/img_4745.jpg?w=640

46. Retention Pond
Source: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_wetdtnpn.pdf

47. Settling Velocities
Stokes Law for settling velocities:
where,
VS: settling velocity VP: volume of particle
ρP: density of particle CD: drag coefficient
ρ: density of fluid AP: surface area of particle
g: gravitational constant

48. Settling Velocities cont.
To get the VP and AP,
Approximated particle geometry as sphere
Found mean particle diameter (d50) for Cecil Sandy Loam
(low: 0.2 cm, high: 7.4 cm; Source: Web Soils Survey)
Low end value used to determine minimum settling velocity
Calculated mean particle volume (4/3·𝜋·r3) and surface area (4·𝜋·r2)
VPmin = 0.004189 cm3 APmin = 0.125664 cm2

49. Settling Velocities cont.
To get the ρP, ρ, and CD,
An average soil particle density value: 2.66 g/cm3
Assuming pure water at 4oC and 1 atm: 1 g/cm3
CD can be determined experimentally or using representative values
Unfortunately this value can change dramatically depending on
the number of particles falling
the true particle geometry
aggregate particles vs single particles
turbulence generated by mass particles falling

50. Settling Velocities cont.
Given the high level of variability,
SCDOT Stormwater Manual
Reports Cecil as d15 = 0.0066 ~ 0.0043 mm
If d15 < 0.01 mm, use simplified Stokes,
Vs = 2.81·d2
where,
d = particle diameter in mm
Vs = settling velocity in ft/s

51. Settling Velocities cont.
SCDOT Stormwater Manual
Reports Cecil ranging in particle sizes as 0.001 ~ 1.4 mm,
Vs = 2.81·(0.001)2 ≈ 2.81·10-6 ft/s ≈ 8.56·10-7 m/s
Vs = 2.81·(1.4)2 ≈ 5.51 ft/s ≈ 1.68 m/s
Sizing a basin is not enough.
Vegetation, microbial, and aggregate filtration necessary.

52. Filtration
Source:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/do
cs/nwr/biofilters.pdf
Source: J. Davis

53. Submerged Gravel Wetland
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf

55. Rational Equation for Peak
Discharge:
Q = ciA
Where,
Q = peak discharge [cfs]
c = runoff coefficient
i = rainfall intensity [in/d]
A = area [acres]
Five year design storm:
Q = (0.8)(4.73in/d)(4.15ac)
Q = 293GPM

57. Sustainability Measures
● Economical
○ Feasibility
○ Maintenance
○ Location
● Ecological
○ Improving Stream Health
● Social
○ Educational
■ Foundation in Clemson’s
Will
■ Biosystems Engineering
● Ethical Considerations
○ Solving the problem without
damage to downstream http://cantov.deviantart.com/art/Clemson-University-Still-Water-145243984

58. Time Line

59. References
Jurries, Dennis, P.E. “Biofilters For Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal”. Department of Environmental Quality. State of Oregon. 2003. PDF.
<.http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/nwr/biofilters.pdf> Accessed 7 August 2015.
Mey, Gerald Vander. et. al. “Riparian Corridor Master Plan”. Campus Planning Services. Clemson University. December 2006. PDF.
<http://www.clemson.edu/public/hunnicutt/documents/riparian_corridor_master_plan.pdf>
Google Maps. Accessed 13 August 2015.
Ruhlman, Melanie. President, Save Our Saluda. Personal communication. 12 August 2015.
Murphree, Brian Frank, P.E. et. al. MS 4 Outfall Inspections and Evaluation, Clemson University. Project No. 1505. Design South Professionals, Inc. July 2015.
Dorren, Luuk, and Freddy Rey. "A Review of the Effect of Terracing on Erosion." SCAPE: Soil Conseveration and Protection for Europe (n.d.): 97-108. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
Widomski, Marcin K. "Terracing as a Measure of Soil Erosion Control and Its Effect on Improvement of Infiltration in Eroded Environment." Ed. Danilo Godone. Soil Erosion
Issues in Agriculture (2011): 315-34. InTech. Web. 15 Oct. 2015. <http://www.intechopen.com/books/soil-erosion-issues-inagriculture/ terracing-as-a-measure-of-soil-
erosion-control-and-its-effect-on-improvement-of-infiltration-in-erod>.
Watershed Hydrology and Small Catchments, BE3220. Owino, T, PhD. Clemson University. Spring 2015.
http://www.erosionpollution.com/support-files/coir_geotextiles_specification.pdf
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_wetdtnpn.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/pubs_specs_info/unhsc_gravel_wetland_specs_6_09.pdf
http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/presentations/NJASLA%20subsurface%20gravel%20wetland.pdf
http://sfrc.ifas.ufl.edu/urbanforestry/Resources/PDF%20downloads/Rushton_2001.pdf