Commercial sites and the delivery of sustainable drainage

941 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
941
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Commercial sites and the delivery of sustainable drainage

  1. 1. Commercial sites and the delivery of sustainable drainage ACO Technologies plc: Martin Fairley – Research Director HR Wallingford: Bridget Woods Ballard – Principal Engineer
  2. 2. Content• Commercial Urban application of SuDS – challenges• Importance of stakeholder group – supermarket sector example• Use of ‘hypothetical model’, objectives, results• Recent academic studies• Future sustainable drainage strategies for the commercial sector?• Research imperatives
  3. 3. Commercial urban sites:challenges & opportunitiesChallenges:•Existing dense urban infrastructure•Limited infiltration (soils, contamination)•Single property – drainage approved but not adopted•Stormwater ‘intensive’Opportunities:•9000+ UK sites (larger grocery retail)•Top 3 combined turnover >£112bn•53p in every £1 spent is on food and beverage•Commercial objectives & CSR•Part of the community – sustainability leadership?
  4. 4. Impact of parking?• Tippecanoe County, Indiana: parking lots make up more than 6.57% of the total urban footprint• ≈ 75% commercial• area of parking lots exceeded the area of parks in the city limits by a factor of threeThe environmental and economic costs of sprawling parking lots in the United States: Amélie Y. Davis a,c, Bryan C. Pijanowski a,∗, Kimberly Robinsona, Bernard Engel b
  5. 5. Commercial carpark characteristics• Increase runoff and contaminant loadings to freshwater systems• Contribute to urban heat island effect• Biologically inert• Maintenance sealant (PAH) impacts
  6. 6. Development of a‘hypothetical’ model
  7. 7. Model constraints & objectivesDesign constraints:• Zero infiltration• 1:60 gradient across site• Minimum 2 treatment stages• 1:100 year event managed on-siteObjective:•To test SuDS in ‘commercial’ context•To review potential economic/affordability implications•To look at delivery and modelling challenges•To engage the supermarket ‘giants’ in the debate•To promote the consideration of future design options
  8. 8. Future: explore potentialfor retro-fit
  9. 9. The Draft NationalStandards / BS 8582Infiltration, where possibleInterceptionNo runoff for 5mm rainfallPeak flow control1:1 year to greenfield/pre-development rate1:100 year to greenfield/pre-development rateVolume control1:100 year 6 hour to greenfield/pre-development volumeWater qualityMinimum 2 treatment components for commercial sites
  10. 10. Interception delivery Infiltration Rainwater harvesting (Y/D < 0.9, BS8515) Green roof >50% Permeable pavement Vegetated systemsAssumptions?4 X rule – vegetated surfaces2+ X rule – PP + infiltration1 X rule – PP no infiltration, green roof
  11. 11. Volume control delivery Further infiltration Further rainwater harvesting Tight control of runoff volume exceeding greenfield/pre- development (LTS)(2 l/s/ha max)
  12. 12. Conveyance to minimalistvegetated SuDSBenefits•No loss of parking spaces•Conventional car park surface constructionLimitations•Non-compliant Interception?•Treatment sufficiency?
  13. 13. Satisfying ‘interception’ ruleBenefits•Conventional car park surface construction•Compliant solutionLimitations•Loss of parking spaces - £2000 / space / week•Additional landscape maintenance
  14. 14. Permeable sub-baseBenefitsConventional car park surface construction•No loss of car park spaces•Compliant solutionLimitations•Interception compliance?•Cost?
  15. 15. Modelling challenges• Interception• Treatment• Complexity of multiple level flow controls, storage minimisation and optimisation
  16. 16. Urban runoff contaminants: what are ofconcern ? • A Minimum Data Set of Water Quality Parameters to Assess and Compare Treatment Efficiency of Stormwater Facilities Simon Toft Ingvertsen,* Marina Bergen Jensen, and Jakob Magid
  17. 17. How are they most effectivelycontrolled?…Results showed that about 99% of road-associated particles(number concentrations) are smaller than 20 μm.Characteristics of road sediment fractionated particles captured from paved surfaces, surface run-off and detention basinsM. Kayhanian ⁎, E.R.McKenzie 1, J.E. Leatherbarrow 2, T.M. Young (2012)•Fine particles play major roles in controlling the fate of metals•In the US, most quality criteria for metals are in the dissolved form•Drying process important for XOC’s•Combined aerobic / anaerobic zones for nutrients•Treatment train – that integrates sedimentation and filtration, probably most effective(with some redundancy for robust control)•Is it more cost effective to treat small events, and discharge larger ones without?•Need for design to minimise re-suspension of particulates
  18. 18. Conclusions• Compliance with draft Standards not significantly more costly ‘provided that Interception can be met in an affordable way’• Where even very limited infiltration can be mobilised, subsurface storage could potentially be used to facilitate disposal of 5mm• Green roof crucial to Interception delivery• Detailing and modelling skills key to minimising impact of drainage requirements where space is valuable• R&D into understanding and appropriately mitigating environmental risk associated with runoff from commercial car parking would be of great value• And this requires understanding of the efficiency of vegetated components and proprietary products in treating likely pollution levels

×