Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Kite Hill Senior Design Mid Term Presentation Fall 2015

1,135 views

Published on

Kite Hill Senior Design Mid Term Presentation Fall 2015

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Kite Hill Senior Design Mid Term Presentation Fall 2015

  1. 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. 2. http://www.clemson.edu/public/hunnicutt/about.html
  3. 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. 4. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015
  5. 5. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015
  6. 6. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015
  7. 7. Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015
  8. 8. Define Problem Lack of infiltration Pollution runoff Damage to Hunnicutt Creek
  9. 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. 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. 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. 12. Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Highlighted Areas: J. Davis
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 27. Enhanced Swale Design 500ft stretch options: Grassy Swale Riprap Swale Check Dam Swale Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth
  28. 28. Trapezoidal Swale Used for unlined channels because of side slope stability Easy to cut grass and maintain Large surface area for infiltration
  29. 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. 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. 31. Enhanced Rock Swale Rip-rap lined swales have varying n values Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu
  32. 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. 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. 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. 35. Alternatives Sources: www.austintexas.gov Source: www.thisoldhous.com Source: www.lakesuperiorstreams.com
  36. 36. Sub-Goals of Median Redesign 1.Reduce the Velocity of Runoff 2.Allow Infiltration into Medians 3.Prevent Sediment Loss
  37. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 44. End of Pipe “Solutions” ● Upstream reductions are not enough ● Most common designs are: ○Detention Basin ○ Retention basin ■ Submerged gravel wetland
  45. 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. 46. Retention Pond Source: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_wetdtnpn.pdf
  47. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 52. Filtration Source: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/do cs/nwr/biofilters.pdf Source: J. Davis
  53. 53. Submerged Gravel Wetland http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf
  54. 54. 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
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. Time Line
  57. 57. 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

×