himkaar singh diepsloot sw report

i

CIVN7068

By Himkaar D. Singh

University of the Witwatersrand

24/08/2015

Diepsloot Surface Water

Technical Report

Abstract

Diepsloot is facing major surface water drainage problems. A trial section in Diepsloot

was chosen for a roads design with grass paving blocks and sub-surface drains. The

grass paving blocks add to visual appeal and reduce the runoff coefficient. The grass

paving blocks have the potential to reduce runoff by 50%.

Diepsloot Surface Water Technical Report

By Himkaar D. Singh ii

Contents

PART 1 PROBLEM DEFINITION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Current Issues 2

PART 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 5

Permeable Paving 5

Rainwater Harvesting 10

Swales 12

2.2 Proposal 14

Design 14

Discussion 14

Limitations 18

Areas for Future Research 18

PART 3 CONCEPT DESIGN 19

3.1 Locality 19

3.2 Design 21

3.3 Calculations 21

3.4 Conclusion 22

3.5 Appendices A

Appendix A: Locality A

Appendix B: Paving Block Specifications C

Appendix C: Drainage Calculations F

Appendix D: Layout and Drainage Plans M

3.6 Bibliography I

1

Part 1 Problem Definition

1.1 Introduction Diepsloot is a high population density informal settlement on the outskirts of Johannesburg.

It is zoned as “Region A” in the (2012/16) Johannesburg Integrated Development Plan (IDP).

The IDP highlights Diepsloot as a high priority development area in the Joburg 2040 strategy.

As part of the IDP’s goals, “the City of Johannesburg has commissioned a study to upgrade

the storm water system in Diepsloot, using conventional engineering strategies. The vast

cost associated with this plan throws into question whether this is the most effective

approach. Current thinking around the world points to more sustainable strategies that

combine the provision of social amenities and visual enhancement while meeting the

pragmatic need of surface water management” (Fitchett, 2015) . The purpose of this report

is to identify and design a storm water management intervention that will alleviate

Joburg 2040 Outcomes

Outcome 1: Improved quality of life and development-driven resilience for all

Outcome 2: Provide a resilient, liveable, sustainable urban environment –

underpinned by infrastructure supportive of low-carbon economy

Outcome 3: An inclusive, job intensive, resilient and competitive economy

Outcome 4: A leading metropolitan government that pro-actively contributed

to and builds a sustainable , socially inclusive, locally integrated and globally

competitive Gauteng City Region (GCR)

Source: (City of Johannesburg, 2015)

Image: www.candychang.com


By Himkaar D. Singh 2

Diepsloot’s surface water issues. The focus is on a ‘structural’ intervention, which is

expected to be supported with a ‘non-structural’ intervention.

1.2 Current Issues Diepsloot is facing unregulated population growth that is putting strain on the already

inadequate infrastructure. The issues related to surface water include:

Insufficient storm water infrastructure

Litter entering and blocking storm water pipes

Children playing near dirty, standing water

People discarding their dirty water into the street

Burst water pipes flooding streets

Erosion of gravel roads during storms - gullies are forming in some places

Lack of vegetation and permeable surfaces

Poor access for emergency vehicles

Lack of open space in-between dwellings

Inconvenient surfaces for cars and pedestrians

There are some asphalt surfaced roads that are in good condition, but where

drainage is a problem the roads are damaged and are in need of maintenance

Mostly impermeable surfaces

Image: (Skuy, 2013)



Erosion forming gullies

Image: (Fitchett, 2015)

Blocked sewer pipe spilling over

Image: (Dube, 2015)



Road in good condition

Image: (Diepsloot Online, 2015)

Grey water discharged onto street

Image: (Honorine, 2008)

5

Part 2 Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems There is a large variety of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) that have been

proven to reduce the negative impacts of flood events. Each has its own characteristics and

needs to be studied for the particular application. After a cursory analysis, it was decided

that permeable paving rainwater harvesting and swales may be the best solutions for

Diepsloot’s surface water issues – so they will be investigated further. Other solutions

include green roofs, wetlands and detention storage.

Permeable Paving

Permeable paving is a system of paving that allows water to infiltrate through the paving

blocks (porous block) or through gaps in-between blocks (permeable surface) (Diyagama, et

al., 2004). These systems are growing in popularity because “these systems have been

shown to be very successful in protecting both water quality of small and vulnerable

streams, and in reducing peak flood flows” (Interpave, 2010). Permeable paving aims to

increase infiltration into sub-bases that are designed to receive water, or to store storm

water for slow release (Concrete Manufacturers Association, 2010).



Porous block paving demonstration

Image: (Harrison, 2011)

Kikuyu Grass block paving in a parking lot



The subsurface system under the paving blocks can can either consist of permeable

layerworks that allow infiltration into the natural ground water system, or consist of a

drainage system that slowly channels the water to a larger stormwater network.

Porous block paving

Permeable surface paving

Images: (Diyagama, et al., 2004)



The major drawback for permeable pavements as a solution to Diepsloot’s surface water

problem is that they require significant design considerations. There are, however,

numerous design guidelines (such as that by Diyagama, et al. (2004)) for permeable paving.

Subjects to consider in the design:

Objectives and use (traffic and stormwater)

Permeable paving types

Structural layer works design

Infiltration rates

Water quality objectives

Construction techniques

Maintenance

Benefits

Providing a structural pavement while allowing rainwater to infiltrate into the

pavement construction for temporary storage

Playing an important part in removing a wide range of pollutants from water

passing through

Allowing treated water to infiltrate to the ground, be harvested for re-use or

released to a water course, the next management stage or other drainage

system

Suitable for a wide variety of residential, commercial and industrial

applications

Optimising land use by combining two functions in one construction:

structural paving combined with the storage and attenuation of surface water

Handling rainwater from roof drainage and impervious pavements as well as

the permeable paving itself

Source: (Concrete Manufacturers Association, 2010)



Case Study

Source: (Concrete Manufacturers Association, 2010)



Rainwater Harvesting

Rainwater harvesting is mainly used to aid drinking water supply, but also has a use as a

storm water management technique. Rainwater harvesting has many definitions depending

on purpose and type of storage but the definition accepted in this report, is that mentioned

by Lasage & Verburg (2015); “Water harvesting includes all small scale schemes for

concentrating, storing and collecting surface run-off water in different mediums, for

domestic or agricultural uses.” Water harvesting in informal settlements is usually achieved

through a guttering system that channels water from a roof to a storage tank.

During a storm, harvesting the rainwater effectively attenuates the runoff from roofs, to a

rate that the water is later released by humans. Although the individual effect of rainwater

harvesting on flood peak may be small, the combined effect of many houses harvesting

water can significantly reduce the flood peak. This means that for rainwater harvesting to

have a large impact on flood peak, it needs to be applied on a large scale. A great benefit of

rainwater harvesting, especially in a low income community, is the ability to use the water

when and how one desires.

In an informal settlement rainwater harvesting may not be practical because dwellings tend

to be constructed of inferior materials and poor building practices. The guttering system

may pose a risk to structural stability if not designed properly. Since each dwelling is

different, individual harvesting designs will be needed – which may not be practical. An

issue of concern in informal settlements is open space, so it may be difficult to allocate

space to storage tanks. Rather than storing the water in a tank, there does exist the

possibility of using rainwater harvesting to recharge ground water aquifers – but from Civil

Concepts’s (2010) geology investigation, it was found that some sands are collapsible so it

may be high risk to introduce water into the ground.

Gutter directing water from a roof to a storage tank

Image: (Rainharvest, 2010)



Rainwater harvesting is usually labour intensive to construct, and capital expensive at the

construction phase. A study by Lasage & Verburg (2015) showed that water harvesting costs

approximately US$ 1 per m3 to US$ 9 per m3 (2009) for small structures, and “for smaller

structures, less technical knowledge is needed, the initial investment cost is smaller, and the

governance is less complex than in the case of larger structures.”

Rainwater harvesting faces legislative, institutional and financial challenges but also offer

opportunities for goverrnment programmes and Non Governmental Organisations (Kahinda

& Taigbenu, 2011).

Rainwater harvesting forms part of a sustainable household

Image: (Kalebaila, 2013)



Swales

A swale is a basin of vegetation that holds storm water for an extended period of time so

that contaminants can be removed (Harris, et al., n.d.). Swales offer flood attenuation while

providing visual enhancement – so much so that they are increasingly being adopted in

residential areas. A guide to using swales in informal settlements has been created by

Harris, et al. (n.d.) from studying the informal settlement of Langrug.

A detailed study of the hydraulic performance of swales found that swales can eliminate

runoff for low rainfalls events and significantly reduce flow magnitudes for high rainfall

events (Davis, et al., 2011).

Runoff from roads is usually contaminated with pollutants from vehicles using the roads.

Contaminants can originate from sources such as oil leaks from vehicles and normal wear

from braking. Swales have been found to significantly improve runoff quality through

filtration and sedimentation – a study on the performance of grass swales for improving

water quality from highway runoff showed that suspended solids, nitrogenous compounds

[found in soaps], phosphorus and heavy metals were significantly treated by swales (Stagge,

et al., 2012).

“…it is recommended that grassed swales should be constructed with a relatively wide, flat

bottom to promote slow and even flow rates and to avoid channelization, erosion, and high

Attractive swale in a residential area

Image: (MidtownAtlanta, 2015)



velocities” (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2013), so it may be difficult to

construct in an informal settlement with scarcity of open space. The Wyoming Department

of Environmental Quality highlights the following advantages and limitations of swales:

Advantages

Effective for removing sediment and other particulate pollutants

Can reduce peak runoff volume and velocity

Promotes infiltration and can provide ground water recharge

Useful for treating runoff from highways and other roadways due to their

linear structure; good retrofit option for existing drainage ditches

Less expensive to build than traditional curb and gutter systems

Good pre-treatment option when used in conjunction with other BMPs

Do not cause warming of downstream waters and therefore, are a good

option for areas with cold water streams

Limitations

Individual swales can only treat runoff from a small drainage area of 5 acres or

less

Require higher maintenance than curb and gutter systems

Use in highly developed areas is fairly limited due to space constraints

Not recommended for use in drainage areas with high sediment loads or with

high levels of contaminants due to potential clogging or potential ground

water contamination

If used in arid or cold climates, adjustments and increased maintenance must

be made to ensure effectiveness

Do not seem to be effective at removing bacteria

Improperly designed or installed swales may not effectively remove pollutants

Vegetation must be maintained for swales to properly function

Concern for creating potential breeding habitat for mosquitos with wet swales

(Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2013)



2.2 Proposal

Design

The main objectives of the design are to visually enhance living spaces with vegetation,

while providing sustainable storm water management.

It is proposed to surface the main access roads with grass paving blocks. The main access

roads will contain sub-soil drains in their centres, or wherever suits the existing terrain best.

The alleys will be lined with grass paving blocks and will not usually have sub-soil drains. The

design is not a standard specification to be applied everywhere – but rather a concept to

guide the design of each area. A detailed design can be done if survey information is

available, but it is encouraged to do the construction by ‘eye’ according to the principles.

The design will be tailored so that it can easily be compared to Civil Concepts’s (2010)

conventional storm water network design.

Discussion

It can be assumed that the majority of residents have experienced a storm water event and

have identified the areas around their dwellings for storm water concern. They have already

modified their property to drain the water to the nearest open spaces, which are the streets

Image: (German Embassy Pretoria, 2015)



and alleys in-between dwellings. The people have already done the work of draining their

properties, so this can be considered a ‘construction step’. It can be assumed that this

construction step is complete, so the focus should be to manage the water in the streets

and alleys.

Special consideration should be given to residents who were not able to drain the water

from their properties – in some cases, the dwellings receive the brunt of the upstream flow

and undermining of the surface slabs is occurring. In this case, simply protecting the slabs

will not work. It will be necessary to reduce the flow upstream of the dwelling by reducing

runoff upstream. This means that, where possible, the storm water management plan

should be implemented from upstream areas towards downstream areas.

Since dwellings have been modified to drain storm water into the streets, without preparing

the streets to receive this water, erosion is occurring and gullies are forming. This can be

used as an advantage because the erosion has exposed the more stable material, so

construction can occur without needing as much earthworks. Additionally, a conventional

road design would drain the water to the sides of the road using a cambered road – but

since the road in the settlement is not a high class road - the water does not necessarily

need to be drained on the sides. Thus, a reverse camber can be created by using the natural

form of the gullies to drain the water towards the centre of the streets. Permeable paving in

the centre of the street will drain the water into a sub-soil drain that aligns with the centre

of the street, and forms a pipe network.

Typical cambered road

Image: (Rawlings, 2013)



The alleys will be lined with grass paving blocks that will increase infiltration and slow down

runoff towards the streets. The alleys may be too small to need sub-surface drains, but

consideration will be given where necessary. Any spaces in-between dwellings should be

paved with grass paving blocks.

The existing storm water pipe network has been found to be insufficient in capacity and

efficiency due to unplanned growth in population and blockages from rubbish. It may

therefore be more effective to manage surface water with a new system that does not

necessarily tie into the existing network.

It is not favourable to build a pipe network underneath people’s dwellings, or even at the

edge of the dwelling, because it is difficult to construct and maintain - so the somewhat

open space of the streets is the most convenient location for constructing a pipe network.

The open space will allow for easier maintenance and monitoring, and make the storm

water system visible so that residents are mindful of it (littering has been found to be a

major cause of blockages).

Apart from being a competent surface on which to travel, roads can serve another

important purpose - they can act as channels to direct storm water to where it is desired,

while preventing erosion of the in-situ material. The roads will be cambered and graded in

such a way that the water always flows towards a drain.

The grass serves the purpose of facilitating infiltration and slowing down runoff. The grass

will also trap and filter sediments and pollutants.

This solution does not require highly skilled workers and is labour intensive. The paving

blocks are placed by hand and the grass is planted by hand. The sub-soil drains are also

constructed by hand. No heavy machinery should be needed since the intention of the

design is to use the existing terrain as an advantage. Heavy vehicles may be needed to bring

the construction materials to site.

The grass should be planted in a season that will allow their root system to develop before

traffic is allowed on them. People should be encouraged to use their ‘grey’ water to water

the grass in winter.

The sub-soil drains will be placed under the middle of roads to drain any excess water that

does not infiltrate. The drains will not be open to the surface so litter will not be able to

enter the system. The drains will not be designed in this phase of the concept, but a typical

drain will be given.

The ‘core’ of the grass system should be planted slightly below the surface of the blocks so

that it is protected from vehicle damage.



Grass core below block surface



Limitations

There are several limitations to using grass block paving in Diepsloot:

There is a potential for root rot for prolonged periods of rain

There is a possibility of blocks uplifting or rocking if drainage is not adequate

Roots have the potential to grow underneath the blocks and cause uplift

In low traffic roads, the grass may need to be trimmed

If upstream storm water is not managed, high flows can undermine the blocks and

cause instability

Most of the construction materials may have to be bought and brought to site

Areas for Future Research

The following research opportunities exist:

Optimizing block orientation for best infiltration

Anchoring techniques for blocks to avoid layer works

Long term study on health of grass

Best species of grass to use

Uplifting of block

19

Part 3 Concept Design

3.1 Locality A trial area in Catchment 2 (Civil Concepts (Pty) Ltd, 2010), Appendix A, has been chosen

and can be seen in the images below. The storm water network in the trial area, which was

proposed by Civil Concepts, is simple enough to compare to a new design, and easy to

construct as an experimental section. The trial area is a closed-off residential area, and has

gravel roads that are approximately 6m wide, so it will be easy to assess the performance of

the grass under traffic load.



Proposed trial area

(Google Earth Image, 2010)

Proposed trial area

Image: Drawing No. SMP/ DIEP / 2 / 005 (Civil Concepts (Pty) Ltd, 2010)



3.2 Design Roads will be created using grass paving blocks that slope in the direction of the existing

ground. The roads will have enough camber (2%) and grade (1%) to ensure that water drains

towards an intended location (CSIR, 2005). Earthworks will be needed where the slope

cannot be achieved with the natural ground slope.

Any open space between dwellings will also be lined with grass paving blocks, and will be

graded to drain excess water into the roads.

Layout and drainage plans have been created to illustrate how the concept would be laid

out. The drawings can be found in Appendix D.

The blocks that are forming the roads will have sufficient sub-bases and bases – the layer

works requirements need to be assessed on site. Blocks that will not receive vehicle traffic,

may not need layer works. These blocks should just be ‘hammered’ into the ground.

The paving blocks will be Technicrete Armorflex or similar. The interlocking design of these

blocks will be beneficial in poor earthworks conditions. The specifications of the paving

blocks can be seen in Appendix B. These blocks cost approximately R200/m2.

The drains will consist of a perforated pipe in a trench surrounded by gravel. Technical

Recommendations for Highways 15 (1994) should be used as a guideline for construction of

the sub-surface drains.

3.3 Calculations Runoff calculations were done to predict the reduction in runoff that grass paving blocks

would provide.

Typical sub-surface drain illustration

Image: (Schneider Construction, n.d.)

Comment [HS1]: Brochure



The hydrology calculations were done according to the SANRAL Drainage Manual 6th Edition.

The Rational Method was used since the catchment meets the recommended criteria –

catchments smaller than 15km2, and sufficient available data.

The pipes were assumed to slope at a minimum recommended value of 1% to prevent

sedimentation.

The catchments were assumed to be mainly classified as residential and streets. A typical

urban runoff coefficient for residential areas would be 0.50 to 0.70. It was assumed that by

placing permeable paving in the spaces in-between dwellings, the coefficient would be 0.70.

A typical urban street runoff coefficient would be 0.70 to 0.95. It was assumed that by

placing permeable paving in the streets the coefficient would be 0.70. Therefore, the urban

C2 coefficient is 0.67.

A summary of the results can be seen in Table 1. The spreadsheets used for calculating the

peak flow in each pipe can be found in Appendix C.

Table 1: Predicted Reduction in Runoff

Pipe Q5 without grass paving

blocks (m3/s)

Q5 with grass paving

blocks (m3/s)

Reduction %

R5_3 - R5_2 0.058 0.031 47

R5_2 - R5_1 0.122 0.064 47

R5_1 - NS5 0.590 0.128 78

R6_2 - R6_1 0.106 0.062 42

R6_1 - NS6 0.214 0.104 51

R8_1 - NS8 0.143 0.099 31

The grass paving blocks decreased the runoff coefficient and consequently reduced the

runoff by an average of 50%.

3.4 Conclusion Diepsloot is facing major surface water drainage problems. A trial section in Diepsloot was

chosen for a roads design with grass paving blocks and sub-surface drains. The grass paving

blocks add to visual appeal and reduce the runoff coefficient. The grass paving blocks have

the potential to reduce runoff by 50%.

A

3.5 Appendices

Appendix A: Locality

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

NETWORK 4B

NETWORK 4A

NETWORK 2A

NETWORK 4C

NETWORK 4D

NETWORK 2B

NETWORK 6A

NETWORK 8A

NETWORK 9B

NETWORK 9A

NETWORK 10F

NETWORK 10B

NETWORK 10A

NETWORK 10C

NETWORK 10D

NETWORK 10E

DIE

PS

LOO

T

UKHOZI

GH

AN

DI

DUBATSELE

GRIFFITH MXENGE

HADIFELE

AMATOLA

JUK

SKEI

RIV

ERSEBADISHO

PARK MANKAHLANA

RIVERBANK

KH

OW

A

ANDR

EW

SOLOMON THEKISO PLAATJIE

SIKHOSANA

CATCHMENT 10

CATCHMENT 4

CATCHMENT 2

CATCHMENT 8

CATCHMENT 9

CATCHMENT 6

DNS3

DNS32D3_15

DNS32_1

D3_4

D9_1

DNS4

D4_15

D3_15_1

DNS2

D9_3

D1_1

D9_4

D3_4_1

D4_5

D4_2

D9_3_1

D9_2

D8_1

D8_4_1

D4_18

D8_6_1 D8_8_1

D4_3_1

D10_3

D9_4_1

D3_118

D11_3

D5_1

D3_59

D3_109

D3_3

D4_21

D3_115

D4_14

D3_113

D4_16

D4_9_1

D4_7

D6_2

D6_3

D10_5

D14_19_1

D4_10

D14_17_1D14_15_1

D11_1

D14_13_1

D3_83_1

D4_52_1

D14_11_1

D3_21_1

D3_108

D4_11

D3_23_1

D7_1_1

D8_12_1

D3_12_1

D3_25_1

D10_1

D8_14_1

D3_27_1

D8_11

D8_2_1

D3_10_1

D10_6

D13_17_2

D3_85

D14_10_2

D3_87

D3_8_1

D10_4

D3_29_1 D3_31_1

D8_10_3

D6_4

D10_3_1

D6_1_1

D3_33_1

D5_2

D4_4_1

D8_13

D4_34

D4_22_1D4_24_1

D3_6_1

D5_3

D10_7

D8_15

D3_83

D4_8

D4_24_4

D3_111

D3_5

D8_12_4

D4_23

D2_2

D2_4

D4_56

D4_9_3

D4_51

D3_35_1

D4_53

D2_1

D4_1

D3_20

D3_5_1

D2_6

D12_1

D2_5

D4_57

D3_89

D2_3

D3_116

D3_30

D3_106

D6_1

D3_9

D3_7

D12_3

D3_107

D3_34

D3_32

D4_35_1 D12_5

D4_55_1

D3_28

D8_3

D3_26

D8_7D8_5

D3_13

D3_24

D3_11

D8_14_2

D12_9

D3_22

D14_10_1

D4_20

D8_9

D4_4_2

D12_11

D4_9_4

D11_1_1

D7_2

D12_7

D10_1_1

D4_17

D4_36

D13_17_1

D11_2_1

D3_19

D12_15

D3_114

D12_6_1

D4_6

D12_2_1

D8_10_1

D14_21_1

D4_13D8_12_3D8_10_4

D12_13

D12_1_1

D10_2_1

D4_24_2 D12_4_1

D12_8_1

D12_12_1

D4_38D4_25_1

D4_37_1

D12_10_1

D3_36

D12_14_1

NS1

NS2

NS7

NS3

NS5

NS6

NS8

NS4

NS9

NS10

NS11

NS12

NS13

R1_1

R2_6

R2_5

R2_4

R2_3

R2_2

R2_1

R3_3 R3_4

R3_5

R3_2

R6_4

R7_1

R7_2

R8_9R8_8R8_6R8_5R8_4

R8_2

R4_3

R4_5

R4_4

R4_2

R4_7

R4_8

R4_9

R8_1

R6_2

R5_1

R5_2

R5_3

R4_1

R9_3

R9_4

R9_2

R9_1

R10_3

R3_34

R3_31

R3_28

R3_21

R3_10

R3_19

R3_14

R4_57

R4_56R4_55R4_54R4_51

R3_15

R3_83

R3_84R3_85

R3_86

R3_88 R3_89

R8_15R8_14

R8_13R8_12

R8_11

R4_10

R4_14

R10_4

R10_5

R10_6

R10_7

R11_1

R11_3

R12_3R12_5R12_7

R4_15

R4_18

R4_19R4_21

R4_22R4_23

R4_24

R4_16

R4_9_1

R3_5_1

R3_6_1

R3_8_1

R7_1_1

R3_109R3_108

R3_107

R3_106

R3_111

R3_112

R3_113

R3_115R3_118

R3_117

R3_116

R8_8_1R8_6_1R8_4_1R8_2_1

R3_4_1

R4_9_2R4_9_3

R4_4_1

R4_4_2

R9_3_1

R9_4_1

R13_17

R4_56_1

R3_33_1R3_31_1

R3_27_1R3_25_1

R3_23_1R3_21_1

R3_10_1

R3_12_1

R4_52_1

R3_83_1

R8_14_2

R8_14_1

R8_12_4

R8_12_2

R8_12_1

R8_10_2

R8_10_1

R10_3_1

R4_22_1

R4_24_4

R4_35_1

R14_10_2

R13_17_1

R13_17_2

SAPPHIRE

GIR

AFF

E

ADELAIDE TAMBO

MBUYISA MAKHUBU

MU

VH

AN

GO

SHA

RK

DA

VID

BO

PAP

E

BA

KO

NE

MM

UTL

A

RO

BE

RT

SO

BU

KW

E

VAD

ZIM

U

BH

EKA

NI

BH

EKA

NI

MA

KH

ULO

NG

PU

MA

CLO

SE

PU

MA

CLO

SE

RAYMOND MHLABA

KO

KE

TS

OK

OK

ET

S

CA

MEL

CLO

SE

CA

MEL

CLO

SE

JULY

NK

OSI

BO

SELE

TE

AK

RU

TH

MO

MPA

TI

VUSE

LELA

MA

RTI

NLU

THE

RK

ING

DANM

OHAPIDAN

MOHAPI

GETRUDE SHOP

WA

GA

WA

GLANGALIBALELE JAB

UK

HA

NY

PE

TAT

EAERN

VU

KU

ZE

N

AC

EN

TS

OE

L

R3_6

R3_7

R3_8

R3_9

R6_3

R8_7

R8_3

R6_1

R3_R3_33

R3_32R3_30R3_29

R3_27R3_26R3_25

R3_24R3_23R3_22

R3_11

R3_12

R3_13

R3_59

R3_20

R4_53R4_52

R3_87

R8_10

R4_11

R4_13

R10_2R10_1

R11_2

R12_1R12_2

R12_4R12_6R12_8R12_9

R4_20

R4_34R4_35

R4_36

R4_37

R4_38

R3_114R3_119

R4_3_1

R4_9_4

R12_10R12_11R12_12R12_13R12_14R12_15

R

R3_29_1

R4_55_1

R8_12_3

R8_10_4

R8_10_3

R10_2_1

R10_1_1

R11_1_1

R11_2_1

R12_1_1

R12_2_1R12_4_1

R12_6_1

R12_8_1R4_24_2

R4_24_1

R4_37_1

²

REV. DATE DESCRIPTION

TOWNSHIP

PROJECT

JRA STORMWATERMASTER PLANNING

PART 2 : NETWORK MODELING

CLIENT

PO BOX 1227 TEL: (012) 365 1414PRETORIA FAX: (012) 365 1192E-MAIL [email protected]

CONSULTING CIVIL &STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

W STANDER

W STANDER

DRAWING No.

DRAINAGE BASIN

SCALE DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

SMP / DIEP / 2 / 005

A21C_H

DIEPSLOOT

1 : 2 500B PIETERSE

NOTES:

1. RUN-OFF CALCULATION PERFORMED WITH HYDROSIM COMPUTER PROGRAM, USING THE FOLLOWING CONSTANTS:

a) RETURN PERIOD: - MAJOR SYSTEM : 25 YR - MINOR SYSTEM : 5 YR

b) MAP = 571 mm

c) % IMPERVIOUSNESS: - DENSE RESIDENTIAL : 50% - PUBLIC SPACES : 10% - OPEN FIELD : 0%

LEGEND

MAIN CATCHMENTS

SUB-CATCHMENTS

! STORMWATER NODES

!H NATURAL STREAM NODES

STORMWATER ROUTES

RIVERS

DRAINAGE DIRECTION

1 IN 50yr FLOODLINE

1 IN 100yr FLOODLINE

CONTINUES ON PLAN SMP/DIEP/2/003

CONTINUES ON PLAN SMP/DIEP/2/007

CO

NT

INU

ES

ON

PL

AN

S

MP

/DIE

P/2/00

6


By Himkaar D. Singh C

Appendix B: Paving Block Specifications


By Himkaar D. Singh F

Appendix C: Drainage Calculations

CIVN7068 - DIEPSLOOT Himkaar Singh

PIPE R5_3 - R5_2 DATE 24-Aug-15

PHSICAL CHARACTERISTICS RURAL (a) URBAN (b) LAKES (g)

SIZE OF CATCHMENT A = 0.00216 km2

0 1 0

LONGEST WATER COURSE LOVERLAND = 0.070 km LWATERCOURSE = 0.000 km

AVERAGE SLOPE SOVERLAND = 0.0714 m / m SWATERCOURSE = 1.000 m / m

HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC

0.110 HOURS CLEAN SOIL 0.1

(0.87L2/1000SAV)

0.385= 0.000 HOURS PAVED AREA 0.02

0.110 HOURS SPARSE GRASS 0.3

5 yrs MODERATE 0.4

RAINFALL 551 mm THICK BUSH 0.8

4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

15.4 26.5 Ft= 0.55

139.9 240.0

AREA REDUCTION 1.0 1.0

139.9 240.0

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000

CRESIDENTIAL = 0.490

CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.06 0.10

0.03 0.07

RECOMMENDED VALUES OF RUN-OFF FACTOR C

600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES

0.07 The point rainfall was calculated using the Modified Hershfield equation

0.17

0.26

DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS

PROJECT: CALCULATED BY:

FOR DESIGN OF:

AREA DISTRIBUTION FACTORS a+b+g=1

ELEVATIONS

VLEI'S AND PANS VERY PERMEABLE THICK BUSH AND PLANTATION

FLAT AREAS PERMEABLE LIGHT BUSH AND FARM-LANDS

RURAL URBAN

SURFACE SLOPE % PERMEABILITY % VEGETATION % USE %

VALUES OF r

TC (OVERLAND FLOW) = 0.604 ( rL/S0.5

)0.467

=

HILLY SEMI-PERMEABLE GRASS-LANDS

STEEP AREAS IMPERMEABLE NO VEGETATION

TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

BASIN NUMBER

RETURN PERIOD (YEARS)

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3

COMBINED C=aC1+bC2+gC3

PEAK FLOW

POINT RAINFALL (mm)

POINT INTENSITY (mm/HOUR)

AVERAGE INTENSITY (mm/HOUR) RURAL C1

RUN-OFF FACTOR

RETURN PERIOD T (YEARS)


PEAK FLOW Q = CiA/3.6 (m3/s)

ADJUSTED PEAK (m3/s) (Ft x Q)

RURAL C1 URBAN C2

COMPONENT CLASSIFICATIONMEAN AVERAGE RAINFALL (mm)

USE FACTOR

SLOPE ChHILLY (10 TO 30%) HEAVY SOIL, FLAT (<2%)

STEEP AREAS (>30%) HEAVY SOIL, STEEP (>7%)

RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS

SURFACEVLEI'S AND PANS (<3%) SANDY, FLAT (<2%)

FLAT AREAS ( 3 TO 10%) SANDY, STEEP (>7%)

LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY

VEGETATIONTHICK BUSH AND PLANTATION

LIGHT BUSH AND FARM-LANDS BUSINESS

PERMEABILITYVERY PERMEABLE HOUSES

PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE

IMPERMEABLE INDUSTRY

RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) MAXIMUM FLOOD

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR Ft

VLEI'S AND PANS (<3%) = VERY PERMEABLE = LAWNS =

CpGRASS-LANDS CITY CENTRE

NO VEGETATION SUBURBAN

STREETS

NO VEGETATION =

STEEP AREAS (>30%) = IMPERMEABLE = STREETS =

THICK BUSH AND PLANTATION =

LIGHT BUSH AND FARM-LANDS =

GRASS-LANDS =

FLAT AREAS ( 3 TO 10%) = PERMEABLE = INDUSTRY =

HILLY (10 TO 30%) = SEMI-PERMEABLE = RESIDENTIAL AREAS =


PIPE R5_2 - R5_1 DATE 24-Aug-15



0 1 0



HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC


(0.87L2/1000SAV)



5 yrs MODERATE 0.4


4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

19.0 32.6 Ft= 0.55

122.4 209.9


122.4 209.9

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000


CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.12 0.20

0.06 0.14


600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES


0.17

0.26NO VEGETATION =



GRASS-LANDS =








STREETS

LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY




PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE




RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS




USE FACTOR


PEAK FLOW




RURAL C1



TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

URBAN C2

VERY PERMEABLE THICK BUSH AND PLANTATION


BASIN NUMBER


VALUES OF r


)0.467

=



POINT RAINFALL (mm)


FOR DESIGN OF:

PROJECT:


CALCULATED BY:


ELEVATIONS

RURAL URBAN

SURFACE SLOPE % PERMEABILITY % VEGETATION %

RUN-OFF FACTOR


RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3

TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

USE %

VLEI'S AND PANS


PIPE R5_1 - NS5 DATE 24-Aug-15



0 1 0



HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC


(0.87L2/1000SAV)



5 yrs MODERATE 0.4


4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

20.8 35.7 Ft= 0.55

112.6 193.2


112.6 193.2

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000


CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.23 0.40

0.13 0.28


600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES


0.17

0.26



FOR DESIGN OF:


ELEVATIONS



RURAL URBAN


VALUES OF r


)0.467

=



TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

BASIN NUMBER


TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3


PEAK FLOW

POINT RAINFALL (mm)



RUN-OFF FACTOR





RURAL C1 URBAN C2


USE FACTOR



RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS



LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY




PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE







STREETS

NO VEGETATION =




GRASS-LANDS =




PPIE R6_2 - R6_1 DATE 24-Aug-15



0 1 0



HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC


(0.87L2/1000SAV)



5 yrs MODERATE 0.4


4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

20.3 34.9 Ft= 0.55

115.1 197.4


115.1 197.4

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000


CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.11 0.19

0.06 0.13


600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES


0.17

0.26



FOR DESIGN OF:


ELEVATIONS



RURAL URBAN


VALUES OF r


)0.467

=



TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

BASIN NUMBER


TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3


PEAK FLOW

POINT RAINFALL (mm)



RUN-OFF FACTOR





RURAL C1 URBAN C2


USE FACTOR



RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS



LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY




PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE







STREETS

NO VEGETATION =




GRASS-LANDS =




PPIE R6_2 - NS6 DATE 24-Aug-15



0 1 0



HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC


(0.87L2/1000SAV)



5 yrs MODERATE 0.4


4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

21.4 36.7 Ft= 0.55

109.2 187.3


109.2 187.3

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000


CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.19 0.32

0.10 0.23


600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES


0.17

0.26



FOR DESIGN OF:


ELEVATIONS



RURAL URBAN


VALUES OF r


)0.467

=



TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

BASIN NUMBER


TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3


PEAK FLOW

POINT RAINFALL (mm)



RUN-OFF FACTOR





RURAL C1 URBAN C2


USE FACTOR



RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS



LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY




PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE







STREETS

NO VEGETATION =




GRASS-LANDS =




PPIE R8_1 - NS8 DATE 24-Aug-15



0 1 0



HMAX = m H0.85L = 0.000 m

HMIN = m H0.10L = 0.000 m

DOLOMITIC = 0.0 %

LAWNS & PARKS 0

INDUSTRIAL AREAS 0

CITY/RESIDENTIAL 70

STREETS 30

0 0 0 TOTAL 100

RAINFALL

TC


(0.87L2/1000SAV)



5 yrs MODERATE 0.4


4

M 58

R 20

5 25 r = 0.1

22.5 38.6 Ft= 0.55

103.5 177.5


103.5 177.5

Ch = 0.000

Cd = 0.000

5 25 Cp = 0.000

0.00 0.00

0.67 0.67

0.00 0.00 CLAWNS&PARKS = 0.000

0.67 0.67 CINDUSTRIAL = 0.000


CSTREETS = 0.180

5 25

0.18 0.31

0.10 0.22


600 600-900 900

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05-0.10

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15-0.20

0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13-0.17

0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25-0.35

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.30-0.50

0.06 0.08 0.10 0.50-0.70

0.12 0.16 0.20

0.21 0.26 0.30

0.50-0.80

0.60-0.90

0.03 0.04 0.05

0.07 0.11 0.15

0.17 0.21 0.25 0.70-0.95

0.26 0.28 0.30 0.50-0.70

0.70-0.95

25 5 1.00

0.7 0.55

0.01 0.03 0.17

0.06 0.06 0.50

0.12 0.12 0.70

0.22 0.21 0.60

0.03 DESIGN NOTES


0.17

0.26



FOR DESIGN OF:


ELEVATIONS



RURAL URBAN


VALUES OF r


)0.467

=



TC (WATERCOURSE) =

RETURN PERIOD =

MEAN ANNUAL =

BASIN NUMBER


TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

RURAL C1 (Ch+Cd+Cp)

URBAN C2 URBAN C2

LAKES C3


PEAK FLOW

POINT RAINFALL (mm)



RUN-OFF FACTOR





RURAL C1 URBAN C2


USE FACTOR



RESIDENTIAL AREAS

LAWNS



LIGHT INDUSTRY

HEAVY INDUSTRY




PERMEABLE FLATS

CdSEMI-PERMEABLE







STREETS

NO VEGETATION =




GRASS-LANDS =




By Himkaar D. Singh M

Appendix D: Layout and Drainage Plans

STREETS TO BE PERMEABLE PAVING

SPACE IN-BETWEEN DWELLINGS TO BE PERMEABLE PAVIN

SUB-SURFACE DRAINS

DIEPSLOOT STORM WATER DESIGN

2124-Aug-2015

H. SINGH

H. SINGH

1:500CIVN7068 - C00124-Aug-15 PRELIMINARY ISSUE

CIVN7068 - C001ROADS ANDSTORMWATER

DIEPSLOOT STORM WATER -NETWORK 2A - PAVING LAYOUT

P0

R5_3

R5_2

R5-1

R6_2

R6_1

R8_1

D8_1A=9361m²

D6_2A=5222m²

D5_3A=2160m²

D5_2A=2959m²

D5_1A=6012m²

D6_1_1A=3666m²

D6_1A=400m²

Q5=0.03m³/s

Q5=0.06m³/s

Q5=0.13m³/s

Q5=0.10m³/s

Q5=0.1m³/s

Q5=0.06m³/s

NS5

NS6SUB

SURFACEDRAIN

CATCHMENT BOUNDARY

DIEPSLOOT STORM WATER DESIGN

2224-Aug-2015

H. SINGH

H. SINGH

1:500CIVN7068 - C00224-Aug-15 PRELIMINARY ISSUE

CIVN7068 - C001ROADS ANDSTORMWATER

DIEPSLOOT STORM WATER -NETWORK 2A - CATCHMENTANALYSIS P0

I

3.6 Bibliography

City of Johannesburg, 2015. 2012/16 Integrated Development Plan, Johannesburg: City of

Johannesburg.

Civil Concepts (Pty) Ltd, 2010. Diepsloot Stormwater Master Planning SMP/ DIEP/ 2 & 4/

REP, Johannesburg: Johannesburg Road Agency.

Concrete Manufacturers Association, 2010. An Introduction to Permeable Concrete Block

Paving, Johannesburg: Concrete Manufacturers Association.

CSIR, 2005. Guidlines for Human Settlement Planning and Design. Volume 2, p. Chapter 6.

Davis, A. P., Stagge, J. H., Jamil, E. & Kim, H., 2011. Hydraulic Performance of Grass Swales

for Managing Highway Runoff. Water Research, pp. 6779-6784.

Diepsloot Online, 2015. Diepsloot Online. [Online]

Available at: www.diepsloot.com

[Accessed 14 August 2015].

Dini, D., 2010. Press Release: Umuzi Petitions Parliament for Basic Services in Diepsloot.

[Online]

Available at: http://umuziphotoclubnews.blogspot.com/2010/10/press-release-umuzi-

petitions.html


Diyagama, T., Van Hutssteen, A., Lee, H. & Shaw, H., 2004. Permeable Pavement Design

Guidlines, Auckland: Draft.

Dube, M., 2015. Mandela Day vs politics in Diepsloot. [Online]

Available at: http://fourwaysreview.co.za/203141/mandela-day-vs-politics-in-diepsloot/


Fitchett, A., 2015. Surface Water Management in Diepsloot. Johanneburg: s.n.

German Embassy Pretoria, 2015. Green Paths out of Poverty. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.southafrica.diplo.de/Vertretung/suedafrika/en/__pr/__Embassy/2015/2nd__Q

/04-Diepsloot-Garden.html


Harris, L., Kates, A., Momose, T. & Overton, C., n.d. Options for Sustainable Urban Drainage

Strategies in Informal Settlements, Cape Town: Cape Town Project Centre.


By Himkaar D. Singh II

Harrison, J. J., 2011. Permeable Paving Demonstration. [Online]

Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeable_paving#/media/File:Permeable_paver_demonstra

tion.jpg


Honorine, S., 2008. Lack of Civility Hampers S. Africa's Sanitation Efforts. [Online]

Available at: http://www.voanews.com/content/lack-of-civility-hampers-s-africas-

sanitation-efforts/1579650.html


Interpave, 2010. Understanding Permeable Paving: Guidance for Designers, Developers,

Planners and Local Authorities, Leicester: s.n.

Kahinda, J. M. & Taigbenu, A. E., 2011. Rainwater Harvesting in South Africa: Challenges and

Opportunities. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, p. 969.

Kalebaila, N., 2013. Rainwater harvest from tanks – Useful yes, but can you drink it?.

[Online]

Available at:

http://www.wrc.org.za/News/Pages/Rainwaterharvestfromtanks%E2%80%93Usefulyes,but

canyoudrinkit.aspx

[Accessed 13 08 2015].

Lasage, R. & Verburg, P. H., 2015. Evaluation Of Small Scale Water Harvesting Techniques

For Semi-Arid Environments. Journal of Arid Environments, p. 49.

MidtownAtlanta, 2015. Creative Landscaping Solution for Stormwater Runoff to be Tested

on Midtown ATL's Signature "Green Street". [Online]

Available at: http://www.midtownatl.com/about/midtown-alliance/newsroom/midtown-

monthly/june-2015/bioswale-pilot-project


Rainharvest, 2010. Rainwater Harvesting Needs Political Buy-in to Relieve Water poverty.

[Online]

Available at: http://www.rainharvest.co.za/2010/03/rainwater-harvesting-needs-political-

buy-in-to-relieve-water-poverty/


Rawlings, W., 2013. Road Camber with Cross Section Overlay. [Online]

Available at: http://www.fotolibra.com/gallery/1143377/road-camber-with-cross-section-

overlay/



By Himkaar D. Singh III

Schneider Construction, n.d. Drainage Systems. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.schneiderconstructioninc.com/drainage/pages_drainage/french_drains.htm


Skuy, A., 2013. Diepsloot residents vow to vote EFF, say Zuma has let them down. [Online]

Available at: http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2013/10/19/diepsloot-residents-vow-to-

vote-eff-say-zuma-has-let-them-down


Stagge, H. J., Davis, P. A., Jamil, E. & Kim, H., 2012. Performance of Grass Swales for

Improving Water Quality from Highway Runoff. Water Research, pp. 6734-6741.

Unknown, n.d. Johannesburg Diepsloot Vaseline. [Online]

Available at: http://candychang.com/?attachment_id=31


Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2013. Urban Best Management Practice

Manual. Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan, p. 33.

Image on cover page obtained from (Dini, 2010)

himkaar singh diepsloot sw report

Documents