kite hill senior design final presentation fall 2015

70
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

Upload: ashleigh-hough

Post on 18-Jan-2017

150 views

Category:

Education


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

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

Page 2: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Table of Contents 1. Introducing the Problem

a. Kite Hill Impact on Hunnicutt Creek 2. Project Assessment

a. Defining problem, goals, constraints, considerations, and design elements

3. Design Elements a. Area of Interestb. Existing Conditionsc. Design and Methodologyd. Cost Estimatione. Design Comparisons

4. Sustainability Measures5. Conclusion

Page 3: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Introduction

Page 4: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

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

Page 5: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Google Maps

Clemson Subdrainage Exhibit

Page 6: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Recognition of Problem Stormwater runoff results in● Heavy peak flows

Sediment transport / erosion

● Pollution transportation

● Destruction of downstream ecology of Hunnicutt Creek watershed

Page 7: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

C. Bury

C. Bury

Page 8: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

C. BuryC. BuryC. Bury

Page 9: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

C. Bury C. Bury

Page 10: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

C. Bury

Page 11: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Project Assessment

Page 12: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Define ProblemLack of infiltrationPollution runoffDamage to Hunnicutt Creek

Goals of the ProjectBiological: Treat stormwater pollutants before entering Hunnicutt Creek Structural: Reduce peak flows and runoff velocity of stormwater for a 10 yr - 24 hr storm event

http://www.cnyhiking.com/NCTinPA-MinisterCreekTrail892.jpg

Page 13: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Constraints and Considerations Constraints

Existing InfrastructureFuture Construction

http://fisheyestudios.com/gallery-categories/aerial/

ConsiderationsSafety

Entering for maintenanceSafety around the area

SustainabilityMinimal maintenanceDurable design options

Aesthetics

Budget

Page 14: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

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?Client - Clemson University Facilities, Subcontractor/Developer

4. Can the design system elements be implemented at different times?

5. What is the approximate cost of the design and installation of the project?

6. What is the expected lifetime of the structures and systems being proposed?

Designer - Stormwater Project Team7. What regulations must we work within?

8. Is the design system resilient?

9. What funding is available for this project? What requirements would need to be met for this design to be implemented?

http://www.sciway.net/sc-photos/wp-content/uploads/tillman-hall-clemson1.jpg

Page 15: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Elements of Design ● Kite Hill Erosion Control

● Parking Lot Median BMPs

● Enhanced Swale

● End of Pipe BMPs

Basemap: Google Maps; Highlighted Areas: J. Davis

Page 16: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Kite Hill Erosion Control

Page 17: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Area Section

Area of Section

(ft2)

Slope Percent

1 4239 12.9 %

2 2922 22.4 %

3 6033 10.6 %

4 8908 10.5 %

5 11325 3 %

6 5097 19 %

7 11848 5.6 %

8 6938 17 %

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

Hill Redesign:Sub-Goals and Area of Interest

Area Section

Area of Section

(ft2)

Slope Percent

9 4557 8.9 %

10 3236 18 %

11 3589 8 %

12 4642 15.1 %

13 3819 26.8 %

14 4729 9.6 %

15 5309 20.4%

16 4722 18.22 %

Goals:1. Reduce Erosion from Kite Hill by 75% per yr2. Safe Driving Option: Gameday parking3. Reduce Runoff Rate by 25 % for a 25 yr- 24 hr storm

Page 18: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Existing Conditions Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE): T= R*K*LS*VMR- Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)K- Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)VM- Vegetative Mulch LS- Length Slope Factor = (Calculated separately for each area)

Estimated Soil Loss

T=(250)*(.17)*(.34)*(2.12) = 9.37 tons/ acre/ year

9.37 tons/ acre/ yr *2.601 acres = 24.39 tons =

22.13 tonnes of SOIL LOSS per year

Erosion Estimation Runoff Volume Estimates Soil-Cover Complex Method CN- Weighted Curve Number = 62.8 for Sod and Mulch P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)S- Surface StorageQ- Runoff Vr- Volume of Runoff

S = (1000/CN)-10 = 5.92 inQ= (P - 0.2S)2/(P + 0.8S) = 2.95 in of runoffVr = 2.95 in * (2.60 acres) = 27335 ft3 =

774 m3 of Runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm

Page 19: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Existing Conditions

Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015

Runoff Flow Rate Estimates Peak Runoff Rate Qp = qp*A*QQ = 2.95 inS = 5.92 intL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)tc = tL/0.6

Weighted qp = 1.543 (cfs/ac-in)Qp= (1.543 cfs/ac-in *2.95 in *2.60 ac = 11.6cfs

= 0.329 m3/s is the FLOW RATE of Runoff during a 25 yr -24 hr Storm

Page 20: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Design 1 - Hillside TerraceBenches are covered with grass (9600 ft2) and the Risers are covered with liriope and straw mulch (1790 ft2 = 1020 plants). The Cut and Fill Volume is 385 cu. yd

Erosion Reduction:Soil Delivery Ratio Method for Slope 14-16%

Reduce Soil Loss per year from 24.39 tons to 1.95 tons92 % reduction in erosion for overall AOI.

Runoff Volume:Soil Cover Complex Method Weighted CN 65.2 to 61Reduce Runoff Volume for a 25 yr- 24 yr storm from 7173 ft3 to 6171 ft3, 13.96 % reduce volume for the hillside area and 3.4 % for total AOI.Runoff Peak Flow Rate: Peak Runoff RateReduce Flow Rate from 3.48 cfs to 2.61 cfs for the hillside area 25.18 % reduction in Peak Flow Rate.

Design Specs (Determined using Agricultural Terrace Design) Direction 1: Length 49 ft, 14 %, 0.44 acDirection 2: Length 60 ft, 16.5 %, 0.2 acTerraces include: 2 benches (14.76 ft), 3 risers (1:1) 2.83 ft depth

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

Source: Chap. 5 Physical Methods for Erosion Control

Page 21: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Design 2 - Hillside Vegetative Cover Hillside is covered with juniper plants and straw mulch, but any shrub-like plants can be used for hillside cover.

Erosion Reduction:Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Weighted VM from 0.12 to 0.012 (Canopy of Bushes 25% and 80% grass cover)

Reduce Soil Loss per year from 7.5 tons to 1.27 tons88.6 % reduction in erosion for the hillside area and 27% reduction for ENTIRE AOI.

Runoff Volume:Soil Cover Complex Method for Weighted CN from 65.2 to 48Reduce Runoff Volume for a 25 yr- 24 yr storm from 7173 ft3 to 3339 ft3 53.4% reduce volume for the hillside area and 12.9 % for total AOI.Runoff Peak Flow Rate: Peak Runoff RateReduce Flow Rate from 3.48 cfs to 1.38 cfs for the hillside area 60.44% reduction in Peak Flow Rate.

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

Design Specs:Direction 1: Length 49 ft, 14 %, 0.44 acDirection 2: Length 60 ft, 16.5 %, 0.2 acJuniper Spacing: 6 ft (~1030 plants)

http://2minutegardener.blogspot.com/2011/12/photo-creeping-myoporum-myoporum.html

Page 22: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Curb and sidewalk removal to add ramp way (located 425 ft from Perimeter Road corner)Area: 1,588 ft2 Width of 60 ft by 25 ft

Design Driving Options

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

Driveway already exists, but the proposal is to allow access to this entrance after hours by changing Recycling Center enclosure New Fencing: 500 ftGate Removal: 53 ft

Existing Driveway at Recycling Center Semi-Driveway on Highway 76

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: J. Ossorio

Page 23: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Kite Hill Erosion Control Budget

Page 24: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Kite Hill Erosion Control Budget

Page 25: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Kite Hill Erosion Reduction: Design ComparisonHillside Redesign Terraced Side ($25,630.00)Pros -Reduce erosion by 92 % -Reduce Runoff Volume by 14%-Reduce Runoff Velocity by 26 %- Discourages driving on the hillside -Instant functionality Cons -Has some maintenance once established (mulch and cut grass)-Heavy Construction

Driving Options Existing Drive at Recycling Center ($7,657.00)Pros - Fence is already needed for area -Already developed Drive Cons -Heavy traffic around Recycling Center

Vegetative Cover ($27,542.00)Pros -Reduce erosion by 27% overall and 89% for the Area -Reduce Runoff Volume by 13 % overall and 54 % for Area-Reduce Runoff Velocity by 61%- Discourages driving on the hillside - Low maintenance after establishment Cons -3 year establishment -Cannot Handle foot or car traffic slow recovery Semi Drive on Highway 76 ($6,811.00)Pros -Allows for safer option for drivers who ride of curb on gameday-Minimal space to preserve Green Space-Two Entrances and Exits Cons -Additional Traffic on game day

Page 26: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Parking Lot Median BMPs

Page 27: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Median BMPs: Sub-Goals and Area of Interest 1. Reduce the Velocity of Runoff2. Allow Infiltration into Medians3. Prevent Sediment Loss

77

1234

56

7

Source: Google Maps

Area (ft2)

Slope (%)H.

Slope (%)V.

1 4145 10.8 1.0

2 6603 4.2 0.9

3 9944 6.7 0.8

4 10,008 6.1 1.0

5 7917 6.4 1.2

6 7491 5.9 1.4

7 6469 5.0 1.6

Page 28: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Runoff Volume Parking Lot Estimates Soil-Cover Complex Method CN - Curve Number = 92 (Commercial Parking Lot, HSG B, 85% Impervious Area)P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)S = (1000/CN)-10 = 0.87 inQ= (P - 0.2S)2/(P + 0.8S) = 5.83 in of runoffVr = 5.83 in * (1.21 acres) = 25,534 ft3

723 m3 of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm

Peak Runoff RateQp = qp*A*Q

Q = 5.83 in

S = 0.87 in

tL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)

tc = tL/0.6

Average qp = 0.86 (cfs/ac-in)

Qp= (1.2 cfs/ac-in * 5.83 in * 0.41 ac) = 2.88 cfs

0.546 m3/s flow rate of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm

Photo credit: Conor Bury

Page 29: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Design 1 - Vegetated Filter Strip Area (ft2)

Slope (%)

Q (cfs)

Bottom Width (ft)

Top Width (ft) y (ft) Velocity

(ft/s)

1 17,966 1 2.88 1.67 2.51 0.83 1.01

2 26,107 0.9 2.96 1.72 2.59 0.86 0.98

3 34,173 0.8 3.88 1.95 2.92 0.97 1.00

4 30,072 1 2.01 1.46 2.19 0.73 0.93

5 23,298 1.2 2.80 1.60 2.40 0.80 1.08

6 20,170 1.4 2.42 1.47 2.21 0.73 1.10

7 18,212 1.6 1.94 1.32 1.98 0.66 1.09

Q = (k/n)*Rh(⅔)*A*So

(½)

n: Gauckler-Manning’s coefficient tall vegetation - 12 to 24 inches: 0.08

trapezoidal channel design0.25 (H:V - 4:1)height of trapezoid is equal to bottom width

tree removal

curb stops

retaining wall pavers

fill dirt, soil and compost mixture, plant with liriope and bermuda

create berm

gravel, compost, soil and mulch layer with native plants

Source: http://www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov/stormwater/htm/sw_gi_bmp_bioretention.htmSource: Ashleigh Hough

Page 30: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Design 2 - Erosion Mat

T= R*K*LS*VMR - Rain factor = 250 (Pickens, SC)K - Soil Erodibility Factor = 0.17 (Web Soil Survey)LS - Length Slope FactorVM (before) =0.9 (rough, irregular bare soil)VM (after) = 0.08 (coconut mat)

Before After

VM factor - 0.9 VM factor - 0.08

29.7 tonnes/year 2.6 tonnes/year

● curb stops● seeding (bermuda grass)

live stakes (Miscanthus)

source: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120404-IR-312120154NRA.xml.html

source: http://www.hgtvgardens.com/flowers-and-plants/maiden-grass-miscanthus-sinensis-morning-light

Page 31: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Medians Budget

Page 32: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Medians Design ComparisonVegetative Strip with Rain GardenPros

- Nearly all runoff that enters swale infiltrates back into the ground

- Greatly reduces erosion- Slows down velocity of stormwater- Removes pollutants- More permanent solution

Cons - Eliminates most trees- Failure issues of pavers- Maintenance- Expensive

Coconut MatPros

- Slows down the velocity of stormwater- Reduces erosion by 91%- Allows for trees to stay- Biodegradable mats - Less expensive

Cons - Temporary solution (possibly)- Maintenance - Less pollutant removal

Page 33: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Flow Diversion and Enhanced Swale

Page 34: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Flow Diversion TechniquesFlow Diversion Options:

Concrete cut with apron & stabilizationGrated Trench Drain

Photo Credit: Conor Bury, 2015 Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth

Page 35: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Curb Cut with ApronDivert flow into swale Must set stabilizers and apron

ConcreteGCLErosion Mat

Source: www.lastreetblog.org

source: http://www.beinginplace.org

Page 36: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Grated Trench Drain

Source: www.trenchdrainsupply.com

Hill Area Section

Area of Section (A)

[m2]

Coefficient of runoff (C )

Rainfall Intensity (I)

[m/s]

Volumetric Flowrate (Qreq)

[m3/s]

1 393.8 ..35 5.6E-05 0.1332

2 271.5

3 560.5

4 827.6

Driveway 432.0 .95

Total 2485.3

Page 37: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Grated Trench Drain

Qreq=(k*A*R2/3*S1/2)/nQreq - volumetric flowrate

k - conversion from Eng to SIA - cross sectional area of drain

R - Hydraulic Radius S- Slope

n - coefficient of frictionSolve for WIDTH

Cross Sectional Area (m2)

Hydraulic Radius (R )

[m]Slope

Volumetric Flowrate (Q)

[m3/s]

Coefficient of Friction

(n)

Base Width (b) [m]

Peak Capacity

Depth (h) [m]

0.062 0.198 0.020 0.133 0.013 0.352 0.176

Page 38: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Finding Peak Flowrate and Volume

Peak Runoff RateQn = qp*A*Qx

Qx = runoff depth

qp - peak discharge coefficient

S = (1000/CN)-10tL= L0.8(S +1) 0.7/(1900γ0.5)

tc = tL/0.6

L - Hydraulic Length

y - slope

Soil-Cover Complex Method S = (1000/CN)-10CN - Curve Number

P- Rainfall for 25 yr -24 hr storm = 6.77 in (Rain Data obtained from Tony Putnam)

Qx = (P - 0.2Sn)2/(P + 0.8Sn)

∑Q*Area = total volume of runoff

43,847 ft3 of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm

Peak Runoff AverageQdesign =∑(Qn*(Vn/VTOTAL))

V - Volume of basin

Q - Peak Runoff Rate of Basin

7.95 cfs flow rate of runoff during a 25 yr - 24 hr storm

Page 39: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Enhanced Swale Design500ft stretch options:

Grassy SwaleCheck Dam Swale

Must Handle a Peak Storm of:7.95 ft3/s flow rate43,848 ft3 volume

Source: Basemap: Google Maps; Area Analysis: R. Middleswarth

Page 40: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Peak Runoff RateA = b*y + z*y2

A = b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12

R = A/(b + 2*0.1*0.25)Q = 1/n * A * S1/2 * R2/3

Q- volumetric flowrate

A- cross sectional area of drain

R - Hydraulic Radius

S- Slope

n - coefficient of friction

Trapezoidal Grass SwaleUsed for channels because of side slope

stabilityEasy to maintainLarge surface area for infiltration

Q = 0.225 m3/s

S = 0.06

0.225 = 1/0.033 * (b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12) * ((b*0.1 + 0.25*0.12)/(b + 2*0.1*0.25))⅔ * 0.061/2

b = 1.405 [m]

Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

Page 41: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Solved GeometriesHydraulic

Radius (R ) [m]

Crossectional Area (m^2) Slope Volumetric Flowrate (Q)

[m^3/s]Coefficient of Friction (n)

0.098 0.143 0.06 0.225 0.033

Base Length (b)

[m]

Peak Capacity Depth (y) [m] Side Slope Swale Height (H) [m] Top Width (wt)

[m]

1.405 0.100 0.250 1 1.91

(4.6 ft) (3.94 in) (3.28 ft) (6.25 ft)

Page 42: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Enhanced Grass SwaleV=Q/AV - velocity (m/s)Q - Peak Flow rate (m3/s)A - Cross-sectional area (m2)V = 0.225/.143 = 1.57m/s [5.2 fps]

Factors affecting velocity include:- Manning’s coefficient n- Cross-sectional area- Slope- designed hydraulic radius

Source: www.scdot.org

Page 43: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Enhanced Rock SwaleRip-rap lined swales have varying n values

Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

0.1m flow depth = 0.32ft = 3.8in

n = 0.0395*(D50)⅙

(D50) = 3in

n = 0.047

V = 1.09 m/s

(3.2 ft/s)

Source: www.bae.ncsu.edu

Page 44: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Check Dam DesignPrimary Design Benefits:

Soil ErosionSediment ControlTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)Flow Attenuation

Source: www.riverlink.org

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

Secondary Benefits:Runoff Volume ReductionPhosphorousNitrogenHeavy MetalsFloatablesBOD

Page 45: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Check Dam Design33 ft intervals @ 6% slope ⅓ - ⅔ of the swale depth~66% slope on upstream side of damActs as terracing to reduce sedimentation and

velocity

Dam Depth ft (d) Number of Dams

2.19 15.00

Flowrate through Dam (Q) [ft^3/s] 0.83

Flow depth (h) [ft] 1.46

Length of Flow (L) [ft] 0.73

Stone Diameter (D) [ft] 0.50

Check Dam Slope (ss) 0.25

Exit Velocity (ft/s) 0.54

Page 46: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Check Dam Design

Max Retainage Volume (ft^3) 3388.6

Max Volume From 25 yr - 24 hr Storm (ft^3)

43847.4

VMAX = N*VDAM

VDAM = ½*d*L*w + 2*(½)*d*x*L

N = number of damsd = dam height (ft)L = distance between dams (ft)w = bottom widthx = x distance of side slope

Source: http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/swale_checkdam.jpg

Page 47: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Construction Budget

Page 48: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Maintenance Budget

Total yearly cost = $375/year

Page 49: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

McMillan Road Enhanced Swale Design ComparisonCheck Dams Pros

- Inexpensive- Reduces erosion and sediment transport- Allows infiltration- Some physical filtration- May discourage illegal parking

Cons- Requires periodic repair and sediment

removal- Doesn’t treat oils- Expensive vs Grass Swale- Maintenance- Chance of breach- Temporary

Grassy / Riprap Swale (dry)Pros

- Simple Installation- Easy Maintenance- Aesthetically Pleasing

Cons - May form rills (grassy)- Higher velocity (grassy)- Less treatment and infiltration than other

methods- Expensive (riprap)

Page 50: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

End of Pipe BMPs

Page 51: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

End of Pipe “Solutions”Upstream reductions are not enough

Most common designs are:Detention basinRetention basin

Submerged gravel wetland

Goals:Reduce peak flowReduce pollutant runoff http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4908685081_fdcd1f7966_z.jpg

Page 52: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Detention BasinsGood at removing sediment, poor at

removing dissolved pollutants

Detention basin size for our area:

200’ x 100’ x 8’

Treats 100 year, 24-hour storm

Page 53: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Submerged Gravel Wetland

http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf

Page 54: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Sedimentation Basin Sizing Settling velocity for sizing Stokes Law:

SCDOT Simplified Stokes:

Vs = 2.81·d2 Vs = 2.81·(0.01mm)2 ≈ 2.81∙10-4 ft/s ≈ 8.565∙10-5 m/s

Qout= c∙i∙A = (0.8)(0.15916̅ in/hr)(4.15 acres

= 0.528433ft3s-1

From SWRCB at 90% effectiveness,

Page 55: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Gravel Wetland Sizing“First flush” = 0.2 in · 4.15 ac 3000 ft≅ 3

Water Quality Volume (WQV) = 4.15 acre-inch 15,000 ft≅ 3

Hydraulic Retention Time ( ) = V / Q

= 4∙V / 4∙Q = 1~2 days

Reduces peak flow of a ten year design storm (3.7” in 6 hours) by ~90%

Wetland dimensions (each cell): L = 110 ft, W = 55 ft

Page 56: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Submerged Gravel Wetland

Basemap: Google Maps; Subsurface drains: Clemson University; Basin and Service Road Drawing: J. Davis

Page 57: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Gravel Wetland Hydraulic Performance

http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf

Rational Method for peak discharge

Q = ciA, whereQ = peak discharge volume [cfs]c = runoff coefficienti = rainfall intensity [in/hour]A = area [acres]

Five year design storm

Q = 0.654cfs = 295 GPM

Page 58: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Gravel Wetland Biological Performance

http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/GravelWetlandNutrientCyclingFinalReport3-31-10.pdf

Page 59: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Wetland MaintenanceEvery six months:

Check for complete plant coverage and revegetate as necessary

Ensure cells drain within 24-48 hours

Remove decaying vegetation, litter and debris

Sedimentation forebay - Remove sediment after 12” of accumulation

Gravel treatment cells - Remove sediment after 4” of accumulation

Page 60: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Gravel Wetland vs Detention CostsItem Cost Coverage Total

Grading $ 50,000.00 per acre 0.301 acres $ 15,050.00

Piping $ 23.00 per L-ft 36 L-ft $ 828.00

Pipe Labor $ 25.00 per hour 22 hours $ 550.00

Pumped concrete $ 100.00 per cu. yd. 18 cu. yds. $ 1,800.00

Pump Truck Rental $ 130.00 per hour 8 hours $ 1,040.00

Wetland Materials & Installation

$ 22,300.00 per acre 0.301 acres $ 6,712.30

Total $ 25,980.30

Adjusting for 15% contingency $ ~ 30,000.00

Detention Pond cost $ 40,000.00 per acre 0.5 acres $ ~20,000.00

Page 61: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Basins Design ComparisonDetention Pond Pros

- Reduces peak flows - Slows down velocity of stormwater- Removes some sediments- Lower installation cost

Cons - Doesn’t remove pollutants- Expensive dredge maintenance

Submerged Gravel Wetland Pros

- Reduces peak flows- Slows down the velocity of stormwater- Significantly removes pollutants- Removes sediments

Cons - Higher installation cost- Expensive dredge maintenance

Page 62: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Project Wrap Up

Page 63: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Sustainability Measures ● Economical

○ Installation○ Maintenance

● Ecological○ Improving Stream Health

● Social○ Preserve natural resources

for future generations○ Educational

● Ethical Considerations○ Solving the problem without

damage to downstream

http://cantov.deviantart.com/art/Clemson-University-Still-Water-145243984

Page 64: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Kite Hill Erosion Control- Terraced Hillside

- Cost: $25,000

- Vegetative Covered Hillside - Cost: $27,000

Parking Lot Medians- Vegetative Filter Strip w/ Rain Garden

- $350,000

- Coconut Mat - $30,000

Project Cost Summary McMillan Road Swale

- Grassy Swale- Cost: $6,100

- Riprap Swale- Cost: $11,000

- Check Dams- Cost: $15,000

End of Pipe- Detention Pond

- $20,000

- Submerged Gravel Wetland - $30,000

Total Cost of All Designs = $92,000 ~ $415,000

Page 65: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

3 Questions Answered 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?

Client - Clemson University Facilities, Subcontractor/Developer4. Can the design system elements be implemented at different times?

5. What is the approximate cost of the design and installation of the project?

6. What is the expected lifetime of the structures and systems being proposed?

Designer - Stormwater Project Team7. What regulations must we work within?

8. Is the design system resilient?

9. What funding is available for this project?

Page 66: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Time Line

Page 67: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

ReferencesJurries, 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.

Watershed Hydrology and Small Catchments, BE3220. Owino, T, PhD. Clemson University. Spring 2015.

http://www.erosionpollution.com/support-files/coir_geotextiles_specification.pdf

Page 68: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Referenceshttp://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

State Water Resources Control Board: EPA, California. Attachment D: Sediment Basin Sizing. Draft, 18 March 2008. Online. PDF. Accessed 11 November 2015. <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/draft/draftconst_att_d_sed_basin.pdf>

Jones. Tom. Personal Interview. Fall 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>.

Page 69: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

ReferencesPitt, R. Detention Pond Design and Analysis. CE 378 Water Resources Engineering. University of Alabama. April 2004. <http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/Water%20Resources%20Engineering/M9c2%20WinTR55%20ponds%20docs.pdf>

Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. Price List: Reinforced Concrete Pipe. Online. Accessed 18 November 2015. <http://www.ncp-inc.com/price1.html>

TigerDroppings. Thread: “Price per cubic yard for concrete?”. Louisiana State University-community discussion forum. Online. Accessed 18 November 2015. <http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/outdoor/price-per-cubic-yard-for-concrete/40127861/>

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sangabriel/documents/applicant/afc-cd/AFC_Volume-2/G%20-%20Preliminary%20Detention%20Basin%20Calculations.pdf

Jarrett, A.R. Water Management. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 1995.

http://nurcar.com/wholesale_catalog.pdf

http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_sod.html

Sheng, T. Bench Terrace Design Made SImple. Department of Earth Resources. Colorado State University. 2002.

Page 70: Kite Hill Senior Design Final Presentation Fall 2015

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following for all their help, guidance, patience, and contribution to literature:

● Dr. Caye Drapcho

● Dr. Tom Owino

● Barrett Anderson

● Tom Jones

● Tony Putnam

● John Gambrel

● Dr. Cal Sawyer

● Dr. Ellen Vincent

● Dr. Paul Russell

● Melanie Rhulman

● Dr. Abdul Khan

● University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center