You are on page 1of 15

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

The role of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in reducing the


flood risk associated with infrastructure

A93 Craighall Gorge to Middle Mause Farm - Road Re-


alignment, Perth, Scotland – Case Study
R.Stewart1* and N.Hytiris2
1
Asset Management and Support, The Environment Service, Perth & Kinross Council, The
Atrium, 137 Glover Street, Perth, PH2 0HY
2
School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens
Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA

*Corresponding author, e-mail rsstewart@pkc.gov.uk

ABSTRACT
The development of infrastructure has created large areas of impermeable land where rainfall
events cause surface water runoff to enter watercourses, through conventional drainage
systems, quicker and in larger quantities than from Greenfield sites, increasing the likelihood
of flooding to receiving watercourses.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a more sustainable form of surface water
drainage. They mimic natural drainage processes to treat, transport and attenuate runoff. The
Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, have imposed a
mandatory use of SUDS within new or Brownfield developments.

In order to assess the role of SUDS in reducing the flood risk associated with Infrastructure,
the authors will undertake the design of a SUDS for the case study A93 Craighall Gorge to
Middle Mause Farm – Road Re-alignment, near Perth, Scotland.

The outcomes of the study are that SUDS provide mechanisms within their respective
structures and design criteria to treat, transport and attenuate runoff up to a 1/200 year return
period and release the runoff at a controlled rate (which is less than the Greenfield runoff) to
connecting watercourses. Therefore, the incorporation of a SUDS, as opposed to a
conventional drainage system, reduces the flood risk associated with infrastructure.

KEYWORDS
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, SUDS, Surface Water Drainage, A93 Craighall Gorge.

INTRODUCTION
Background
The development of infrastructure has created large areas of impermeable land that was
previously permeable.

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 1


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

‘Over the last century there has been a realisation that surface water run-off measures were
leading to high flows, pollution, flooding, erosion and environmental impacts within our
Watercourses. This has led to the development of more sustainable methods in order to
reverse and improve watercourse status, therefore alleviating previous uniformed design
decisions.’ (DTI, 2006).

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) have been implemented in sites around
Scotland for over twenty years and is to date the most sustainable option. Indeed, Recent
legislation, Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, has
made it a statutory duty to drain surface water run-off from new developments by SUDS or
equivalent.

Aim
The aim of this report is the role of SUDS in reducing the flood risk associated with
infrastructure. In order to achieve this aim, the author’s undertook a detailed SUDS design
for the case study – A93 Craighall Gorge to Middle Mause Farm, road re-alignment works –
in order to reduce the risk of flooding to connected watercourses by removing surface water in
a more natural way than conventional drainage systems.

CASE STUDY
Step One – Level of Treatment Required
The first step in the development of a SUDS is to determine the size of the treatment train
required to perform the necessary pollution control of surface water runoff emanating from
the development. CIRIA (1999) states that a non-residential site must provide two levels of
treatment to surface water runoff before being released into a watercourse. In addition, the
system must also provide attenuation to control the release of surface water runoff into
adjacent watercourses (if required) at a rate that will mimic pre-development conditions. This
function will reduce the developments impact on the watercourses within the catchment by
maintaining current runoff rates and lessening the risk of flooding.

Step Two – Determine Catchment Areas


The next step of the design process was to review the scheme layout to determine how and
where surface water runoff will drain from the realigned road.

In general, the road is formed on an embankment and as such will only receive a small
proportion of runoff from adjacent Greenfield sites. This occurs at chainage 400 m to 700 m,
1300 m to 1500 m and 1750 m to 1850 m. It is clear from land topography that the drainage
of surface water runoff forms two distinct catchment areas, caused by the vertical alignment
of the re-aligned road. Catchment A includes chainage 0 m to 410 m and 980 m to 410 m (the
lowest point at 410 m) and catchment B contains 980 m to 2280 m (the lowest point at 2280
m). Refer to Figures 1 and 2 for details. The lowest point within the catchment will be
where the runoff is drained to (by the SUDS) and a suitable location sought for the attenuation
of runoff.

Step Three – Location and Selection of SUDS


CIRIA (2004) provides a useful scoring system in order to determine appropriate SUDS
techniques for a particular scheme. Each technique is assigned a score on the basis of:

2 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

hydrological control effectiveness, pollution reduction performance, physical site features,


land use, Community and Environmental factors and economic and maintenance factors. The
overall scores are compared in order to filter out unsuitable techniques and provide a more
workable number of SUDS techniques to choose from.

On completion of the SUDS selection scoring system, swales and filter drains were identified
to be the most suitable option to drain surface runoff from the road. However, as swales can
only accept sheet flow, in order to prevent erosion, they were positioned at the start of the
catchment. Additionally, due to site restrictions and the large land take requirement of
swales, their inclusion could only be justified up to a width of 2.5 m, which is the maximum
designed width of the verges for the re-aligned road.

In addition, the selection process identified an infiltration basin and wet pond as suitable
options for the second level of treatment and attenuation. However, the results of a ground
investigation found that the water table is more than 2 m below the surface and the soil
consists of ‘loose to medium dense pale brown medium and coarse SAND and fine to coarse
angular to rounded GRAVEL with many cobbles and boulders’, which possesses good
infiltration characteristics. Therefore the selection of an infiltration basin, over a wet pond,
was considered the most suitable option as it allows infiltration of all surface water into the
soil and does not require connection to the nearest watercourse, thus preventing additional
discharge to the watercourse and reducing the flood risk potential.

Figures 1 and 2 (next page), detail the locations of the selected SUDS techniques for
catchments A and B. Unfortunately, due to the size of the drawings it is very difficult to
identify unless using the zoom on a computer package. However, in general, swales were
positioned at the beginning of the catchment area and feed into a filter drain where the
designed size would exceed 2.5 m – Providing the first level of treatment. The filter drains
feed into an infiltration basin at the end (lowest point) of the catchment area – providing the
second level of treatment and attenuation.

Step Four – Rainfall & Runoff Estimation Method


There are currently many methods of estimating peak flows (Runoff) from the catchment area
in order to design appropriately sized systems. However, due to time constraints, access
difficulties and the limited availability of data, the Rational Method was utilized (see Figure
6).

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 3


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
Figure 1. Drainage Layout for Catchment A - North

4
4 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

5
Stewart, R & Hytiris, N.
Figure 2. Drainage Layout for Catchment B - South
Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 5
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Step Five – Swale Design


According to CIRIA (2004), a swale must provide effective treatment to flows of 1/1 year
return period and provide a residence time of at least 10 minutes (this provides sufficient time
for pollution control). A swale must also provide capacity for a 1/30 year return period.
Additionally, both scenarios must not exceed flow velocities of 0.3 m/s and 1.0 m/s.

The following design for Swale 1.0 South (977 m -1050 m) was applied to the design of all
swales (1.0/1.1 North – 0 to 123 m and 2.0 North – 977 to 904m). The design process is
summarised in Figure 4 (Stages 1-3) and Figure 5 (Stages 4-6).

In order to begin the design process, a preliminary layout of the swale dimensions must be
sought in order to compare the actual volume entering the system and the capacity of the
system. For the purposes of this swale design, a base size of 1m and, due to site restrictions, a
1 in 3 slope (the maximum slope for a swale as per CIRIA (2004) guidance) were selected.
Figure 3 details the swale layout.

Figure 3. Assumed Swale Layout

Stage 1. This calculation details the Treatment Volume Runoff received by the swale from
the surrounding catchment area, giving a value of 21.5 m3/hr.

Stage 2. The Treatment Flow of a swale, as shown in Figure 3, is up to the level of the
vegetation. CIRIA (2004) assumes that in most cases this height will be 0.1 m.

If the Treatment Flow Capacity (QF) is higher than the Treatment Volume (VT) and the
Residence Time (RT) is greater than 10 minutes, then the swale design will successfully treat
the runoff during a 1/1 year return period.

Swale 1.0 South has a Treatment Flow Capacity of 28.99 m3/hr, but will only receive 21.6
m3/hr runoff from the catchment area. Therefore, the swales dimensions can be modified
until it is sufficiently close to the runoff expected – in this case as the side slopes are at a
maximum, the ‘base’ is the only dimension that can be reduced.

As detailed in Figure 4 (for swale 1.00 South), a base dimension of 0.75 m produces a
treatment volume capacity of 22.69 m3/hr, which is sufficiently close to 21.6 m3/hr to become
more cost effective. As explained earlier, the velocity must be less than 0.3 m/s. In this case
a velocity of 0.06 m/s occurs and as such is less than 0.3 m/s and is acceptable.

6 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

SWALE AT 1.0 SOUTH

Design Stages : Stage 1 - 3 (1/1 Year Return Period)

Stage 1 - Calculate Treatment Volume (1/1 Year Return Period)

VT= Treatment Volume = AP * I / 1000 Where:


2
AP = Catchment Area (m ) = 800
VT= Treatment Volume = 21.60 m 3/hr I = Average annual rainfall
for 1/1 year strom (mm /hr) = 27

Stage 2 - Calculate Velocity (V) / Treatment Flow (Q F) / Residence Time (R T ) (1/1 Year Return Period)

Swale Dimensions
MANNING'S EQUATION V= 1 R2/3 S 1/2 Base (b) 0.75
o
n Water Height (h A) 0.1
Side length actual (L A) 0.9
Side length - Wet (L W ) 0.30
Where: answer dimension Swale height (h) 0.3
Mannings Angle Length (A L) 0.32
-1/3
Roughness (n) 0.30 m s
Hydraulic Radius (R) 0.08 m Where:
Cross sectional area of swale n = from CIR IA, 2004 guidance
2
where water is running (A) 0.105 m R = A/PW
Wetted Perimeter of A = (b*hA)+(2*hA*h/2)
Swale (P w) 1.38 m PW = AL+AL+b
Swale Slope (S o) 0.0101 SO = 1 in 99 (0.0101)
Velocity (V) 0.06 m/s

Volume of Flow = QF = V * A * 60 * 60
QF 22.69 m 3/hr
Where:
Residence Time = (RT) = SL / V / 60 Swale Length (SL) (m) = 73
RT 20.27 mins

Stage 3 - Checks - (1/1 Year Return Period)

Type Purpose Pass ? Comments


Velocity V < 0.3m/s yes
Volume VT < Q F yes
Residence Time RT > 10mins yes

Figure 4. Design Stages 1-3 (Swale 1.0 South)

In order to complete the design for a 1/1 year return period the Residence Time (RT) must be
greater than 10 minutes. CIRIA (2004) stipulates that pollution control of runoff by
settlement, filtration and absorption requires a flow duration of at least 10 minutes from start
to finish of the swale. The residence time for the swale is 20.27 minutes, which is greater
than 10 minutes and therefore acceptable.

Stage 3. In this case all checks were satisfactory as detailed in Figure 4.

Stage 4(see Figure 5). Using the rainfall intensity for a 1/30 year return period as 65 mm, the
volume of runoff for a 1/30 year return period is QF(1/30) = 52 m3/hr.

Stage 5. By following the process described in Stage 2 and increasing the height (h) from 0.1
m (treatment height) to 0.3 m (full height of swale), the Swale Flow Capacity QSFC(1/30) =
91.84 m3/hr. This is significantly higher than 52 m3/hr (Runoff volume) as detailed in Stage 4
and was therefore acceptable.

As Stage 2 in the design process was tailored to match the swales dimensions to the treatment
volume and provide a cost effective swale design, a further reduction in dimensions to equal
the swale flow capacity is not permitted.

Additionally, the Velocity is equal to 0.08 m/s, which is significantly lower than 1.0 m/s and
is acceptable.

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 7


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

SWALE AT 1.0 SOUTH

Design Stages : Stage 4 - 6 (1/30 Year Return Period)

Stage 4 - Calculate Volume (1/30 Year Return Period)

QF(1/30) = Flow of 1/30 return period = AP * I / 1000 Where:


2
AP = Catchment Area (m ) = 800
QF(1/30) = Flow of 1/30 return period = 52.00 m3/hr I = Average annual rainfall
for 1/30 year strom (mm/hr) = 65

Stage 5 - Calculate Velocity (V) / Swale Flow Capacity (Q SFC(1/30) ) for 1/30 Year Return Period

Swale Dimensions
MANNING'S EQUATION V= 1 2/3 1/2
Base (b) 0.75
R So
n Water Height (hA) 0.3
Side length actual (L A) 0.9
Side length - Wet (LW ) 0.90
Where: answer dimension Swale height (h) 0.3
Mannings Angle Length (A L) 0.95
-1/3
Roughness (n) 0.30 m s
Hydraulic Radius (R) 0.12 m Where:
Cross sectional area of swale n = from CIRIA, 2004 guidance
2
where water is running (A) 0.315 m R = A/PW
Wetted Perimeter of A = (b*h A)+(2*h A*h/2)
Swale (P w) 2.65 m PW = AL+A L+b
Swale Slope (S o) 0.0101 SO = 1 in 99 (0.0101)
Velocity (V) 0.08 m/s

Swale Flow Capacity = QSFC(1/30) = V * A * 60 * 60


QSFC(1/30) 91.84 m 3/hr

Stage 6 - Checks - (1/30 Year Return Period)

Type Purpose Pass ? Comments


Velocity V < 1.0m/s yes
Volume QF(1/30) < Q SFC(1/30) yes

Figure 5. Design Stages 4-6 (Swale 1.0 South)

Stage 6. In this case all checks were satisfactory as detailed in Figure 5.

During the 1/30 year return period the swale is not required to treat the runoff and as such the
residence time is irrelevant.

Step 6 – Filter Drain Design


The Filter drain design, similar to the swale design, required the initial pipe size selected to be
a guess and calculations sought to conclude if sufficient capacity (All Q) was available to
accommodate the actual flow from the surface water runoff (Q). The actual flow capacity of
the pipe was calculated using the Rational Method (refer to Figure 6) and this method was
utilised for all pipe designs.

The pipe design detailed below is for 2.00 South to 2.05 South (1245 m to 1635 m). The
location is shown in Figure 2.

In contrast to the swale, a filter drain is designed for a 1/1 year return period only. However,
filter drains have filter material above the pipe and this allows for the storage of water when
the system is exceeded. This feature, in comparison to conventional drainage systems, allows
the storage of additional surface water runoff above that which the pipe can hold.

Stage 1 – Determine Length and Gradient. The first step of the filter drain design was to
determine the length of pipe required and gradient at which it is laid. A pipe must have a
catchpit at intervals of at least 90 m and at every change of direction, as stated by the Design
Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB). Refer to Table 1 for details.

8 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Stage 2 – Determine Velocity (V) and Flow for Pipe (Q). Once the gradient (and Length) of
the pipe was determined, with reference to hydraulics charts, the velocity and flow capacity of
the pipe was found. In the case of 2.00, the velocity and flow capacity for a pipe diameter of
100 mm, at a gradient of 1 in 18, was 1.829 m/s and 14.364 l/s or 0.014 m3/s (after
interpolation of the closest corresponding gradients – 1 in 18.2 and 1 in 17.4).

Stage 3 – Calculate TC (Time of Concentration). The Time of Concentration (Tc) is found by


adding Te and Tf. The time of Entry (Te) is the length of time a droplet of rainfall takes to
travel from the most remote point in the catchment to the pipe. Due to the lack of data and
time constraints, the Te for this case study is assumed to be 4 minutes. T f (Time of Flow) for
pipe 2.00 South was 0.69 min.

Having determined Te and Tf, Tc was calculated for pipe 2.00 South and found to be 4.69 min.

Stage 4 – Calculate I (Rainfall Intensity). With reference to the Rational Method, the Rainfall
Intensity (I) for pipe 2.00 South was 51.9 mm/hr.

Stage 5 – Find Ap (Impermeable Area contributing to pipe). The AP can be determined by


measuring the impermeable area within the catchment of pipe 2.00 South. With reference to
survey data, this was found to be 0.026 hectares.

Stage 6 – Determine Actual Flow Capacity (Q) from Rational Formula. The Actual flow
Capacity for pipe 2.00 South was 0.004 m3/s.

The Flow Capacity for pipe 2.00 South, as detailed in Stage 2 is 0.014 m3/s, which is lower
than the calculated flow (Q=0.004 m3/s) and was therefore satisfactory.

Stage 7 – Determine pipe 2.01 to 2.05 South. On completion of the first pipe in the system
the remaining pipes were then designed as detailed in Stages 1 to 7. However, there were
some important changes: The assumption of a pipe diameter would stay the same until such
time as the allowable Q was less than the Flow Capacity (Q), at which point a larger diameter
pipe was selected; Pipes that are connected must incorporate the Time of Concentration (Tc)
from the previous pipe as well as the calculated Time of flow (Tf) for the new pipe; The AP of
the new pipe must include the AP from the previous pipe; where a swale connects to a filter
drain (1.00 South into 1.01 South), the volume of surface water runoff calculated for a 1/30
year return period must be incorporated into the pipe design and all subsequent connecting
pipes. Therefore, 1.01 – 1.21 South, an additional 0.0144 m3/s (52 m3/hr) was added in order
to accommodate the 1/30 year return period volume of the 1.00 South swale. Similarly, the
same method of calculation was utilised for the connecting pipes of 1.00-1.01 North and 2.00
North swales.

Table 1, details the pipe design for branch 2.00 to 2.05 South.

Branch L Grad D V Tf Tc I AP εAP Q All Q Remarks


(m) (1 in ?) (mm) (m/s) (min) (min) (mm/hr) (hec) (hec) (m3/s) (m3/s)
2.00 76 18 100 1.829 0.69 4.69 51.9 0.026 0.026 0.004 0.014 Pass
2.01 76 16 100 1.940 0.65 5.35 49.7 0.020 0.046 0.006 0.015 Pass
2.02 76 15 100 2.003 0.63 5.98 47.7 0.025 0.071 0.009 0.016 Pass
2.03 76 15 100 2.003 0.63 6.61 45.9 0.025 0.096 0.012 0.016 Pass
2.04 76 15 100 2.003 0.63 7.24 44.2 0.030 0.126 0.015 0.016 Pass
2.05 10 38 100 1.254 0.13 7.38 43.9 0.000 0.126 0.015 0.010 Fail
2.05 10 38 150 1.637 0.10 7.34 43.9 0.000 0.126 0.015 0.029 Pass

Table 1. Pipe Design for 2.00 to 2.05 South

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 9


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Figure 6 shows the final pipe outlet design that will discharge into the respective Infiltration
Basins, described in the next section.

PIPE DESIGN - USING RATIONAL METHOD


3
Rational Method =Q = Flow in pipe (m /s) = C * A P * I

Where: C = 0.00278 (If A P is in hectares) T = duration of storm = T c


AP = Impermeable Area (Hectares) Tc = Time of Concentration (minutes)
= T f (of all connecting pipes) + 4mins(T e - time of entry
30 * 25.4
I = Rainfall intensity (mm/hr) = Where: into pipe system)
T + 10
Tf = Time of Flow (minutes) = L / V / 60

Additional information

L = Length (m)
Grad = Gradient (1 in ? Slope)= Determined as per CIRIA, 2005 Guidance
D = Diameter of pipe (mm)
V = Velocity (m/s) = interpolated from hydraulic charts
εAP = summation of impermeable areas for all connecting pipes (Hectares)
All Q = Allowable Flow capacity of pipe = interpolated from hydraulic charts

Catchment A Outfall
Branch L Grad D V Tf Tc I Ap εAP Q All Q Remarks
1.08 42 11 450 6.153 0.11 8.99 40.1 0.000 1.470 0.192 0.979 Pass
Catchment B Outfall
1.21 5 13 375 5.046 0.02 10.34 37.5 0.000 2.689 0.294 0.557 Pass

Figure 6. Final discharge rates emanating from the SUDS for catchments A & B

Step Seven – Infiltration Design


The design of an infiltration basin is a complex process to carry out manually, as several
calculations including: the projected rainfall on the catchment; runoff entering the basin from
the connecting SUDS and the infiltration of runoff within the basin, require to be calculated
simultaneously to understand and compute the volume of water within the basin at any one
time. The basin can then be designed accordingly. The complexity of such calculations
requires the use of computer software. As a result, a software package called Microdrainage
was adopted. This is a commonly utilised package for SUDS design in the industry.

Stage 1 – Location Suitability. The land take of an infiltration basin is very large. The
topography of Catchment A is relatively flat around the low point (where the runoff from
filter drains and swales are designed to run) and a suitable location was viable (See Figure 1).
However, within Catchment B, there are steep slopes that would require extensive earthworks
to accommodate such a large structure at the low point. The costs associated with providing
such a structure in this location are not cost effective. There was however, the possibility of
providing a smaller basin (see Figure 2) where a controlled volume of water would be
released from the basin in order to prevent overtopping. This feature is similar to that of
ponds, where the runoff is released through a controlled outlet after being treated. However,
in contrast to a pond, the initial runoff, which is the most pollutant due to the first flush
phenomenon (refer to CIRIA, 2007 page 3-10), will infiltrate into the underlying soil and only
the later runoff (which is less polluted) will be released through the outlet pipe to a
watercourse after a period of attenuation to allow pollution control.

Stage 2 – Determine Design Return Period and other Significant Factors. Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems Working Party (SUDSWP) and Perth & Kinross Council recommend that
an infiltration basin is designed for a 1/200 year return period. Additionally, CIRIA (2004)
recommend that the basin must half drain within 24 hours and this storage depth should not
exceed 0.8 m, in order to avoid distress to the vegetation within the basin and provide
attenuation for an adjacent storm.

10 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Stage 3 – Determine Pre-development (Greenfield) Runoff. As the basin in Catchment B has


an outlet connection to a local watercourse, CIRIA (2004) guidance states that this discharge
must not exceed that of the Greenfield runoff prior to the development of the site. Therefore,
the impact of the development on the site will, in theory, not increase the flood risk, as the
volume of runoff reaching the local watercourse, from the basin, will be controlled to match
the equivalent Greenfield runoff.

The design of the infiltration basin within Catchment B, to follow, was the same as the basin
in Catchment A, except, it required a further check to make sure the outlet control volume did
not exceed the runoff from the site prior to the development.

CIRIA (2004) recommend several formulae to obtain the Greenfield runoff prior to the
development of the site. The selection of ‘Flood Estimation for Small Catchments -
QBARrural’, refer to Equation 1, from the various methods was due to time constraints and
lack of data.

QBARrural = 0.00108 AREA 0.89 SAAR 1.17 SOIL 2.17

Where: QBAR rural = mean annual flood for catchment (m3/s)


AREA = Area of Catchment in km2
SAAR = Standard average annual rainfall (mm)
SOIL = Soil Index [Equation 1]

The design data required for the greenfield runoff calculation was: Area of Catchment B –
0.028km2; SAAR - 1200 mm (Source: Met Office); SOIL – Guesstimate based on historical
records of local area - 0.4 (Source: Perth & Kinross Council)

Calculation 1, details the maximum volume of runoff that can be released from the infiltration
basin. However, the calculation is based on 50 hectares (0.5 km2) and was interpolated (as
shown) to determine the volume for Catchment B (2.78 hectares or 0.0278 km2).
Additionally, the calculation is based on a 1/2 year return period and a growth factor of 2.8
(refer to CIRIA, 2007 page 4-5) was applied to find the projected Greenfield runoff for a
1/200 year return period.

QBARrural(1/2) = 0.00108*(0.5 0.89)*(1200 1.17)*(0.4 2.17)


= 0.32 m 3/s
Interpolation
Formula: = QBARrural(1/2) * Catchment B Area
Total Area

Apply
Interpolation: = 0.32 * 0.0278 = 0.0178 m3/s
Formula 0.50

Apply growth factor to obtain 1/200 year return period


Greenfield runoff:

QBARrural(1/200) = 0.0178*2.8 = 0.0498 m3/s (or 50 l/s) [Calculation 1]

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 11


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Stage 4 – Infiltration Basin Dimensions and Input Data. Similar to the design of a filter drain
and swale, the Microdrainage software package required an initial estimation of the basin
dimensions. This information in addition to the return period (1/200), co-efficient of variation
of soil moisture content of the catchment, infiltration co-efficient of the soil and other
significant data was sought in order to run the Microdrainage software. Figure 7 details the
basic layout of the infiltration basin, where the slopes of the basin were assumed at 1/4 to
allow easy access for maintenance and inspection.

Figure 7. Infiltration Basin Plan and Profile Layout

Table 2, details additional data required by the software before it was able to compute the
ability of the infiltration basin to sustain a 1/200 year return period and calculate the peak
discharge form the outlet pipe.

Rainfall Data Value Definition & Source


Region Scotland -
Return Period 1/200 In accordance with SUDSWP and Perth & Kinross Council Guidance
1/5 year return period depth of rainfall in 60minutes
M5-60 17 mm (Source: Perth & Kinross Council)
Co-efficient of variation of soil moisture content of Catchment (Source:
Cv (summer) 0.75 Ground Investigation)
Co-efficient of variation of soil moisture content of Catchment (Source:
Cv (winter) 0.84 Ground Investigation)
Shortest Storm 15 minutes In accordance with SUDSWP and Perth & Kinross Council Guidance
Longest Storm 10080 minutes In accordance with SUDSWP and Perth & Kinross Council Guidance
Catchment Area 2.79 hectares -
infiltration Co- Depth of runoff through infiltration of soil in 60minutes
efficient 0.12859 m/hr (Source: Ground Investigation)
Basin height 1.8 m Based on preliminary design

Pipe Outlet
Control Data Value Definition
Pipe Diameter 150 mm -
Pipe Gradient 1 in 60 -
Length of Pipe 30 m -
Table 2. Infiltration Basin Design Data

12 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Stage 5 – Microdranage Results. The results from the software detail the storm duration and
the resultant maximum filtration, maximum control (through outlet pipe), maximum water
level and depth, and maximum volume of runoff contained within the basin.

For Catchment B, the maximum point at which the basin is discharging water through the
outlet pipe to the adjacent watercourse, occurring at 180 minutes – Winter, a figure of 30.7 l/s
was found for a 1/200 year return period. In comparison to the Greenfield runoff discharge
calculated in stage 3 (50 l/s), the discharge is 19 l/s less than the maximum discharge
allowable and was therefore acceptable. The maximum height of the water during the storm
(180 minutes –Winter) is 0.7708 m, which is below 0.8 m and was therefore acceptable.
Additionally, the volume of water contained within the basin will half drain within 148
minutes of the storm passing and this was acceptable.

Within Catchment A the infiltration basin exceeds 0.8 m and could not drain within twenty
four hours (35.3 hours). Therefore, the pond has been increased in size to accommodate
additional runoff volume from an adjacent storm and only suitable vegetation that can cope
with such extreme events will be planted.

Therefore, the preliminary design of an infiltration basin for Catchment B (and Catchment A),
using the Microdrainage software, was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Research suggests that conventional drainage systems (combined and separate) are
unsustainable. They lead to the pollution of watercourses through CSO’s (combined system)
and diffuse pollution (separate system). More notably, developed land allows runoff to travel
faster and reach watercourses quicker, leading to increased volumes of runoff over short
periods overloading connecting watercourses. The threat of increased intensity and duration
of rainfall events caused by climate change is further underlining the view that conventional
drainage systems are not sustainable and cannot adapt to increasing volumes of surface water
runoff. Therefore, infrastructure that utilises conventional drainage systems pose a significant
flood risk to receiving watercourses, where the damage caused by flood events can have high
financial burdens.

The case study, A93 Craighall Gorge to Middle Mause Farm – Road Re-alignment, provides
evidence of the ability of SUDS to reduce flood risk of a new development (up to a designed
return period), in comparison with conventional drainage systems, on receiving watercourses.
The design of a swale not only provides treatment of a 1/1 year return period, which will help
to meet future ‘good status’ targets of the Water Framework Directive, but also provides
Capacity for a 1/30 year return period. Filter drains, although only have the capacity of a 1/1
year return period, contain storage capacity within the filter material in the event of the
system surcharging. Pollution control is also offered by the filter material, allowing
pollutants to become absorbed or trapped as runoff permeates through to the perforated drain.
However, the main focus of flood storage and flood risk reduction of SUDS to receiving
watercourses, is the use of an infiltration basin in this case study (wetlands or ponds may be
utilised on other developments). The basin is designed, not only to store a 1/200 year return
period, but to provide pollution control. Where infiltration was not fully possible (in the case
of Catchment B) the discharge to a local watercourse is kept below that which would have

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 13


11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

reasonably been expected to drain naturally from the catchment area to the watercourse prior
to the development, thus reducing any flood risk associated with the infrastructure.

The use of SUDS within existing urban environments is limited due to a lack of available
space and the relative large land take of SUDS. However, SUDS such as permeable
pavements and green roofs can be integrated within existing infrastructure with no additional
land take. These SUDS are most likely to be the main form of flood risk reduction of SUDS
within existing densely urbanised environments. However, like all SUDS, they are site
specific and may not apply in all cases. Additionally, it is unlikely that private residents or
business will be prepared to incorporate such measures to existing infrastructure where there
is high cost implications and relatively little benefits to the user.

In terms of a redeveloped site within dense urban cities and town, they will have to conform
to the CAR. Therefore, SUDS (although restricted by available land) will help to provide a
reduced flood risk potential of the infrastructure on connecting watercourses or conventional
drainage systems.

Therefore, SUDS have the potential to reduce the flood risk associated with infrastructure on
receiving watercourses, if designed and maintained in a responsible manner. Evidence
suggests that SUDS are primarily more suited to new developments, but can, in certain
circumstances provide a substantial benefit to reducing the flood risk of infrastructure in
densely urbanised cities and towns where space is restricted.

The theoretical and practical efficiency of SUDS in controlling the storage and discharge of
surface water runoff to the underlying soil or receiving watercourse is generally understood.
However, constant monitoring after their inception must be maintained in order to reduce the
likelihood of blockage or failure of the system, which could invariably lead to an increase in
the infrastructures potential to flood local watercourses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following people and organisations for their assistance in
the course of this study.

Perth & Kinross Council, particularly John Martin and Iain MacKinnon for information and
guidance regarding the Case Study.

Mouchel Parkman, particularly Derek Kane and Kevin Chin for information and guidance
regarding the Case Study.

REFERENCES
Butler, D & Davies, J.W. 2004. Urban Drainage 2nd Edition.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 1999. Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems. Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland.(C521)
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2001. Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems. Best Practise Manual.(C523).
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2004. Sustainable Drainage Systems.
Hydraulic, structural and water quality advice.(C609)

14 The Role of SUDS in Reducing the Flood Risk Associated with Infrastructure
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2006. Designing for exceedance in urban
drainage – good practice. (C635)
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). 2007. SUDS Manual. (C697)
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Highways Agency. Surface and subsurface drainage systems
for highways. Vol 4. Part 3. HA 33/06.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 2006. Global Watch Mission Report - Sustainable Drainage Systems –
a mission to the USA.
Ellis, J.B. 1989. The Management and Control of Urban Runoff Quality. Jour.Inst. Water & Env. Management,
Vol 3 No 2.
Pratt, C.J. 2001. A Review of Published Material on the Performance of Various SUDS Devices.
Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER). 2006. Retrofitting Sustainable
Urban Water Solutions.
Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). Drainage Assessment – A Guide for Scotland.

Stewart, R & Hytiris, N. 15