1 using winslamm for stormwater retrofit in urban environments august 22, 2011 stormcon 2011,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Using WinSLAMM For Stormwater Retrofit in Urban
Environments
August 22, 2011StormCon 2011, Anaheim, CA
Presented by:James Bachhuber PHCaroline Burger PE
AECOMMadison, WI
2
Dense Urban Land Uses Require Stormwater Retrofitting Open space is very limited Land values are very high Treatment measures have higher
safety & aesthetic requirements
3
Overview of Santa Monica Stormwater Study
Purpose of Study: Test WinSLAMM approach to stormwater
management Identify priority land uses for pollutant
generation Compare alternative stormwater
management for pollution control levels
4
Overview of Santa Monica Stormwater Study
Basic Approach: Identify representative pilot study area Create WinSLAMM files to represent local
conditions Source areas Rainfall Drainage Soils
5
Overview of Santa Monica Stormwater Study
Basic Approach (continued): Model pilot area with no management
measures (base condition) “Retrofit” alternative management
practices to predict runoff volume & pollution control achieved
6
Overview of Santa Monica Stormwater Study
Stormwater Practices Analyzed: Street cleaning (vacuum assist) Porous pavement Infiltration Pits Biofilters
7
Project Area – Land Use
Commercial; 52.58; 10% Residen-tial - high
dens; 86.76; 17%
Residential - med dens; 199.49; 40%
Residential - low dens; 130.64; 26%
School; 12.66; 3%
Parks; 12; 2% Oceanfront dist; 7.04; 1%
Wilshire Drainage Area Land Use (acres, %) Total = 501 acres
8
Project Area
Commercial Land Use
9
Project Area
School Land Use
10
Project Area
Medium Density Res. Land Use
12
Project Area – Source Area Delineations
Source Areas
Residential – High Density
13
Project Area – Source Area Delineations
Residential – Low Density
Source Areas
14
Project Area – Source Area Delineations
Source Areas
Residential – Single Family
15
Project Area – Source Area Delineations
Source Areas
Commercial
Project Area – Source Areas
Res - high dens.
Res - low dens
Res 1-Family Commercial0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
45% 41%
26%36%
1%0%
0%
17%
19%20%
20%
12%
19%14%
19%
28%
5%
5%
0%
4%11%20%
35%
2%
Source Area Comparison
Landscape
Alley
Street
Sidewalk / Drive
Parking
Roof
17
WinSLAMM Modeling ResultsWinSLAMM Model Comparison of Development Scenarios
100%
100%
100%
95%95%
83%
95%95%
78%
61%
56%55%
8%
3%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Runoff Volume Annual TSS Load Annual TP Load
Conventional + SwalesRoof & 1 Sidewalk + Infiltration Basin+ Narrow Streets
18
WinSLAMM Model InputsSource Areas in WinSLAMM:
Conventional LID
RoofsDisconnected
Single Sidewalk
NarrowerStreets
19
Model InputsWinSLAMM Road Swale Description:
20
WinSLAMM Model InputsWinSLAMM Infiltration Basin Description:
21
WinSLAMM Modeling ResultsWinSLAMM Model Comparison of Development Scenarios
100%
100%
100%
95%95%
83%
95%95%
78%
61%
56%55%
8%
3%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Runoff Volume Annual TSS Load Annual TP Load
Conventional + SwalesRoof & 1 Sidewalk + Infiltration Basin+ Narrow Streets
22
WinSLAMM Modeling ResultsWinSLAMM Model Comparison of Development Scenarios
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
83%
95%
95%
78%
61%
56%
55%
8%
3%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Runoff Volume Annual TSS Load Annual TP Load
Conventional + SwalesRoof & 1 Sidewalk + Infiltration Basin+ Narrow Streets
23
WinSLAMM Modeling ResultsWinSLAMM Model Comparison of Development Scenarios*
Development Scenario
Runoff Volume (ac ft/yr)
TSS Load
(lbs/yr)
Total P Load
(lbs/yr)Conventional Development
29.52 11,104 44.99
Disconnect Roofs & 1 Sidewalk
24.52 10,518 42.66
Add Narrower Streets 23.09 10,585 42.63
Add Roadside Swales 16.27 6,196 27.49
Add Infiltration Basin 0.95 318 3.64* Annual loadings from 43.2 acre Cedar Hills development
24
Questions / Discussion
25