Team 18 GRswis Grand Rapids Surface Water Infiltration System John‐Marc Eshelman Brandon Kuyers Brenton Newswanger Dan VanKooten 5/14/2015 ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project Final Design Report © 2015, Calvin College and John‐Marc Eshelman, Brandon Kuyers, Brenton Newswanger, Dan VanKooten. i TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Calvin College Senior Design ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Senior Design Team GRswis ................................................................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Team Members ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Project Definition ......................................................................................................................... 3 2 Project Management ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Team Organization .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Schedule .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Team Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 5 3 Project requirements ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Site Constraints ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Watershed Basin .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Storm ............................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1.3 Soil ................................................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Environmental Requirements ............................................................................................................. 7 3.3.1 Pollutants ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Allowable Pollution Levels ........................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Traffic Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 8 4 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Businesses and Existing Utilities ....................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Traffic ................................................................................................................................................ 16 5 Design Process ......................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Design Norms .................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Groundwater recharge .............................................................................................................. 17 ii 5.2.2 Stream Channel Protection ........................................................................................................ 17 5.2.3 Flood Control ............................................................................................................................. 18 5.2.4 Water Quality Protection ........................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Design Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 18 5.4 Traffic Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 19 5.5 Design Decision ................................................................................................................................. 21 6 Final Design .............................................................................................................................................. 22 6.1 Layout ................................................................................................................................................ 22 6.2 Infiltration Planter Beds .................................................................................................................... 24 6.3 Pavers ................................................................................................................................................ 25 7 Models ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 7.1 Stormwater Runoff Computer Model ............................................................................................... 26 7.1.1 EPA SWMM Software ................................................................................................................. 26 7.1.2 Subcatchments ........................................................................................................................... 26 7.1.3 Flow Routing .............................................................................................................................. 28 7.1.4 Infiltration .................................................................................................................................. 28 7.1.5 Rain Events ................................................................................................................................. 28 7.2 Pollutant Modeling ........................................................................................................................... 31 8 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 34 References .................................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 iii TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Team 18 – GRswis .......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Map of Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) .................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Topographic map of the business district (blue rectangle) with storm sewer network (Only representative, not to scale) ......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Accessible pedestrian ramp integrated into stormwater curb (Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design engineers, 2009) .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: Map of Grand Rapids with the Alger Heights business district highlighted ................................ 10 Figure 6: Satellite image over the Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) ..................................... 12 Figure 7: Topographic map of the business district with street labels and storm sewer network (Only representative, not to scale) ....................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: Topographic map of the business district with the storm sewer network shown (Only representative, not to scale) ....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: Soil type map with map legend ................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Land use map and legend (City of Grand Rapids) ...................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Street with brick pavers in on‐street parking ............................................................................ 20 Figure 13: A bioretention median ............................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14 Design matrix for bioretention system ....................................................................................... 22 Figure 15: Infiltration planter bed design layout ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 16: Planter bed cross‐sectional view ............................................................................................... 24 Figure 17: Planter bed overflow structure .................................................................................................. 25 Figure 18: Paver Cross section detail .......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 19: Layout of System in SWMM ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 19: Infiltration Basin Channel Transect ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 20: 24 hour 2‐year Storm Hyetograph ............................................................................................. 29 Figure 21: 1‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins ................................ 29 Figure 22: 2‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins ................................ 30 Figure 23: 10‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins .............................. 30 Figure 24: Runoff from infiltration basins for various size storms ............................................................. 31 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project involves designing bioretention basins for the business district at the corner of Alger Street and Eastern Avenue in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This area is almost entirely covered by concrete, building roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Runoff from these areas contributes to flooding and water pollution in Plaster Creek. The team’s goal is to decrease the runoff from the site and remove pollutants from the runoff through the use of bioretention basins and increase the beauty of the area through the addition of green space. The Alger Heights business district is in Grand Rapids, MI. The site is southeast of downtown at the intersection of Alger Street and Eastern Avenue. In the business district, there are commercial buildings on both sides of the street. A 30‐foot wide sidewalk lines the front of the buildings along Eastern Avenue. Eastern Avenue has two lanes of traffic and a center turning lane. The sides of the street are lined with parallel parking spaces. Street lights and power poles line both sides of the street. Storm sewers, Gas, electric, sanitary sewer, and water lines are located below the surface at varying depths. The soil type in the area is a sandy loam with 0‐8% slopes with the developed land use zoned as a “traditional business area.” Rain gardens, subsurface infiltration beds and planter boxes were the three kinds of bioretention areas considered for the site. Infiltration planter boxes were found to be the most effective alternative. Infiltration planter boxes allow the collected runoff to infiltrate through the planter soils into the native soil. They reduce pollution as the water percolates through the planter soil and control flow by ponding water above the soil. Infiltration planter boxes were chosen as the primary component of the system. The final design includes a total of eight planter boxes, four on each side of the street, that are all hydraulically connected to ensure maximum drainage and prevent flooding. The connections consist of perforated pipe to provide additional infiltration. Vegetation in the planters aids in infiltration and pollutant removal. Overflow drains provide drainage to the storm sewer during larger flood events. Most of the water collected on site is infiltrated into the ground while runoff exits via the storm sewer only during larger storm events. Brick pavers in the side street parking provide additional infiltration for runoff from the street. Team 18’s current cost estimation is $1,100,800. The estimate was made using the 67 edition of RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data. The project will likely be implemented when the road and surrounding sidewalk is to be repaved. This would cut down on the implementation cost of the project. The runoff from the site and the flow through the infiltration system were modeled using EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) software. The site was divided into subcatchments that collect the rainfall and route it into each infiltration basin. The division between subcatchments was determined by which areas feed into which infiltration basins. The infiltration basins were modeled as irregular open channels, and flow through the system was modeled using the dynamic‐wave flow routing method. The dynamic wave method allows SWMM to calculate reverse flows, backwater effects, and pressurized flow, all of which were present in the model. Pollutant removal in the system was approximated using the Macatawa Event Mean Concentration (MEMC) pollutant load calculation spreadsheet provided by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, and Huber (FTCH). The spreadsheet calculates pollutant loads based on mean values associated with land use. Due to the potentially large variations in pollutant loading and resulting difficulty in determining site‐specific numbers, the MEMC spreadsheet is widely accepted as an acceptable method of determining pollutant loading in stormwater runoff management structures in Michigan. Pre‐ and post‐development concentrations are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Site Runoff Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant
Total Solids BOD Total P Disolved P Total N NO2+3
Pb
Pretreatment Concentration 77
21
0.33
0.17
1.74
1.23 0.0493
(mg/l)
Post‐treatment Concentration (mg/l)
20.79
5.67 0.0891
0.0459
0.4698 0.3321 0.01331
Cu
Zn
Cd
0.037
0.1563
0.0027
0.01
0.0422 0.00073
The overall planning and design of the project was taken from a Christian perspective that promotes professional and ethical responsibility through ensuring quality in the final design. Making sure that the project will perform to the standards given by the constraints of the site is of upmost importance to the team and will help promote the design norms Trust and Integrity. The project goal is to promote stewardship for the environment both locally and globally by improving the pollutant levels in Plaster Creek and also providing a higher aesthetic appeal in the area. The project will serve as a spearhead in the efforts to create a more environmentally friendly mindset for the Plaster Creek watershed.
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Calvin College Senior Design Calvin College is a private college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The college offers an ABET accredited Bachelor of Science in Engineering in four different concentrations. The concentrations offered are Chemical, Civil and Environmental, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical. Engineering 339/340, the Senior Design Course, is the capstone class for engineering majors at Calvin College. This course focuses on the integration of the design process with a reformed Christian worldview1. The class also focuses on preliminary validation of designs through use of basic analysis and prototyping. Through this project, the members of team 18 have learned how to complete several different goals. The first of these goals was the ability to define, plan, and implement a major project such as the design of a storm water collection system. The second goal was being an effective team member. This was achieved through the interaction of the team members within the team. The last and most important goal learned was integration of the Calvin education, particularly the team’s senior design course, with Christian faith. This was accomplished through the identification of engineering design norms and how they relate to the project. The team decided to focus on three design norms: Stewardship, Integrity, and Trust. 1
(Calvin College, 2014) 1 1.2 Senior Design Team GRswis Team Grand Rapids Storm Water Infiltration System (GRswis) consists of four Calvin College Civil and Environmental students. The team members (from left to right in Figure 1 below) are John‐Marc Eshelman, Brandon Kuyers, Dan VanKooten, and Brenton Newswanger. Figure 1: Team 18 – GRswis 1.2.1 Team Members John‐Marc Eshelman is from Fremont, California. John‐marc is currently working at Viable Inc. in downtown Grand Rapids. There he has learned the ins and outs of small businesses. After graduation, he will be staying around Grand Rapids. Brenton Newswanger grew up on a farm in Manchester, Kentucky. While at Calvin, he has traveled to both Europe and Asia. His emphasis is on hydraulic engineering and structural engineering. He expects to obtain a job in the civil engineering industry after graduation. Brandon Kuyers is from South Bend, Indiana. For past two summers, he has worked at Abonmarche Inc. in South Bend. After graduation, he is moving to Centennial, Colorado and has accepted a position at JR Engineering. 2 Dan VanKooten is from the city of Kentwood, Michigan. He has worked the past three summer at Medema VanKooten & Associates as a land surveyor and junior level engineer. He has accepted a position there after graduation. 1.2.2 Project Definition The project involves designing bioretention basins and road pavers for the business district at the corner of Alger Street and Eastern Avenue in Grand Rapids, Michigan, shown in Figure 2. This area is almost entirely covered by concrete, building roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Runoff from these areas contributes to flooding and water pollution in Plaster Creek. The team’s goal is to decrease the runoff from the site and remove pollutants from the runoff through the use of bioretention basins, improve traffic flow, and increase the beauty of the area through the addition of green space. N Figure 2: Map of Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) Bioretention basins are a type of low impact development (LID) that consist of grassy swales or enclosed planters that provide a place for water to collect and infiltrate into the soil. This decreases the amount of pollutants in the runoff through use of the soil and plants as filters and decreases the volume of runoff. Bioretention structures also provide needed green space, which the city of Grand Rapids has recently been trying to increase. 3 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.1 Team Organization Each member of the team was assigned an aspect of the project and was responsible for communicating to the other members on the status of their tasks. Dan VanKooten was the webmaster and was in charge of keeping the website up to date as well as making it pleasing and appealing to the visitor. The second job, that Dan had, was the design of the structure. Brandon Kuyers was in charge of developing the project’s CAD drawings that made up the final construction documents. John‐Marc Eshelman and Dan VanKooten helped Brandon Kuyers with the detailed drawings for the final plan set. John‐Marc Eshelman was in charge of developing the road redesign and verifying that the designs follow traffic regulations and did not impede traffic flow through the business district. He also was in charge of communication with the clients. Brenton Newswanger was in charge of modeling runoff discharge and infiltration in the business district and was in charge of many of the calculations and relevant design data. Team meetings with Professor Wunder, the team’s advisor, were regularly held at 9:30am on Thursdays for the first semester, and on Wednesday at 3:30pm for the second semester. Typically, the team presents what they had accomplished during the prior week and the advisor suggested things to fix or do for the next week. Team documents and data were kept in hard copy form in a file cabinet located at the team’s station in the Engineering Building and electronic copies were kept in the engineering scratch drive in folder, “Team 18,” that only the members of the team had access to. 2.2 Approach The basic design methodology involved first finding out current performance data for the area in terms of traffic counts, discharge during storm events, and current pollution counts. The next step was to design bioretention basins to improve pollution and storm water management as well as improving traffic flows through the site. The design itself was partitioned into two categories. The hydraulic design involved the infiltration basins and pipes involved with the bioretention basin. The hydrologic design included examining the watershed as well as the analysis of storm events. The road design investigated how to improve traffic flows through the area while possibly expanding the current parking along the side of the road. The primary research methods used included studying existing examples of bioretention as well as gathering documents on design criteria related to the project. The LID Manual for Michigan provided by SEMCOG was one of the team’s main sources. Many resources were found via online databases; Glen Remelts of Calvin College’s Hekman Library trained the team in the use of these databases and provided some research techniques and ideas. Team communication was handled with the idea that no idea is dumb. The team made an effort to field any idea whether it is as small as an edit to as large as a full design idea. Respect was a key mantra during the research and design process. Main mediums of communication were in person, via email, or via text. 4 2.3 Schedule Scheduling for the team was handled at team meetings outside of the advisor meetings, and was discussed until a plan was agreed upon. The team typically evaluated the schedule of tasks to be completed once a week and updated it based on progress made or the surfacing of other necessary activities. Brandon Kuyers acted as the team’s project coordinator, outlining the upcoming tasks at team meetings and leading task prioritization as well as splitting up work. In the event of scheduling issues coming up, tasks with the most critical deadlines were given highest priority. When multiple tasks required priority, decisions were made on a case‐by‐case basis, including dividing the tasks among team members. 2.4 Team Budget Dan VanKooten was in charge of team budget and all related issues. When budgeting issues arose, the team decided how to reallocate funds provided for the project adequately to solve the issue. Since the intended final outcome of the project is to produce a set of construction drawings and specifications for the site, the team budget will be approximately $0. This is separate from the cost of the project, which is highlighted in more detail in section 6.2 3 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Site Constraints 3.1.1 Watershed Basin The basin for the Alger Heights business district consists of approximately 1 acre of roadway and sidewalk, 1.5 acres of rooftop, and another 2.5 acres of parking behind the businesses. Due to runoff flow paths or volume constraints in the design, not all of this area contributes to the infiltration basin. Most of the roadway, sidewalk, and building roofs contribute to the infiltration basins. The parking lots do not contribute flow to the basins due to the difficulty of routing the water. The storm sewer lines serving the business district start in the business district, as shown in Figure 3. 5 N Figure 3: Topographic map of the business district (blue rectangle) with storm sewer network (Only representative, not to scale) 3.1.2 Storm The bioretention basin must have enough capacity to handle the runoff from a 24‐hour 10‐year storm without causing flooding. This storm produces an average of 3.79 inches of rain.2 3.1.3 Soil According to the SCS Soil Survey, the soil around the site is sand and loamy sand, 3 allowing for high infiltration rates. In addition to this, the use of native plants with deep root systems will break up the soil even further and increase infiltration rates. The Cass County Site Development Rules manual defines the design infiltration rate for sand as 3.6 in/hr and for loamy sand as 1.63 in/hr as shown in Table 1. 4 2
(NOAA, 2014) 3
(USDA NRCS, 2013) 4
(Cass County Water Resources Commissioner, 2010) 6 Table 1: Design Infiltration Rates by USDA Soil Texture Class (Cass County Water Resources Commissioner, 2010) Hydrologic Soil Soil Texture Class Design Infiltration Group Rate (inches per hour) Gravel 10 A Sand 3.6 A Loamy Sand 1.63 A Sandy Loam 0.5 A 0.24 B (Medium) Loam 0.13 B Silty Loam/ (Silt) Sandy Clay Loam 0.11 C Clay Loam 0.03 D Silty Clay Loam 0.04 D 0.04 D Sandy Clay Silty Clay 0.07 D Clay 0.07 D 3.2 Aesthetics The area surrounding the site has much more green infrastructure than the site. The site's green infrastructure can be increased through the use of native plants and trees. Adding trees to the site works towards the city's goal of having 40% tree cover that was set in 2009 in the City of Grand Rapids Urban Forestry Plan. 3.3 Environmental Requirements 3.3.1 Pollutants Pollutants in stormwater runoff can come in the form of human or animal waste, hydrocarbons from automobiles, and heavy metals, as well as pollutants from other sources. According to the Plaster Creek Watershed Management Plan compiled by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc., the main water quality concerns in Plaster Creek, in order of priority, are sediment, Escherichia coli (E. coli), excess nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus), thermal pollution, and toxic substances.5 3.3.2 Allowable Pollution Levels The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) defines the allowable levels of E. coli in surface water as 130/100 mL for total body contact. The levels for partial body contact are 1000 E. coli/100 mL of water.6 Phosphorus, the main nutrient concern for water quality, is restricted to a level of 1 mg/L.7 The DEQ does not establish a numerical level for sediment, but does provide a narrative standard in Rule 50 5
(Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc, 2008) 6
(Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006) 7
(Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006) 7 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards, Part 4 of Act 451. Rule 50 states that “The surface waters of the state shall not have any of the following physical properties in unnatural quantities which are or may become injurious to any designated use: turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foams, settleable solids, suspended solids, or deposits.1 These water quality standards are summarized in Table 2. Standards for other chemicals and metals were found in the Michigan DEQ Rule 57 Water Quality Values Surface Water Assessment Section. Selected metals from Rule 57 are also shown in Table 2. The team’s water quality goals are to meet these standards. Table 2: Allowable levels of Pollutants E. coli (total body contact) 130 E. coli/100 mL E. coli (partial body contact) 1000 E. coli/100 mL Phosphorus 1 mg/1L Sediment Narrative standard, Rule 50 of Act 451, Part 4 Lead2 0.19 mg/L Copper3 38 mg/L 4
Cadmium 0.13 mg/L Zinc5 16 mg/L 3.4 Traffic Requirements The San Mateo Guidebook suggests decreasing auto lane width from 12 feet to 10 feet to decrease the speed of traffic and provide more area for alternative traffic and green infrastructure in small business area such as the Alger heights business district.6 Creating a differentiation between the roadway and the adjacent on‐street parking can also help to slow traffic speed through the area. Adding brick pavers to parking areas creates the illusion of a less spacious roadway and can increase infiltration because of the void space between brick pavers. The guidebook also suggests reclaiming unused asphalt space into something that can be used for stormwater management. Examples include consolidating traffic lanes and reducing parking spaces. Accessible pedestrian ramps can be added to green infrastructure areas as demonstrated in Figure 4 to make them more pedestrian friendly. (Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau, 2006) 1
2
(MDEQ, 2014) 3
(MDEQ, 2014) 4
(MDEQ, 2014) 5
(MDEQ, 2014) 6
San Mateo Guidebook. N.p.: Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design Engineers, 2009. 22. Print.
8 Figure 4: Accessible pedestrian ramp integrated into stormwater curb (Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design engineers, 2009) Adding stormwater retention areas in intersection contractions where on‐street parking is prohibited provides a great opportunity for increasing green infrastructure without decreasing usable space. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 60 inch sidewalks are recommended but more can be used to accommodate more pedestrian traffic. There are not any sidewalk requirements, there are only guidelines. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Alger Heights business district is in Grand Rapids, MI in Kent County. The site is south and a little east of downtown and is just south of the intersection of Alger Street and Eastern Avenue, as can be seen in Figure 5. 9 N 2.5 miles Figure 5: Map of Grand Rapids with the Alger Heights business district highlighted 4.1 Businesses and Existing Utilities In the business district, there are a number of one to two story buildings on both sides of the street housing the following businesses: 

The Real Food Café Gentleman Fashion 10 










Ryan & Hart Alger International Market Jon T Dance Arts Center A Listen and Learn Creative Window Treatment Beauty House The Posh Pet Ken’s Fruit Market Alger Hardware and Rental Sweet Melissa’s Cupcakes Ice Grand Rapids Public Library Branch The business district is located just south of Alger Street with Eastern Avenue running through the center of the business district as shown in Figure 6. Eastern Avenue is one lane in each direction with a center turn lane running the length of the business district and parallel parking on both sides of the street. Light poles line both sides of Eastern Ave and power lines follow the west side of the street, crossing in the center and south end of the business district. There are 30‐foot sidewalks between the storefronts and the street. At points along the sidewalk there are existing planters containing shrubbery and trees. Storm sewer mains flow north and south from the business district, with no storm sewer mains flowing into the site. The sewer mains are 8 inches in diameter on the north side and 12 inches in diameter on the south side. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the topography of the area as well as the storm sewer network. Buried infrastructure in the district also includes gas, electric, sanitary, and water lines. The soil type in the area is an urban land‐Spinks complex with 0‐8% slopes with the developed land zoned as a “traditional business area.” More information regarding these details can be found in Figure 9 and Figure 10. 11 N Figure 6: Satellite image over the Alger Heights business district (Google Maps) 12 N Figure 7: Topographic map of the business district with street labels and storm sewer network (Only representative, not to scale) 13 N Figure 8: Topographic map of the business district with the storm sewer network shown (Only representative, not to scale) 14 N Figure 9: Soil type map with map legend 15 N Figure 10: Land use map and legend (City of Grand Rapids) 4.2 Traffic Existing sidewalks in the Alger Heights business district measure close to 30 feet in width and are in an acceptable condition. There are raised brick planters along the length of the sidewalk. The planters are placed in the middle of the sidewalk. The current road layout consists of one 12 feet lane going each direction with a shared turning lane between them. There is also on‐street parallel parking on each side of road. The only available turns are at the north and south ends of the business district. On the north side, Eastern Ave meets Alger St and the shared turning lane turns into a left turn lane and separate right turn lane is added in line with the on‐street parking. At the south side of the business district, there are driveways on either side of Eastern Ave leading to parking in the rear of the buildings. 16 5 DESIGN PROCESS 5.1 Design Norms Calvin College integrates the Christian faith into the senior design course through the use of design norms. These norms represent part of the Christian faith that a team wants part of the focus of their project to be. Each team choose three or four design norms. Team 18 has chosen stewardship, integrity, and trust. The first design norm integrated into the project is stewardship. The team applies this idea through the use of LID design. Christians are called to be good stewards of the earth and the natural resources it provides. The infiltration system will promote stewardship by helping to prevent flooding and pollution in Plaster Creek. The team’s second design norm is integrity. The team wants their design to be harmonious with the surrounding area. The design needs to be functional and also aesthetically appealing. To this end, the structure is being designed to provide green space as well as allowing water to infiltrate. The design also must have minimal impact on the existing infrastructure, including the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and existing utilities. The last design norm is trust. Keeping this design norm in mind, the team is developing the design to be dependable. The team is accomplishing this by creating a design with sufficient capacity to prevent flooding. 5.2 Design Criteria The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Low Impact Development (LID) Manual identifies four design criteria for LID projects: groundwater recharge, stream channel protection, flood control, and water quality protection.1 5.2.1 Groundwater recharge Groundwater recharge is an important part of the water cycle. Under presettlement conditions, around 90% of precipitation infiltrated into the soil in Michigan. Much of this was used by plants. The rest feds local wetlands, springs, and lakes. LID projects increase the groundwater recharge by slowing the water down and allowing it to infiltrate. The suggested method of creating groundwater recharge design criteria for LID is to create a volume control criteria and maximize the use of infiltration type BMPs. 5.2.2 Stream Channel Protection Stream channels are formed by the volume and rate of runoff that flow into them from their tributary watersheds. This flow, called the bank full flow, generally occurs during a 1 to 2 year storm. Development increases the volume and rate of flow during these storms, and the channel begins to change shape. This causes excessive erosion and sedimentation. 1
(Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2008) 17 Design criteria for stream channel protection involve the use of volume control criteria. LID BMPs control volume through infiltration and retention of water. The ideal goal for volume control is to reduce flows to levels no higher than the presettlement flows for all storms up to the two‐year, 24‐hour storm. 5.2.3 Flood Control Flood control is important for the protection of life and property. Criteria for flood control are based on local drainage needs and flooding risk. Design criteria for flood control are based on decreasing peak flows and runoff volume to the levels associated a rain event. The team focused on a 10 year 24 hour storm. 5.2.4 Water Quality Protection Runoff from impervious surfaces picks up pollutants which get washed into natural water bodies. The majority of this pollution is washed away after a period of time. The water that carries away this first layer of pollution is called the first flush and is generally assumed to be the first 0.5 to 1 in of precipitation. When the entire volume of the first flush allowed to infiltrate in a LID BMP, the water quality criteria are met. 5.3 Design Alternatives Chapter 7 of the SEMCOG LID Manual is the team’s main source for information on best management practices (BMPs). Table 7.1 of the SEMCOG Manual, abbreviated in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 provide a summary of the BMPs for a wide variety of LID situations. From these, rain gardens, vegetated swale, infiltration trenches, subsurface infiltration beds, and planter boxes were identified as potential BMPs for the project, specifically. Other BMPs were excluded from the abbreviated tables since they required too large an area, did not emphasize infiltration as much as was desired, or were otherwise unsuitable for this project. Table 3: Abbreviated List of Potential Applications of BMPs BMP Potential Applications Residential Commercial Ultra Urban Industrial Road Recreation Rain Garden YES YES LIMITED LIMITED YES YES Vegetated Swale YES YES LIMITED YES YES YES Infiltration Trench YES YES YES YES YES NO Subsurface Infiltration Bed YES YES YES YES LIM NO Planter Box YES YES YES LIMITED NO LIM Table 4: Abbreviated List Volume, Cost, Maintenance, and Winter Performance of BMPs BMP Stormwater Quantity Functions Cost Maint Winter Perform. Volume GW Recharge Peak Rate Rain Garden MED/HIGH MED/HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM MED MED Vegetated Swale LOW/MED LOW/MED LOW/ME LOW/MED L/M MED D 18 Infiltration Trench MEDIUM HIGH LOW/ME
D HIGH MEDIUM MED L/M HIGH Subsurface Infiltration Bed HIGH HIGH HIGH MED Planter Box LOW/MED MEDIUM MEDIUM MED Table 5: Abbreviated List of Pollutant Removal Levels of BMPs BMP Stormwater Quality Functions Total Solids Phosphorus Nitrogen Temperature Rain Garden HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH Vegetated Swale MED/HIGH LOW/HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM Infiltration Trench* HIGH MED/HIGH LOW/MED HIGH Subsurface Infiltration Bed* HIGH MED/HIGH LOW HIGH Planter Box MEDIUM LOW/MED LOW/MED HIGH HIGH MED *The infiltration trench and subsurface infiltration bed suspended solids removal levels assume that total suspended solids loads have been properly managed to prevent clogging. Table 3 lists the BMPs relevant to this project along with the applicability of each BMP for different locations or types of development. Table 4 shows a comparative rating of the volume and peak discharges that can be managed by each BMP as well as the groundwater recharge that it provides. Table 4 also shows a comparative rating of the cost, required maintenance, and winter performance for each BMP. Table 5 shows a comparative rating for the pollutant removal rates for total solids, phosphorus, and nitrogen. It also rates each BMP in its ability to moderate the temperature of runoff. 5.4 Traffic Alternatives A visual traffic study of the area found that traffic on both Alger and Eastern Ave was heavy. It was not uncommon to see a ten car back up waiting for the light to turn green during normal hours. In addition to normal peak hours this site also sees peaks in the morning and afternoon that correspond to school hours. There are two schools in the immediate vicinity of the site leading to a large amount of foot traffic as well. The team feared that any road redesigns would lead to an even lower level of service for the north intersection. A decreased level of service would cause traffic to back‐up more and make drivers less predictable. In addition, the roadway could not be widened because there are street lights and power poles that line both sides of the street. A feasible road redevelopment alternative would be to add pavers to on the street parking area of the road. Adding pavers to the on‐street parking will not only increase the infiltration rate of the area but serve to slow traffic. By changing the on‐street parking so that it does not match the roadway the illusion of narrower lanes can be made without actually decreasing the physical width. Pavers in the parking areas can also help beautify the area and enhance the appeal of the area. An example of on‐street parking can be seen below. Figure 11 shows brick pavers. 19 Figure 11: Street with brick pavers in on‐street parking2 In addition to this, a bioretention median could be added to the center of the road to further increase retention. Since the median is at the crown of the road water will be piped in from the edges. An example of a bioretention median can be seen in Figure 12 below. 2
http://www.brothersamos.com/daveamos/tumblr/portlandpaving.jpg 20 Figure 12: A bioretention median3 5.5 Design Decision Figure 13 shows the decision matrix for the design. Using the decision matrix and engineering judgment, planter boxes were determined to be the best solution for the design. Planter boxes provide a high level of aesthetics with good functionality in runoff control and pollution management. They have a comparatively low cost and work well with the space limitations of the site. The layout of the proposed design is shown in the appendix. 3
http://www.arlingtonconnection.com/news/2012/may/23/arlington‐launches‐new‐pilot‐stormwater‐runoff/ 21 Decision Factors
Factor Weight
Space
Populution management
Volume
Aesthetics
Cost
6
8
7
5
7
TOTAL SCORE
Sub‐Surface Rain Vegetated Infiltration Planter Infiltration Garden
Swale
Trench
Box
bed
3
3
10
10
5
9
8
5
4
7
6
6
7
9
7
8
4
1
1
10
6
7
4
2
6
2.14
1.93
1.82
Figure 13 Design matrix for bioretention system 1.74
2.27
6 FINAL DESIGN 6.1 Layout Infiltration planter boxes were chosen as the primary component of the system. The final design includes a total of eight planter boxes, four on each side of the street, that are all hydraulically connected to ensure maximum drainage and prevent flooding as shown in Figure 14. The connections consist of perforated pipe with a 6 in. collar of compacted aggregate to provide additional infiltration. Vegetation in the planters aids in infiltration and pollutant removal. Overflow drains provide drainage to the storm sewer during larger flood events. Runoff from the street is collected through a curb cut placed at varying locations along the side of the street and runs through a rectangular channel and into the planter boxes. Most of the water collected on site is infiltrated into the ground while runoff exits via an overflow pipe that is 1.75 ft. above the bottom of the basin into the storm sewer only during larger storm events. Brick pavers in the side street parking provide additional infiltration for runoff from the street. Since the basins would run into existing water and gas laterals below the pavement, a few would have to be reconstructed to keep the 5 ft. cover minimum standard set by the state of Michigan, the locations of the utilities that require being moved can be found in the plan set in the Appendix. Each basin has a perceived meandering stream throughout the bottom of each basin to provide added aesthetic appeal for when there is some water in the basin, it appears to be a flowing stream. Since the basins are flat, the water will not be flowing in any particular direction as it will only be infiltrating straight down into the soil. Rip rap is placed on the bottom of the planter boxes to dissipate the energy of water falling into the basins to prevent scouring. The full set of plans including details can be found in the Appendix. 22 Figure 14: Infiltration planter bed design layout 23 6.2 Infiltration Planter Beds The planter beds were designed to be 8 ft. wide on the west side of the street and 10 ft. wide on the east side of the street according to available space. They were made 2.5 ft. deep, giving them enough capacity to hold a 10‐year 24 hour rain event without flooding the surrounding sidewalk. The individual beds were connected with 8 in. perforated pipe with a 6 in. collar of compacted aggregate to allow additional infiltration and increase the storage efficiency. Railings around the perimeter prevent people from jumping or falling in as well as a 6 in. curb to protect from trash being kicked in under the railing. Figure 15 shows the planter cross‐section. The overflows were designed to be 1.75 ft. high standpipes, allowing the pollutant‐rich first wash to be captured and infiltrated into the soil. The overflow design is shown in Figure 16. Figure 15: Planter bed cross‐sectional view 24 Figure 16: Planter bed overflow structure 6.3 Pavers Brick pavers were designed for the parallel packing area on the side of the road as a secondary form of retention. The goals for the pavers are to first add more retention capacity to the system and secondly, to decrease the perceived lane width and slow traffic through the site. The sub base layers of the pavers add 2.5 feet of storage area as can be seen in Figure 17 Changing this area from asphalt to pavers will allow the planters to see less street runoff flow and increase the overall storm capture. Figure 17: Paver Cross section detail 25 The second benefit of the added pavers is the decrease of perceived lane width. When drivers see thinner lane widths they slow down. This area see a lot of pedestrian traffic, there are two schools within a half mile, a library across the street, and an ice cream shop on the site. All of this leads to a high level of foot traffic in the area, slowing traffic through the site will help keep these pedestrians as safe as possible. 7 MODELS 7.1 Stormwater Runoff Computer Model 7.1.1 EPA SWMM Software The runoff from the site and the flow through the infiltration system were modeled using EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) software. The software models runoff using a collection of subcatchments which collect rainfall for a single or a series of rainfall events. SWMM routes this runoff through the conveyance system designed by the user, keeping track of the volumes and rates of flow of the water throughout the system. 7.1.2 Subcatchments The site was divided into subcatchments based on which areas of the site drained into which infiltration beds. Additionally, street areas were placed in different subcatchments than the sidewalk areas to allow the model to account the pavers in the street‐side parking. The pavers provide additional infiltration for runoff from the street, but have no effect on runoff from the sidewalks or buildings. The building roofs were also placed in separate subcatchments to facilitate disconnecting these areas from the infiltration system if necessary. Figure 18 shows the different subcatchments and the layout of the infiltration basins in SWMM. In the final design, the infiltration basins had enough capacity to incorporate the building roofs as well as the street and sidewalk. 26 Figure 18: Layout of System in SWMM 27 7.1.3 Flow Routing Flow through the system was modeled using the dynamic‐wave flow routing method. The dynamic wave method allows SWMM to calculate reverse flows, backwater effects, and pressurized flow, all of which were present in the model. The infiltration planter beds were modeled as irregular open channels shown in Figure 19, which allowed the team to specify the size and shape of the channel. The connector pipes were modeled as circular conduits, and the overflow structures were modeled as circular outlets placed three feet above the bottom of the channel, facing upwards. Figure 19: Infiltration Basin Channel Transect 7.1.4 Infiltration Infiltration from the beds and the connection pipes was modeled as seepage through the conduit wall. Since SWWM applies this seepage rate to the entire area of the conduit below the water level, effective seepage rates were used to compensate for the fact that infiltration occurs only at the bottom of the planter beds and at the holes in the perforated connector pipes. The effective seepage was calculated using equation 1. The seepage rate was multiplied by the ratio between a rough average of the area that SWMM uses to calculate seepage losses and the actual area over which infiltration occurs. Data for size and placement of holes in perforated pipe was obtained from cpp‐pipe.com. eq. 1 7.1.5 Rain Events The system was tested under a series of 24‐hour storms. The 1‐year, 2‐year, and 10‐year storms were used. The hyetograph for each storm was calculated using the SCS type II rainfall distribution. 28 Figure 20: 24 hour 2‐year Storm Hyetograph The infiltration system decreased the peak discharge and total outflow for all three storms analyzed. The existing and post‐development hydrographs for each of the storms are shown in Figure 21 through Figure 23. Figure 21: 1‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins 29 Figure 22: 2‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins Figure 23: 10‐year 24 hour storm hydrograph before and after installation of basins 30 Figure 24: Runoff from infiltration basins for various size storms 7.2 Pollutant Modeling A pollutant load spreadsheet, provided by FTCH, was used to calculated pollutant runoff and removal. The spreadsheet uses the Event Mean Concentrations shown in Table 6 to calculate pollutant runoff. These concentrations are identified in the Michigan DEQ’s Water Quality Trading Rule. 4 The spreadsheet assumes an LID removal efficiency of 80% for all pollutants. 4
(Michigan DEQ Surface Water Quality Division, 2002) 31 Table 6: Michigan DEQ Event Mean Concentrations of Pollutants Land use category (non-site specific) TSS (mg/l) BOD (mg/l) TP (mg/l) DP (mg/l) TKN (mg/l) NO2+3 (mg/l) Pb (ug/l) Cu (ug/l) Zn (ug/l) Cd (ug/l)
Agricultural
Commercial
Forest/Rural Open
High Density Residential
Highways
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Open
Water/wetlands
145
77
51
97
141
149
70
70
51
6
3
21
3
14
24
24
38
38
3
4
0.37
0.33
0.11
0.24
0.43
0.32
0.52
0.52
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.17
0.027
0.08
0.22
0.11
0.27
0.27
0.03
0.04
0.192
1.74
0.94
1.17
1.82
2.08
3.32
3.32
0.94
0.79
4.06
1.23
0.8
2.12
0.83
1.89
1.83
1.83
0.8
0.59
0
49.3
0
40.5
49.3
72.4
56.9
56.9
14.2
11.1
0
37
0
33
37
58
26.2
26.2
0
6.5
0
156.3
0
217.9
156.3
670.8
161.1
161.1
40.2
30.3
0
2.7
0
3.2
2.7
4.8
3.9
3.9
0.8
0.6 The pre‐ and post‐treatment pollutant concentrations are shown in Table 7. TSS represents the concentration of the total suspended solids. BOD stands for the biochemical oxygen demand, a measure of the organic content of the water. TP and DP stand for total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus. TKN stands for total Kjeldahl nitrogen, a measure of combined organic nitrogen, ammonia, and ammonium. NO2+3 represents the combined concentration of nitrate (NO2) and nitrite (NO3). Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cd are the concentrations of Lead, Copper, Zinc, and Cadmium. The design achieved a 73% removal rate and, according to the Pollutant Load Spreadsheet, meets the allowable pollution levels set in Table 2. Table 7 Pre‐ and Post‐treatment Pollution Concentrations from Pollutant Loads Spreadsheet Pollutant
Total Solids BOD Total P Disolved P Total N NO2+3
Pretreatment Concentration 77
21
0.33
0.17
1.74
1.23
(mg/l)
Post‐treatment Concentration (mg/l)
20.79
5.67 0.0891
0.0459
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
0.0493
0.037
0.1563
0.0027
0.4698 0.3321 0.013311 0.00999 0.042201 0.000729
8 COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate was created using the RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data 2009 edition. RSMeans gives costs on a per unit basis, these cost were then extended using areas from the design drawings. The final calculated cost was $1.1 million. Approximately half of this cost consists of repaving the entire roadway as part of the necessary utility moving and overall renovations to the district. The hope is that this project could be implemented alongside scheduled road repairs, significantly decreasing the cost of the project. The entire cost breakdown is shown in Table 8. 32 Table 8: Cost breakdown and total cost Category Unit Price ($) Unit Sidewalk Demolition Road Demolition Gutter Removal Utilities Excavation for planter boxes New gutter straight New gutter curve Bricks Mortar Side Walk Footing Removal of Catch Basin New Catch Basin 8" Pipe Connection to SS 1 in washed pea Stone Concrete Sand New Sidewalk Asphalt Trees Plant Fencing Gates Project Sign Rip rap sub total contingency engineering fee 1 1 4.38 1500 0.235 26.5 16.5 43 5.91 3.81 327.72 1905.85 19.75 550 1 1 4.08 18.6 140 5 39 420 23 33 40% 25% Total amount ft^2 ft^3 Ft 1 utility ft^3 ft ft 1000 units Ft^2 ft^3 Each Each Ft connection
ft^3 ft^3 ft^2 ft^2 each ft^2 linear ft each ft^2 ton 33497 18982 562.62532 13 23283.293 537.13 25.5398 16.429 1500 985.9632 4 2 230 2 6623.04525
6340.75 33497 18982 32 2214.0228 577 8 6 46 Cost ($) 34,000 19,000 3,000 20,000 6,000 15,000 1,000 1,000 9,000 4,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 2,000 7,000 7,000 137,000 354,000 5,000 12,000 23,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 665,000 266,000 167,000 1,098,000.00 9 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the team gained a lot of experience on what it actually looks like to design. It was discovered how intricate design can be and how hard it is to get everything to work together perfectly. The team learned the importance of communication and the importance of making key decisions early in the design process. The importance of asking questions and learning from those with more experience was also quickly discovered. The team used a combination of autoCAD, spreadsheets, and modeling software to 33 fully understand the site and properly reflect what was happening on the site. This was a very fulfilling experience and all members came out with a stronger sense of what exactly it means to be an engineer. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prof. David Wunder, Advisor and course instructor Claire Schwartz, Industrial Consultant Prof. Ned Nielsen, Course instructor Prof. Jeremy VanAntwerp, Course instructor Prof. Mark Michmerhuizen, Course instructor Michael Ryskamp, Client William Byl, Kent County Drain Commissioner Karrie Rivette, Grand Rapids City Stormwater Engineer 34 REFERENCES Calvin College. (2014, October 27). Senior Design Projects. Retrieved from Calvin College: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/senior‐design Cass County Water Resources Commissioner. (2010, April). Site Development Rules. Retrieved from casscountymi.org: http://www.casscountymi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CmBEG3FT_hc%3D&tabid=332&mid=90
8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, May 22). E. coli (Escherichia coli. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/ Crumpler Plastic Pipe, Inc. (n.d.). Water Inlet Areas for CPP Perforated Pipe. Retrieved from CPP: http://www.cpp‐pipe.com/water_inlet_area.html Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management. (2006). Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau. (2006). DEQ Water Beureau water Resources Protection. Act 451, Part 4. Water Quality Standards. Michigan. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc. (2008). Plaster Creek Watershed management Plan. Grand Rapids. Green Planet Ethics. (2012, April 29). Green Infrastructure ‐ What is Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from Green Planet Ethics: http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/green‐infrastructure‐what‐is‐
green‐infrastructure/ MDEQ. (2014). Rule 57 Water Quality Values Surface Water Assessment Section. Michigan Department of Environomental Quality. Michigan DEQ Surface Water Quality Division. (2002). Water Resources Protection Part 30. Water Quality Trading. Nevue Ngan Associates and Sherwood Design engineers. (2009). San Mateo Guidebook. San Mateo. New Zealand Water Environment Research Foundation. (2004, October). On‐site stormwater devices: description and standard design steps. Retrieved from Water New Zealand: http://www.nzwwa.org.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder_id=101&File=section4.pdf NOAA. (2014, August 27). Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server. Retrieved from NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: MI: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=mi Seminole County. (1997, June 1). www.seminolecountyfl.gov. Retrieved from Seminole County: http://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/fs/pdf/road_paving.pdf Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. (2008). Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan: A Design Guide for Implementers and Reviewers. Detroit, Michigan. 35 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, October 23). Harmful Algal Blooms. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/harmful‐algal‐blooms USDA NRCS. (2013, December 6). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Water Department, Division of Sewer Maintenance Dayton, Ohio. (2007, July 1). Sewer Service Installation Costs. Retrieved from City of Dayton Water: http://www.daytonwater.org/uploads/documents/Sewer_Service_Installation_Costs.pdf 36 APPENDIX 37