ToC & Appendice
ToC & Appendice
ToC & Appendice
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background ………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………………. 2
2. Site Description …………… ……………………………………………………………….. 3
2.1 Existing Land Use and Vegetation .…………………………………….………. 4
2.2 Existing Soil and Groundwater Condition .………………………………….. 5
2.3 Topography and Surface Water Drainage …………………………………… 6
2.3.1 Preliminary Drainage Area ……………………………………………………. 6
3. Stormwater Management Design Overview ………..…………………………. 10
3.1 Problem Definition ………………………….. ……………………………………… 10
3.2 Considerations …………… …………………………………………………………… 11
4. Main Channel Design …………………………………………………………………… 13
4.1 Main Drainage Area A ………………………………………………………….…… 13
4.2 Main Channel Design …………………………………………………………….…. 15
4.3 A Runoff Routing Drainage Area A ………………………………………….…. 17
4.4 Channel Design using Manning’s Equation ………………………………… 18
4.5 Main Drainage Swale Conclusion …………………………………………….. 23
5. End of Pipe Extended Detention Facilities ……………………..……………… 24
5.1 Water Quantity Control ……………………………………………………………. 25
5.1.1 Runoff Computation ………………………………………………………….… 25
5.1.2 Drainage Area ……………………………………………………………………… 25
5.1.3 Runoff Coefficient ………………………………………………………………. 26
i
5.1.4 Rainfall Intensity and Time of Concentration ……………………….. 28
5.1.5 Design Details of Proposed Pond …………………………………………. 31
5.1.6 Flow Diversion Structure …………………………………………………….. 34
5.1.7 Outlet Design ……………………………………………………………………… 35
5.2 Water Quality Control . ……………………………………………………………. 36
5.2.1 Design Criteria ……………………………………………………………………. 36
5.3 Other Considerations …….. ………………………………………………………. 39
6. Secondary Drainage Channels ….. …………………………………………………. 40
6.1 Existing Profiles of Secondary Channels ………………….………………… 42
6.1.1 Minor Drainage Swale MinDS …………………….……………………….. 42
6.1.2 Major Drainage Swale MajDS …………………….……………………….. 43
6.1.3 Minor Drainage Culvert MajDS …………………….……………………... 44
6.1.4 Major and Minor Drainage Swale MMDS …………………………….. 45
6.2 Secondary Drainage Channels Design Constraints …………………….. 46
6.3 Design using Manning’s Equation …………………………………………….. 48
6.4 Secondary Drainage Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 53
7. Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………………………….. 54
References
ii
LIST OF TALBES
Table 2.1 Runoff Coefficient for Use in the Rational Method
Table 5.1 Drainage Areas, Land Covers and Runoff Coefficients for Post-development
LIST OF FIGURES
iii
Figure 5.7 Outlet Design
LIST OF APPENDICE
Appendix 1 Water Level Calculations for Channels using Manning’s Equation
iv
References
Archaeological Service Inc., 2008, Draft Practical Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper -
Archaeology, April 2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Archaeology/WEB_PracticalAltsWP_Archae
ology_April2008-reporttextonly.pdf
Atlas of Canada, 2008, Toporama – Topographic Map, Retrieved on March 16, 2009,
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/topo/map
Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada, 2008, IDF Curves of City of Windsor, Retrieved on
March 5, 2009
DRIC, 2008, Map - Technically and Environmentally Preferred Alternative U.S. Plaza - Crossing
X10(B) - Canadian Plaza B1 - Windsor Essex Parkway, Retrieved on March 18, 2009,
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/DRIC_PlazaCrossPlaza_TEPA-Web.pdf
Environment Canada,1987, Remedial Action Plan – Detroit River, 1987, Available Online:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=3B1C62BD-1
Golder Associates Ltd., 2008, Pavement Engineering for Planning Report Area of Continued
Analysis-Detroit River International Crossing (Updated Draft), March 14, 2008, Available
Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Pavement/WEB_PracticalAltsWP_Pavemen
t_March2008-report&apps.pdf
J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc., 1997, Evaluation of Roadside Ditches and Other Related
Stormwater Management Practices – Final Report, April 1997
Kooijman, B., 2005, Mass balance, October 1, 2005, Retrieved on November 21, 2008,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_balance
LGL Ltd., 2008, Draft Practical Alternatives Evaluation Working Paper – Natural Heritage, April
2008, Available Online:
http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/Natural/WEB_PracticalAltsWP_Natural_Ap
ril2008-report&apps.pdf
v
Mays, Larry, 2005, Water Resources Engineering, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Printed in United
States
Reid, D. W, 2003, South Windsor CT, February 5, 2003, Retrieved on November 22, 2008,
http://www.southwindsor.org/pages/SWindsorCT_Wetlands/2003/S00153F7F?
textPage=1
Study, D. R., 2008, Detroit River Internationnal Crossing Study, November 12, 2008 Retrieved on
November 22, 2008, http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/reports_canada.asp
URS Canada Inc., 2008, Draft Environmental Assessment Report, November 2008, Available
Online: http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/11-12-
08/DraftEA_combined_withapps.pdf
vi
APPENDIX 1
-
vii
Section 4
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MainDS using Manning’s equation:
Q 9.3305
n 0.03
Bw 7
Z 2.5
0.0012
So 5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
viii
Water level calculation for 5year storm of MainDS using Manning’s equation:
Q 4.4675
N 0
Bw 7
Z 2
So 0
5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Section 5
ix
Water level calculation for 5 year storm of Overflow Swale to Quality Pond using Manning’s
equation:
Q 4.4675
n 0.03
Bw 5
Z 2
So 0.0025
7
Channel to Quality Pond
6
3
Y - axis
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-1
-2
-3
Water Level (m)
x
Water level calculation for 100 year storm of Overflow Swale to Quantity Pond using
Manning’s equation:
Q 4.863
n 0.03
Bw 7
Z 2.5
So 0.005
7
Channel to Quantity Pond
6
3
Y - axis
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-1
-2
-3
Water Level (m)
xi
Section 6
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MMDS using Manning’s equation:
Q 7.6628
n 0.03
Bw 8.5
Z 2.5
So 0.00125
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-2
-4
-6
-8
xii
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MMDS using Manning’s equation:
Q 2.3107
n 0.03
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-1
-2
-3
xiii
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MajDS using Manning’s equation:
Q 5.3521
n 0.03
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
xiv
Water level calculation for 100year storm of MajDC using Manning’s equation:
Q 5.3521
n 0.017
Bw 6
Z 2.5
So 0.00125
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
-1
-2
-3
xv
APPENDIX 2
-
xvi
Storage Detention Calculations
m2
External Area Approximate 95956
Plaze Area 543000
Total Drainage Area 638956
Length (m) 1776
General Fall (m) 6
Tc = L / 3600*V
L = ft V = ft/sTc = hr
Intensit
y
Return period (mm/hr)
5 years 46
100 years 75
Q = C × i × A / 360
i = mm/hr A = ha
xvii
Post-Development Peak Flows
Peak Flows
Return Period Area Coefficient (C) (m3/s)
5 yrs Landscape 33.2244 0.34
Paved area 29.0083 0.77
Concrete 1.6629 0.8
total 63.8956 0.5472 4.4675
Flow
Post-development
Peak Flow, Qpost
Storage
Pre-development
Required,
S
Time
Tbase = 2tc or 2.67 tc
xviii
Sreq5 = 4783.6521 m3 5 yr post released at 5 yr pre
For 85% impervious 250 m3/ha includes 40 m3/ha for active storage
xix
Outlet Pipe for Quality Pond
The detention time for the quality pond must be equal or greater than 24 hours.
Vactive
1 ≥ 24 hours
Qp@ max dep th
2
1 π 1
Qpre = × y2 × ( y)2/3 × S1/2
0.013 2 2
xx
APPENDIX 3
-
Preliminary Report
xxi
1 Methodology
In order to properly assess the potential use of various alternative drainage systems, the
2.) Compatibility with planning objectives and ease of integration within the road
right of way;
There are two approaches used for stormwater management in this project:
This tool is developed by J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. It is a Microsoft Excel
management. The tool helps to determine which types of alternative drainage features
could be used within a site and to compare potential conceptual drainage systems. It is
also used to calculate the quantities of materials needed to build a proposed drainage
xxii
system based on drainage area and imperviousness. This is achieved through the use of
The step by step procedure can be visualized by a flowchart (see Figure 3-1).
It is used to eliminate specific drainage features which are incompatible with the local
site characteristics
development characteristics.
It is used to summarize the results obtained from Tables A and B, and to identify which
xxiii
It is used to summarize the stormwater management objectives and target performance
for the drainage system being considered. It is also used to assign variable priorities to
drainage feature can respond to a particular SWM objective. SWM objectives were
The water quality control objective was further divided into 4 subgroups:
evaluation is based on potential SWM performance, specific design objectives and costs.
xxiv
1.2 Mass Balance Approach
A material balance approach will be used to address the drainage problem of the storm
water management system. This approach can be defined as an application of the law of
conservation of mass. (Kooijman, 2005) By accounting for material entering and leaving
a system, mass flows can be identified which might have been unknown, or difficult to
measure. (Kooijman, 2005) In this case, the mass conservation inputs will be considering
the maximum rainfall expected during a 100 year storm. A 100 year storm is 75mm/h of
rain for 35 minutes. The output of the system will consider pond discharge into the
Detroit River.
Manning’s Equation:
The Manning’s equation will be applied to determine the Dimension, Slope and Water
2
1 ( )S 0.5
Q= ∗A R 3
n
Where Q is the Channels flow n is the roughness coefficient, A is the cross sectional area of
xxv
Rational Method:
Rational Method will be employed to determine the pre development flow and post
development flow of runoff landing on the site. The design of the major storm water
management structures including the Pond and the Drainage Channels will be based on the
Q=CiA
Where Q is the expected storm flow, C is the runoff coefficient, i is the rainfall intensity and
A is the Drainage area. This Equation will be discussed more in detail in the technical
report.
To address the water quality problem installation of an oil/grit separator at each entry
point of the pond. The oil/grit separator will have a size to accommodate the maximum in-
flow rate of its respective drainage pipe. In addition to that, stones will be placed at the
bottom of all the drainage channels to carry out some preliminary grit removal work.
We will also place water flow control structures which will regulate the inflow and outflow
of the pond and other sites around the project. To address the sediment control problem,
we will place large rocks and shrubbery in strategic locations such that it protects the site
xxvi
2 Stormwater Management Plan
The Canadian Plaza is approximately 53 ha, consisting primary of pavement and
commercial buildings. The proposed Highway 401 enters from the east, with the
roadway to the new bridge extending to the north. The stormwater management for
the Plaza will require quality, quantity and erosion controls for the peak flows from the
Plaza, as increase in impervious area will increase the overall peak flows from the site, as
well as the overall pollutant loading. This would lead to erosion issues downstream of
the site, as well as impacts to the ecological condition of the Detroit River.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of wet ponds, oil and grit separators, greenbelts and backyard
swales and shallow storm sewers with sump pumps. The storm sewers with sump
pumps can be designed to provide possibly off-site flood control if the major system is
retained on the street and catch basins are equipped with inlet control devices. If the
sump pumps discharge to a grass surface area, some groundwater recharge may be
achieved. The storm sewers can also provide some thermal impact reduction. The oil
and grit separators (O&Gs) are devices which cannot be used by them to create a
drainage system. Usually their use is combined with the use of conventional storm
xxvii
sewers. O&Gs are large manhole structures consisting of separate chambers (usually 3)
through which stormwater travels in order to remove coarse sediments, oils and other
floatable pollutants. O&Gs can provide some quality control. The only real site
constraint in using O&Gs is with the depth of the drainage outlet which has to be
type of end-of-pipe SWM facilities which can be considered for drainage areas of at least
5.0 ha. When properly constructed they can provide adequate erosion and water
quality control benefits, and possibly some offsite flood control. Based on the UDSST,
the system compliance of alternative 1 is 81% and the overall score as per SWM
priorities is 16.91. The total estimated cost of this system is $2,620,847.90. (See Table
5-1)
Alternative 2
Instead of wet pond in alternative 1, alternative 2 use dry pond. The system compliance
of this alternative is 78% and the overall score as per SWM priorities is 16.36. The total
The preferred stormwater management plan, based on the cost analysis and system
inflowing stormwater on site, so the use of dry ponds is prevented. Although the cost of
alternative 2 is lower than alternative 1, but the cost over the overall score of the
systems is $156, 360.63, higher than $154, 969.72 in alternative 1. (See Table 5-3)
xxviii
2.2 Mass Balance Approach
Pond Size:
The first challenge is determining the amount of water the site will experience during a
100 year storm. From Windsor statistics the storm thickness of a 100 year storm is
75mm/h for 35minutes. The site area will roughly cover a 53 ha.total Rainfall volume is
231875m3 since pond cannot be lower than 2 m. Total pond area is 115938m 2.
Drainage:
One of the most important aspects of this project will be the design of the drainage
channels to divert the storm water efficiently into the site pond. The first part of this
methodology will be to use gravity to our advantage and design the flow system to
coincide with the way water would naturally flow. From the following conceptual
diagram of the site there are 4 major sides covering the site. The East and North side of
the border crossing are the Entry-Exit point of Windsor and Detroit respectively. The
West side of the crossing is the Detroit River. The south side is bordered by a large rock
drainage swale. From discussion with the project engineer, the North and East slopes
will point towards the plaza after final grading, this means that when it rains, the water
from surrounding area will flow towards the plaza. It is imperative that catch basins
and drainage channels are placed properly on the site such that water is diverted as
efficiently as possible into the pond. The following drawing is a conceptual view of the
xxix
Smaller Diversion Channels
From drawing we see the pond is taking-in water from the East and North sides of the
site by means of channeling and gravity. The pond will be taking in all the water mostly
from the large rock swale and the smaller diversion channels spread across the site
area.
Channel design:
The next challenge is to determine the type of drainage inlets based on site location.
Since the Asphalt area is quite large. Standard catch basins will be too small to handle
the inflow of a 100 year storm. Placing curb on this site will also work inefficiently to
divert the rainwater because given a 22cm rainfall thickness of a 100year storm
(assuming no absorption) the curb would have to be a minimum of 22cm to hold the
rainfall, it would make the roads dangerous to drive on because vehicles could be
submerged in water.
There are two conceptual designs of drainage channels which will appropriately
mitigate the drainage problems mentioned above, one will be the channel design of
asphalted surfaces the other will be the channel design of non-asphalted surfaces. For
placed under the asphalt driving surfaces. It will be designed with the structural
capacity to hold the largest of vehicles and it will also be very efficient in diverting the
xxx
rainwater off the roads. In addition to that, the rock at the bottom of the channel will
be used to treat the grit before water enters the Oil/Grit chambers.
The next diagram will show the cross section of a storm water channel of non-
asphalted surfaces it works similarly to the one above except it is exposed to open air
and has a bottom rubber liner to protect the channel from water erosion.
Rubber Lining
Oil/Grit Chambers:
Before storm water is introduced into the pond oil grit separators will be placed, which
will carry out the bulk of the grit and oil removal work. An oil and grit separator will
help the pond be environmentally friendly and in prove the quality of water that will
eventually be discharged into the Detroit River. The Oil/ Grit separators will be design
to handle the maximum flow arising from a 5 year storm. The following diagram will
xxxi
(Mississippi U, 2004)
The next diagram is a conceptual outline of water diversion process for the entire project.
Assessement of Alternatives
Alternative 2 addresses the water quality and Sediment control aspect of the border crossing
site satisfactorily. The oil grit chamber will success fully remove most oil contaminants during a
5 year storm, assuming that the Oil/Grit chamber is designed to sustain the flow of a 5 year
storm. Ideally a small water treatment plant would be Ideal to remove all the contaminants;
however a treatment plant would be too expensive to build and operate so it is unfeasible. So
xxxii
in terms of treating storm water this is the most feasible alternative. In addition to that, when
storm water is ponded, some of the toxins are captivated by the pond life. So less contaminant
As mentioned above in the alternative development section of alternative 2, a lot of the grit
removal is carried out by the rocks at the bottom of the drainage channels. In addition to that
toxins will be captivated by the vegetation that will eventually grow on the channel’s rocks.
These organisms will remove some toxins and BOD’s from the storm water.
Alternative 2 also mitigates the drainage because all drainage channels are highly permeable,
erosion proof and large enough to handle a high capacity of water. By mitigating the drainage
problems of the site, roads are safe to drive on during even a 100 year storm.
The negative aspect of alternative 2 is that there will be drainage channel scattered throughout
the site which may make the site look un-aesthetic. However site aesthetics can be easily
changed by planting tree and other greeneries along these channels to make them look more
natural.
mentioned in the introduction. The Urban Drainage Selection Tools Program is intended to be
used as a guide line for hydrological engineers working on storm water systems. The outputs of
this program are storm water management solutions relevant for the given project. After
inputting all the correct values into the program we found that Oil/Grit Chambers, Green Belts,
xxxiii
Back yard swales, a wet pond and a sump pumps would address most storm water
management problems. The water quality aspects of the project are addressed with the Oil/Grit
separators. The drainage problems are addressed with the backyard swales, sump pumps, wet
pond and large catch basins. The sediment control and aesthetic problems associated with this
project are addressed by the green belt, backyard drainage swales and Grit chambers.
Alternative 1 and alternative 2 are very similar. This is a favorable outcome because the two
alternatives where developed independent of each other, it reinforces the sites requirements.
The similarities of the Alternative 1 and 2 are that a pond, Oil/Grit chambers, Open swales and
a green belt are site requirements. The difference being that alternative 2 recommends
gravitational movement of water as opposed to alternative 1’s sump pump solution. In this case
we will go with alternative 2 because no power will be required to move the storm water as
continuous grid to be the entry point of water whereas alternative 1 suggests large manhole
catch basins to be the entry point of storm water. Alternative 2 is a better alternative because
the steel grid has a larger permeable surface area to take in the water. In conclusion alternative
2 works best to address the storm management problems of this project. In addition to that
xxxiv