Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems

Miklas Scholz

doi:doi:10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems

Miklas Scholz

Published in Science Discovery (Volume 3, Issue 2-1)

Received: 16 December 2014 Accepted: 17 December 2014 Published: 27 December 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) design is predominantly based on expert opinion supported by descriptive guidance documents. The aim of this paper is to compare the novel Capacity Down Pipe SuDS technique in terms of its design, operation, maintenance, management and cost efficiency with other SuDS techniques. The assessment criteria are based on novel ecosystem service variables including those characterising flood and diffuse pollution control for fitting and retrofitting of key SuDS techniques particularly for the domestic housing market. The paper proposes the application of SuDS techniques that obtain high ecosystem service scores for a specific urban site. This approach contrasts with methods based on traditional civil engineering judgment linked to standard variables based on community and environment studies. For a case study area (Greater Manchester), a comparison with the traditional approach of determining community and environment variables indicates that soakaways and infiltration trenches are generally less preferred than capacity down pipes, ponds and filter strips. However, belowground storage tanks, swales and permeable pavements also received relatively high scores, because of their great potential impact in terms of flood volume control. The application of the proposed methodology will lead to changes of the sustainable drainage infrastructure in the urban landscape by promoting the novel capacity down pipe technology, which has a very low footprint and is inexpensive.

Published in	Science Discovery (Volume 3, Issue 2-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue New Technical Ideas for Climate Recovery
DOI	10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
Page(s)	7-17
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Best Management Practice, Cost Comparison, Decision Support Tool, Filter Strip, Footprint, Pond

References

[1]	M. Scholz, Wetland Systems to Control Urban Runoff, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2006.
[2]	D. Butler, and J.W. Davies, Urban Drainage, 2nd ed; Spon Press: London, 2004.
[3]	M. Scholz, Wetland Systems – Storm Water Management Control, Springer: Berlin, 2010.
[4]	CIRIA, The SuDS Manual, Construction Industry Research and Information Association: London, 2007.
[5]	CIRIA, Planning for SuDS – Making It Happen, Construction Industry Research and Information Association: London, 2010.
[6]	M. Scholz M., N.L. Corrigan, and S.K. Yazdi S.K, The Glasgow sustainable urban drainage system management project: case studies (Belvidere Hospital and Celtic FC Stadium Areas), Environm. Eng. Sci. 23 (2006), pp. 908–922.
[7]	E. Eriksson, A. Baun, L. Scholes, A. Ledin, S. Ahlman, M. Revitt, C. Noutsopoulos, and P.S. Mikkelsen, Selected stormwater priority pollutants – a European perspective, Sci. Tot. Environm. 383 (2007), pp. 41–51.
[8]	CIRIA, Sustainable Drainage Systems. Hydraulic, structural and water quality advice (Report C609), Construction Industry Research and Information Association: London, UK, 2004.
[9]	M. Scholz, and P. Grabowiecki, Review of permeable pavement systems. Building and Environment 42 (2007), pp. 830–836.
[10]	J.B. Ellis, J.C. Deutsch, J.M. Mouchel, L. Scholes, and M.D. Revitt, Multicriteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff, Sci. Tot. Environm. 334-335 (2004), pp. 251–260.
[11]	M. Scholz, Case study: Design, operation, maintenance and water quality management of sustainable storm water ponds for roof run-off, Biores. Technol. 95 (2004), pp. 269–279.
[12]	J.M. Helfield, and M.L. Diamond, Use of constructed wetlands for urban stream restoration: a critical analysis, Environm. Managem. 21 (1997), pp. 329–341.
[13]	M. Scholz, and B.-H. Lee, Constructed wetlands: a review, Int. J. Environm. Stud. 62 (2005), pp. 421–447.
[14]	H. Nanbakhsh, S. Kazemi-Yazdi, and M. Scholz, Design comparison of experimental storm water detention systems treating concentrated road runoff, Sci. Tot. Environm. 380 (2007), pp. 220–228.
[15]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being, United Nations Environment Programme: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
[16]	M. Busch M, A.L. Notte, V. Laporte, and M. Erhard, Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services, Ecol. Indicat. 21 (2012), pp. 89–103.
[17]	T.L. Moore, and W.F. Hunt, Ecosystem service provision by stormwater wetlands and ponds – A means for evaluation? Wat. Res. 46 (2012), pp. 6811-6823.
[18]	Defra, Overarching impact assessment for the Natural Environment White Paper, UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. Available at http://www.archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/documents/newp-ia-110607.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2013).
[19]	C.J. Walsh, T.D. Fletcher, and M.J. Burns, Urban stormwater runoff: a new class of environmental flow problem, PLoS ONE 7 (2012), e45814.
[20]	UK National Ecosystem Assessment, The UK national ecosystem assessment technical report, United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
[21]	TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Manual for Cities: Ecosystem services in urban management. Available at http://www.teebweb.org (accessed 25 March 2013).
[22]	R. Slootweg, A. Rajvanshi, V.B. Mathur, and A. Kolhoff, Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment. Enhancing Ecosystem Services for Human Well Being, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2010.
[23]	J.H. Lawton, P.N.M. Brotherton, V.K. Brown, C. Elphick, A.H. Fitter, J. Forshaw, R.W. Haddow, S. Hilborne, R.N. Leafe, G.M. Mace, M.P. Southgate, W.J. Sutherland, T.E. Tew, J. Varley, and G.R. Wynne, Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network, UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2013).
[24]	European Union, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT (accessed on 25 March 2013).
[25]	I. White, and A. Alarcon, Planning policy, sustainable drainage and surface water management: a case study of Greater Manchester, Built Environm. 35 (2009), pp. 516–530.
[26]	AGMA, Strategic flood risk assessment for Greater Manchester, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities: Manchester, UK, 2008.
[27]	DLTR, Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UK, 2001.
[28]	A. Munoz-Pedreros, Landscape evaluation: an environmental management, Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 77 (2004), pp. 139–156.
[29]	J.B. Ellis, R.B.E. Shutes, and M.D. Revitt, Constructed wetlands and links with sustainable drainage systems (Technical Report P2-159/TR1), Environment Agency, Bristol, UK, 2003.
[30]	E. Danso-Amoako, N. Kalimeris, M. Scholz, Q. Yang, and J. Shao, Predicting dam failure risk for sustainable flood retention basins: a generic case study for the wider Greater Manchester area, Comp. Environm. Urb. Syst. 36 (2012), pp. 423–433.
[31]	M. Scholz, Yang Q. Guidance on variables characterizing water bodies including Sustainable Flood Retention Basins, Landsc. Urb. Plann. 98 (2010), pp. 190–199.
[32]	S.E. Gill, J.F. Handley, A.R. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure, Built Environm. 33 (2007), pp. 115–133.
[33]	W.R. McMinn, Q. Yang, and M. Scholz, Classification and assessment of water bodies as adaptive structural measures for flood risk management planning, J. Environm. Managem. 91 (2010), pp. 1855–1863.
[34]	L. Lundy, and R. Wade, Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services, Progr. Phys. Geogr, 35 (2011), pp. 653–669.
[35]	H.M. Imran, S. Akib, and M.R. Karim, Permeable pavement and stormwater management systems: a review, Environm. Technol. 34 (2013), pp. 2649–2656.
[36]	K. Tota-Maharaj, M. Scholz, T. Ahmed, C. French, and E. Pagaling, The synergy of permeable pavements and geothermal heat pumps for storm water treatment and reuse, Environm. Technol. 31 (2010), pp. 1517–1531.
[37]	M. Scholz, and V. Uzomah, Rapid decision support tool based on novel ecosystem service variables for retrofitting of permeable pavement systems in the presence of trees, Sci. Tot. Environm. 458–460 (2013), pp. 486-498.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Miklas Scholz. (2014). Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Science Discovery, 3(2-1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Miklas Scholz. Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Sci. Discov. 2014, 3(2-1), 7-17. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Miklas Scholz. Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Sci Discov. 2014;3(2-1):7-17. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12,
  author = {Miklas Scholz},
  title = {Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems},
  journal = {Science Discovery},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {7-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  abstract = {Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) design is predominantly based on expert opinion supported by descriptive guidance documents. The aim of this paper is to compare the novel Capacity Down Pipe SuDS technique in terms of its design, operation, maintenance, management and cost efficiency with other SuDS techniques. The assessment criteria are based on novel ecosystem service variables including those characterising flood and diffuse pollution control for fitting and retrofitting of key SuDS techniques particularly for the domestic housing market. The paper proposes the application of SuDS techniques that obtain high ecosystem service scores for a specific urban site. This approach contrasts with methods based on traditional civil engineering judgment linked to standard variables based on community and environment studies. For a case study area (Greater Manchester), a comparison with the traditional approach of determining community and environment variables indicates that soakaways and infiltration trenches are generally less preferred than capacity down pipes, ponds and filter strips. However, belowground storage tanks, swales and permeable pavements also received relatively high scores, because of their great potential impact in terms of flood volume control. The application of the proposed methodology will lead to changes of the sustainable drainage infrastructure in the urban landscape by promoting the novel capacity down pipe technology, which has a very low footprint and is inexpensive.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems
AU  - Miklas Scholz
Y1  - 2014/12/27
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
T2  - Science Discovery
JF  - Science Discovery
JO  - Science Discovery
SP  - 7
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2331-0650
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
AB  - Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) design is predominantly based on expert opinion supported by descriptive guidance documents. The aim of this paper is to compare the novel Capacity Down Pipe SuDS technique in terms of its design, operation, maintenance, management and cost efficiency with other SuDS techniques. The assessment criteria are based on novel ecosystem service variables including those characterising flood and diffuse pollution control for fitting and retrofitting of key SuDS techniques particularly for the domestic housing market. The paper proposes the application of SuDS techniques that obtain high ecosystem service scores for a specific urban site. This approach contrasts with methods based on traditional civil engineering judgment linked to standard variables based on community and environment studies. For a case study area (Greater Manchester), a comparison with the traditional approach of determining community and environment variables indicates that soakaways and infiltration trenches are generally less preferred than capacity down pipes, ponds and filter strips. However, belowground storage tanks, swales and permeable pavements also received relatively high scores, because of their great potential impact in terms of flood volume control. The application of the proposed methodology will lead to changes of the sustainable drainage infrastructure in the urban landscape by promoting the novel capacity down pipe technology, which has a very low footprint and is inexpensive.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Miklas Scholz

Civil Engineering Research Group, School of Computing, Science and Engineering, The University of Salford, Newton Building, Salford M5 4WT, England, United Kingdom

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Miklas Scholz. (2014). Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Science Discovery, 3(2-1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Miklas Scholz. Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Sci. Discov. 2014, 3(2-1), 7-17. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Miklas Scholz. Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems. Sci Discov. 2014;3(2-1):7-17. doi: 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12,
  author = {Miklas Scholz},
  title = {Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems},
  journal = {Science Discovery},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2-1},
  pages = {7-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sd.s.2015030201.12},
  abstract = {Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) design is predominantly based on expert opinion supported by descriptive guidance documents. The aim of this paper is to compare the novel Capacity Down Pipe SuDS technique in terms of its design, operation, maintenance, management and cost efficiency with other SuDS techniques. The assessment criteria are based on novel ecosystem service variables including those characterising flood and diffuse pollution control for fitting and retrofitting of key SuDS techniques particularly for the domestic housing market. The paper proposes the application of SuDS techniques that obtain high ecosystem service scores for a specific urban site. This approach contrasts with methods based on traditional civil engineering judgment linked to standard variables based on community and environment studies. For a case study area (Greater Manchester), a comparison with the traditional approach of determining community and environment variables indicates that soakaways and infiltration trenches are generally less preferred than capacity down pipes, ponds and filter strips. However, belowground storage tanks, swales and permeable pavements also received relatively high scores, because of their great potential impact in terms of flood volume control. The application of the proposed methodology will lead to changes of the sustainable drainage infrastructure in the urban landscape by promoting the novel capacity down pipe technology, which has a very low footprint and is inexpensive.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Capacity Down Pipe: Comparisons with Other Sustainable Drainage Systems
AU  - Miklas Scholz
Y1  - 2014/12/27
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
T2  - Science Discovery
JF  - Science Discovery
JO  - Science Discovery
SP  - 7
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2331-0650
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sd.s.2015030201.12
AB  - Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) design is predominantly based on expert opinion supported by descriptive guidance documents. The aim of this paper is to compare the novel Capacity Down Pipe SuDS technique in terms of its design, operation, maintenance, management and cost efficiency with other SuDS techniques. The assessment criteria are based on novel ecosystem service variables including those characterising flood and diffuse pollution control for fitting and retrofitting of key SuDS techniques particularly for the domestic housing market. The paper proposes the application of SuDS techniques that obtain high ecosystem service scores for a specific urban site. This approach contrasts with methods based on traditional civil engineering judgment linked to standard variables based on community and environment studies. For a case study area (Greater Manchester), a comparison with the traditional approach of determining community and environment variables indicates that soakaways and infiltration trenches are generally less preferred than capacity down pipes, ponds and filter strips. However, belowground storage tanks, swales and permeable pavements also received relatively high scores, because of their great potential impact in terms of flood volume control. The application of the proposed methodology will lead to changes of the sustainable drainage infrastructure in the urban landscape by promoting the novel capacity down pipe technology, which has a very low footprint and is inexpensive.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2-1
ER  -

Copy | Download