DFL SUDS Handbook Final

HANDBOOK ON SUSTAINABLE URBAN
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
The handbook is prepared within Estonia-Latvia cross-border cooperation programme 2007-2013 project “Promoting
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Estonia-Latvia cross-border area to improve the environment for active and sustainable
communities” (acronym (D)rain for life, project number EU41702)
1
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON SUDS .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Definition of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) ................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Rationale for using SUDS .................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SUDS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Approach of SUDS projects ................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.2. Objectives - treatment stages .......................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3. Objectives – return period ............................................................................................................................................... 11
3.4. Dimensioning calculations at feasibility stage .................................................................................................................. 13
3.4.1. Local precipitation data .............................................................................................................................................. 13

3.4.2. Sub-catchment runoff ................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.4.3. Estimating runoff and dimensions for conveyance features ...................................................................................... 15
3.4.4. Estimating dimensions for storage features ............................................................................................................... 16
3.4.5. Examples ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.5. System dimensioning – complex methods ....................................................................................................................... 18
4. BEST INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON SUDS ................................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1. Tanner Springs Park .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2. Hohlgrabenäcker .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
4.3. Trabrennbahn Farmsen .................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.4. Drainage plan Borgele ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
4.5. Ruwenbos ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32
4.6. Het Meer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.7. Coohen Nord .................................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.8. Eco-city Augustenborg...................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.9. Fjärilsparken Eco-corridor ................................................................................................................................................ 43
4.10. Vastra Hamnen ................................................................................................................................................................. 45
4.11. Rabalder Parken ............................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.12. Rain gardens in Lindevang, Brondby ................................................................................................................................ 52
4.13. Vilhelm Thomsens Alee .................................................................................................................................................... 54

5. SPECIFIC SUDS FEATURES........................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1. Swales / ditches / drains................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.1. General description ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

5.1.2. Advantages and disadvantages ................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.3. Technical parameters .................................................................................................................................................. 57
5.1.4. Plants and landscape................................................................................................................................................... 61
5.1.5. Pictures / visual references ......................................................................................................................................... 64
5.2. Retention ponds ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
5.2.1. Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

5.2.2. Advantages and disadvanatges ................................................................................................................................... 65
5.2.3. Technical parameters .................................................................................................................................................. 65
5.2.4. Plants and landscape................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.2.5. Construction, exploitation and maintenance ............................................................................................................. 68
5.2.6. Security and civic engagement ................................................................................................................................... 68
2
5.3. Bioretention ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70

5.3.2. Advantages / disadvantages ....................................................................................................................................... 70
5.3.3. Types of bioretention facilities.................................................................................................................................... 71
5.3.4. Sizing and design criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 72
5.3.5. Operation and maintenance requirements ................................................................................................................ 73
5.3.6. Limitations................................................................................................................................................................... 73
5.4. Pervious surfaces .............................................................................................................................................................. 75
5.4.1. Advantages / disadvantages ....................................................................................................................................... 75

5.4.2. Performance parameters ............................................................................................................................................ 75
5.4.3. Types of pervious surfaces .......................................................................................................................................... 75
5.4.4. Cost ............................................................................................................................................................................. 77
5.4.5. Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................... 77
5.5. Green roofs ....................................................................................................................................................................... 79
5.5.1. Advantages/disadvantages ......................................................................................................................................... 79

5.5.2. Performance parameters ............................................................................................................................................ 79
5.5.3. Design considerations ................................................................................................................................................. 80
5.5.4. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................................... 81
5.5.5. Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................... 81
5.6. Constructed wetlands (cw) ............................................................................................................................................... 82

5.6.2. Advantages and disadvantages ................................................................................................................................... 82
5.6.3. Types of constructed wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 82
5.7. Rainwater harvesting solutions ........................................................................................................................................ 85
6. FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF PROJECT “(D)RAIN FOR LIFE” ............................................................................................................................... 87
6.1. Baldone............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
6.1.1. Natural conditions....................................................................................................................................................... 87

6.1.2. Planning conditions ..................................................................................................................................................... 87
6.1.3. Rain water drainage infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 87
6.1.4. Study areas .................................................................................................................................................................. 88
6.1.5. Iecavas Street area ...................................................................................................................................................... 90
6.1.6. Rīgas street area.......................................................................................................................................................... 91
6.1.7. Pilskalna and Skolas streets area ................................................................................................................................ 93
6.2. Riga - Skanste ................................................................................................................................................................... 95
6.2.1. Natural conditions....................................................................................................................................................... 95

6.2.2. Planning situation ....................................................................................................................................................... 95
6.2.3. Rain water drainage infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 96
6.2.4. Proposed urban drainage solutions ............................................................................................................................ 97
6.2.5. Developed systems cost comparison ........................................................................................................................ 105
6.2.6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................... 106
6.3. Parnu .............................................................................................................................................................................. 107
6.3.1. Natural conditions..................................................................................................................................................... 107

6.3.2. Planning conditions ................................................................................................................................................... 108
6.3.3. Urban drainage solutions .......................................................................................................................................... 111
6.4. Võru ................................................................................................................................................................................ 113
6.4.1. Study area ................................................................................................................................................................. 113

6.4.2. Natural conditions..................................................................................................................................................... 114
6.4.3. Planning conditions ................................................................................................................................................... 115
6.4.4. Existing rain water drainage infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 115
6.4.5. Study area catchment runoff .................................................................................................................................... 116
6.4.6. Proposed Urban drainage solutions .......................................................................................................................... 117
7. PROMOTING SUDS THROUGH PLANNING ................................................................................................................................................ 120
3
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The handbook study is prepared within the Estonia-Latvia cross-border cooperation programme project “(D)rain for
life”*, which aims at promoting sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in Latvia and Estonia.
The Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are methods and techniques that mimic natural ecosystem's ways
of handling storm water runoff. The use of these systems have been increasing all over the world as a response to
climate change and resulting increase in extreme rain events as well as the multiple benefits presented by SUDS:
drainage and flooding control, water quality improvement, attractive public space, ecological benefits.
The “(D)rain for life” project has had two main objectives:
1) Develop four specific adapted SUDS solutions for local communities in the local setting of EstLat programme
area;
2) Increase understanding, knowledge and experience with Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Estonia and
Latvia for local communities and a range of stakeholder groups.
The SUDS solutions within the project are developed for the towns of Baldone and Riga in Latvia and Parnu and Võru
in Estonia.
The present handbook summarises general information on SUDS and the rationale for the use of these systems,
summarises feasibility studies prepared within the project as well as provides more detailed information for the
choice and design of these systems. It contains the following main sections:
- general information on SUDS;
- examples of best international practice;
- summary of the feasibility studies prepared within the “(D)rain for life” project;
- outline design for sustainable drainage systems;
- information on specific SUDS techniques;
- guidelines for implementation of SUDS.
The handbook has been prepared by the ”(D)rain for life” project cross-border team: project manager and economist
Jurijs Kondratenko, stormwater systems engineer Daina Ieviņa, environmental engineering expert Valdo Kuusemets,
landscape architects Gen Mandre, Jekaterina Balicka, Iveta Grīviņa, Ilze Rukšāne, hydrology expert Ottar Tamm, local
planning experts Pauls Grants and Dace Bērziņa, assistants Lauri Lokko and Jānis Ķīnasts. The handbook features
input and comments by international engineering consultants Whiteveen+Bos (Jaap Klein, LauraŠterna).
*
Full project title: Promoting Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Estonia-Latvia cross-border area to improve the
environment for active and sustainable communities (short name (D)rain for life, project code EU41702). More informaiton is
available on the project website www.drainforlife.eu.
5
2.GENERAL INFORMATION ON SUDS
2.1. Definition of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
Whereas there is no strict definition what is and what is not sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), they are
widely understood as ‘green’ engineering techniques and design solutions that mimic natural processes of rain water
drainage. They include such techniques as rain sewers, surface drains, swales, rain gardens, filtration strips, open
streams and ponds, detention basins, green roofs, filtration strips etc.
The basic idea of SUDS is not so much in a specific technique as a general design approach, characterised by the
following features:
 Integrated system of managing storm runoff, consisting of a number of treatment stages;
 Ability to handle stormwatrer runoff in extreme rain events;
 Multi-functionality, delivery of other functions (amenity, ecology) by stormwater management measures
and adding water management features to public space elements;
 Cost efficiency and ease of maintenance.
The SUDS concept can also be visualised in the following way:
Amenity and
biodiversity
SUDS
Water Water
quantity quality
Figure 1. Multiple benefits delivered by SUDS
It is evident that in different conditions different types of systems will deliver the features above, for example in a
dense, already built environment the best solution could be the conventional sewer system, whereas in a newly
designed area with generous provision of green areas and public space, the green features would serve best.
However, considering the purpose of the (D)rain for life project and given that the knowledge and experience with
the conventional systems in Estonia and Latvia is quite rich, the handbook will concentrate on the ‘green’ SUDS
techniques, mostly represented by open systems.
2.2. Rationale for using SUDS

Surface runoff is that part of atmospheric precipitation (rain) which does not evaporate through the plants or
infiltrate through the soils. Surface runoff includes water coming from rain events as well as melting snow and ice
water.
6
In the territories where there is almost no vegetation (75-100% are impermeable surfaces) and within territories of
partial vegetation cover (35-50% are impermeable surfaces) approximately 30-55% of precipitation results in fast
and intense surface runoff.
On the other hand, in the natural environment, approximately 10% of the precipitation results as surface runoff.
Considering the ongoing climate change and because of the growing precipitation intensity more urban surface
runoff can lead to flooding.
Figure 2. Precipitation cycle in urban and rural areas
Cities have high density of hard surfaces which promote faster runoff therefore limit natural infilitration and
evaporation. During the last few decades the philosophy of urban drainage management has changed towards more
and more sustainable approach which tends to mimic natural rainwater cycle – where it can get absorbed, retained,
infiltrated and conveyed to open systems and water bodies for later re-use. The practice of urband drainage
planning has finally noticed that rainwater can serve as the central element of high quality public space.
Because precipitation is accumulated from streets, sidewalks, roofs and squares, SUDS implementation completely
includes and integrates landscape architecture, planning and environmental sciences to ensure the quality of the
surface runoff water – it must be as clean as it was precipitated in natural, not man-made areas.
By implementing SUDS it is possible to manage both public and private sector in a unified way to make one and
connected surface water management system. It helps to raise landscape, ecological, easthetical and recreational
value of the urban fabric.
Sustainable urban drainage provides the following benefits:
Improves the ecological health of physical space:
 Tranforms given and existing drainage systems towards more natural cycles;
 Decreases the amount of impermeable surfaces;
 Increases infiltration capacity;
 Decreases the risk of erosion;
 Increases the quality of local microclimate by delivering many ecosystem services (microclimate regulation,
air purifying and filtration etc.);
 Increases the amount of vegetation within the cityscape;
 Decreases the effect of urban heat island;
 Increases biodiversity;
 Decreases ecological footprint;
 Executes water treatment and conserves natural surface water systems;
7
Decreases the load on the physical space:
 Decreases the load on the existing drainage networks and rainwater sewers;
 Decreases the load on traditional water treatment devices, plants;
 Decreases the flooding tisk in historical urban areas;
Increases the quality and health of the social environment in the city:
 Enables the whole community and society to be visually and mentally connected to the open water systems.
Water is no longer something that is kept underground or away from eyes;
 Can be used as recreational areas;
 Promotes collective responsibility about environmental issues and develops civic society;
 Turns attention on issues about urban environment quality;
 Educates society about ecological issues and problems.
8
3.DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SUDS
3.1. Approach of SUDS projects
The design of a SUDS system should not start with the specific technique. Rather, one should start with the system
objectives and understanding of the local situation, including the characteristics of the development/ plan.
The SUDS planning process could be depicted in a diagram:
Ambition / Goals
Integration of
other aspects
Site conditions (landscape,
Local opportunities
traffic, ecology
etc.)
Planned development
Alternatives
Financial
considerations
Masterplan
Figure 3. SUDS planning process
The following site/development factors may influence the SUDS design should be taken into account:
 Catchment area and scale of SUDS system to be designed: local, site or regional;
 Land levels;
 Terrain, site gradient;
 Soil type and infiltration capacity;
 Soil pollution;
 Groundwater levels;
 Rivers, drainage system of the area (design waterlevels);
 Characteristics of the development (density, pollution).
The table below shows a simple matrix evaluating how different SUDS systems perform in different conditions,
summarised from Whitteveen+Bos experience. The SUDS systems are characterised by the routing of runoff
(overland, for example swale or canal VS subsurface, for example drain or sewer) as well as by the type of water
retention (surface water, e.g. pond VS infiltration from land level VS sub-surface infiltration). For example, the
system consisting of swales and ponds would be over land runoff, surface water retention.
The “+” sign means positive performance of a specific system in a particular type of condition, “++” means strongly
positive, “-“ means negative and “--" – strongly negative. “0” means neutral evaluation (not important).
9
Table 1. Performance of different types of SUDS systems in different conditions
Routing of Over land Over land Over land Sub surface Sub surface Sub surface
runoff
Type of water Surface Infiltration Subsurface Surface Infiltration Subsurface
retention water from land infiltration water from land infiltration
level level
Slope/hilly area ++ + + ++ - +
Soil type 0 + + 0 + +
(ability to
infiltrate)
Needed area - -- - ++ - ++
on land level
Needed area ++ ++ 0 - - --
sub surface
Quality public + + 0 - - --
space
Waste in public - -- -- 0 - -
areas
Maintenance + + - + 0 --
Robustness 0 0 - + 0 0
and safety
Sustainability + + + + + +
The table shows that from the overall perspective, given the evaluation factors above, the most positively valued
systems are those with surface or sub-surface routing of runoff and surface water retention. However, in some sites
some conditions will be more important or limiting than others (for example, surface area available), dictating the
choice of specific type of technique.
3.2. Objectives - treatment stages

The SUDS techniques, depending on their location, can be divided into three groups:
1. Source control techniques manage runoff where it falls, for example green roofs, permeable paving,
bioretention, infiltration trenches.
2. Site control features provide rain water management for the site: detention basins, swales and ditches,
ponds etc.
3. Regional control features manage runoff from several sites or a large site and they are designed to provide
most treatment, as they are larger and allow longer retention time – typically ponds and wetlands.
Depending on the site characteristics, type of runoff and the sensitivity of receiving waters1, one or more SUDS
techniques are arranged in a consecutive integrated system. The table below shows guidance on the number of
techniques/treatment stages in different cases.
1
In terms of EU Water framework directive, risk of not achieving objectives of good ecological quality status
10
Table 2. Number of stages of treatment recommended for different kinds of sites (catchments) and water sensitivity
Receiving water of Receiving water of Receiving water of

Type of runoff high sensitivity medium sensitivity low sensitivity
Roofs 1 1 1
Roads / streets of low and medium traffic
3 2 2
intensity, parking areas, commercial zones
Roads / streets with high traffic intensity (e.g.
4 3 3
highways), industrial areas
3.3. Objectives – return period

There are two types of frequencies used for the design of rain sewer system or SUDS – the frequency of design rain
event and the frequency of flooding. Both the storm frequency and the flood frequency may be expressed as a
return period, which is the average period in years between events, or a probability that an event will occur in any
year.
The frequency (or return period) of the design rain event is used in simple calculation methods on the feasibility
stage of SUDS planning (so-called ‘Rational’ method). Such method is also found in the construction regulation in
Latvia and Estonia for rain sewer dimensioning at a design stage (Latvian LBN 223-99 and Estonian EVS 848:2003).
For sewers the design return period is typically 1-2 years. For SUDS the return period is typically 5-10 years. The
reason for this difference is because in sewer design the discharge rate is calculated for maximum runoff, the pipes
are usually designed to run full, without surcharge, for relatively frequent storms in the knowledge that this provides
protection against flooding from much larger storms. At the same time, SUDS provide accumulation volume but the
discharge rate tends to be lower due to longer retention time, therefore the design rain event return period needs to
be higher.
The figure below provides the illustration of this concept using and example of the discharge rate of a sewer system
and SUDS. Please note that this is an example only using typical situation, the actual discharge figures will differ for
each location.
11
90
80
70 Dimensioning SUDS. Approx 24 h rainfall
event; T=10 or T =100
60
50
Rain (mm) T=2
40 T=10
30 T=100
20
Dimensioning Sewer. Approx 1 h rainfall
10 event; T=1 or T =2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (h)
Figure 3. Dimensioning SUDS and sewer system
The grey lines in the chart show the amount of precipitation corresponding to rain events with return period (T) of 2,
10 and 100 years. The black line shows the discharge capacity of a sewer system, dimensioned for rain event with T =
2. The blue line shows the capacity of SUD system dimensioned for rain event with T = 100. It is evident from the
figure that the sewer system will have lower discharge capacity for the first 12 hours of the rain event, causing
surcharge and probably flooding in the rain events with T = 10 or 100. However, after 12 hours the total sewer
discharge is higher than that of the SUDS dimenssioned for T=100. The SUDS in this case is designed with large initial
volume and the discharge rate that is lower than the sewer. The blue line representing total discharge capacity
touches the grey line representing runoff of the rain event with T = 100 in a point with the highest runoff intensity
and then is higher than the grey line, showing that the discharge rate is higher than marginal increase in runoff.
It is therefore very important, while dimensioning SUDS, to take into account longer time period (typically 24 hours)
and pay attention to the discharge rate, so that no flooding will occur for a decided period of time.
The European Standard EN 752:2008 “Drain and sewer systems outside buildings” recommends the following
frequencies for design rain events (in case of simple design methods) and flooding (in case with complex design
methods):
Table 3. Design storm and flloding frequencies as per European Standard EN 752:2008
Location Design storm frequency (simple Design flooding frequency (complex

methods) – return period (1 in “n” design methods) – return period (1
years) in “n” years)
Rural areas 1 in 1 1 in 10
Residential areas 1 in 2 1 in 20
City centres/industrial/commercial 1 in 5 1 in 30
areas
Underground railway/underpasses 1 in 10 1 in 50
12
3.4. Dimensioning calculations at feasibility stage
As opposed to the rain sewer systems, where the dimensioning is done for the maximum runoff for a specific rain
event, in SUDS the calculations should be done both for the dimensioning of conveyance features (sewers, swales,
ditches) as well as retention features (bioretention, ponds, basins). However, first it is needed to estimate the runoff
from a specific subcatchment for a design rain event using the precipitation data and site characteristics (runoff
coefficient).
3.4.1. Local precipitation data

Latvian and Estonian construction norms for rain sewer design (LBN 223-99 in Latvia and EVS 848:2003 in Estonia)
provide formulas to estimate maximum runoff for a specific return period and specific catchment but do not provide
comprehensive rainfall data, which has to be collected and organised locally. A convenient and widely accepted way
to present precipitation data is Intensity-Duration-Frequency tables or charts, where rainfall for a specific rain event
with given return period and duration is shown as precipation (mm) or intensity (l/s/ha).
Below are found IDF tables for Riga, calculated within Life+ project “Riga against flooding”. It should be noted that
the dimensioning of SUDS should account for climate change, therefore both existing climate and near future tables
are shown.
Table 4. Precipitation volume (mm) at different return periods and different durations – existing climate
100 200
2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years
years years
5 min 4.4 6.3 7.5 8.7 11.3 12.4
10 min* 7.1 11.0 13.4 15.8 21.0 23.3
15 min 9.8 15.6 19.3 22.8 30.7 34.1
20 min* 10.7 17.5 21.8 25.8 34.9 38.8
30 min 12.6 21.2 26.7 31.9 43.4 48.3
1h 15.5 26.1 32.7 39.1 53.2 59.2
2h 18.6 29.9 37.1 44.0 59.5 66.0
3h 20.0 31.2 38.5 45.4 60.9 67.5
6h 23.5 35.7 43.6 51.1 68.0 75.3
12h 25.9 37.2 44.7 51.9 68.1 75.0
1d 28.8 40.7 48.6 56.2 73.4 80.7
2d 34.8 46.8 55.0 62.8 80.6 88.3
4d 42.6 54.1 62.1 70.0 87.9 95.7
7d 51.4 62.9 71.2 79.4 98.3 106.5
10d 58.8 72.2 81.8 91.3 113.1 122.6
Source: Riga against flooding project
*
The data for 10 and 20 minutes rain were not available and have been calculated proportionally using data for 5 and 15 and 15
and 30 minutes rains respectively
13
Table 5. Precipitation volume (mm) at different return periods and different durations – near future climate
100 200
2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years
years years
5 min 5.3 7.5 8.9 10.3 13.2 14.5
10 min* 8.6 13.1 15.9 18.6 24.6 27.2
15 min 11.8 18.6 22.9 26.9 36.0 39.9
20 min* 12.9 20.8 25.8 30.5 40.9 45.5
30 min 15.2 25.3 31.6 37.7 50.8 56.5
1h 18.7 31.1 38.7 46.2 62.3 69.3
2h 22.4 35.7 43.9 52.0 69.7 77.3
3h 24.1 37.2 45.6 53.6 71.4 79.0
6h 28.3 42.6 51.6 60.4 79.7 88.2
12h 31.2 44.4 52.9 61.3 79.8 87.8
1d 34.7 48.6 57.6 66.4 86.0 94.5
2d 42.0 55.8 65.1 74.2 94.4 103.4
4d 51.4 64.6 73.6 82.7 103.0 112.0
7d 62.0 75.1 84.3 93.8 115.2 124.7
10d 70.9 86.2 96.9 107.9 132.5 143.5
Table 6. Rainfall intensity (l/s*ha) of different durations at different return periods – existing climate
10 20 100 200
2 years 5 years
years years years years
5 min 146.7 210.0 250.0 290.0 376.7 413.3
10 min 118.3 182.5 223.3 262.5 350.0 387.5
15 min 108.9 173.3 214.4 253.3 341.1 378.9
20 min 89.4 145.6 181.4 215.3 291.1 323.6
30 min 70.0 117.8 148.3 177.2 241.1 268.3
1h 43.1 72.5 90.8 108.6 147.8 164.4
2h 25.8 41.5 51.5 61.1 82.6 91.7
3h 18.5 28.9 35.6 42.0 56.4 62.5
6h 10.9 16.5 20.2 23.7 31.5 34.9
12h 6.0 8.6 10.3 12.0 15.8 17.4
1d 3.3 4.7 5.6 6.5 8.5 9.3
2d 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.7 5.1
4d 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.8
7d 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8
10d 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4
*
The data for 10 and 20 minutes rain were not available and have been calculated proportionally using data for 5 and 15 and 15
and 30 minutes rains respectively
14
Table 7. Rainfall intensity (l/s*ha) of different durations at different return periods (l/s*ha) – near future climate
10 20 100 200
2 years 5 years
years years years years
5 min 176.8 250.6 296.1 342.7 441.3 483.9
10 min 142.7 217.8 264.5 310.2 410.1 453.7
15 min 131.3 206.8 254.0 299.4 399.7 443.6
20 min 107.9 173.7 214.9 254.4 341.1 378.9
30 min 84.4 140.5 175.7 209.4 282.5 314.2
1h 51.9 86.5 107.6 128.3 173.1 192.5
2h 31.1 49.6 61.0 72.2 96.8 107.3
3h 22.3 34.5 42.2 49.7 66.1 73.2
6h 13.1 19.7 23.9 28.0 36.9 40.8
12h 7.2 10.3 12.3 14.2 18.5 20.3
1d 4.0 5.6 6.7 7.7 10.0 10.9
2d 2.4 3.2 3.8 4.3 5.5 6.0
4d 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.4 3.0 3.2
7d 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1
10d 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7
3.4.2. Sub-catchment runoff

For estimating runoff from a specific area, the runoff coefficient needs to be estimated. Table below shows typical
runoff coefficient ψ or C used in the Rational method.
Table 8. Typical runoff coefficients of various types of surfaces
Type of surface Runoff coefficient ψ
Impermeable surfaces 0.9-0.95
Stone blocks 0.45
Compacted gravel 0.3
Gravel 0.2
Grass / lawn 0.1
The runoff coefficient for the specifi catchment is estimated using weighted average of runoff coefficients of
different surfaces. For example, a catchment consisting of half hard surfaces and hald lawn, would have a runoff
coefficient of 0.5.
3.4.3. Estimating runoff and dimensions for conveyance features

In order for conveyance features (sewers, ditches, swales) to be able to contain runoff from a specific catchment,
they need to be dimensioned for the maximums flow, therefore the maximum runoff needs to be estimated for a
specific point in the drainage network. A detailed methodology for determining sewer dimensions is to be found in
Latvian construction norm LBN 223-99 and Estonian construction norm EVS 848:2003, therefore these methods are
not described here in detail. It should be noted, however, that these norms provide precipitation data and
coefficients to estimate runoff for rain events with shorter return periods (up to 1 year). Therefore for larger rain
events, Rational method using IDF tables can be used as illustrated further.
15
The ‘rational method’ uses the following formula for calculating maximum runoff:
Q=q * ψ *F, where
q – is rainfall intensity in l/s/ha, which depends on design rainfall duration, which is assumed equal to the time of
concentration for runoff in subcatchment (or time need for water to travel from the most remote point in the
catchment to the point for which calculation is made); the time of concentration can be estimated by dividing water
travel distance (surface flow, sewer or swale) by the water velocity.
ψ - runoff coefficient
F – catchment area.
Water velocity can be calculated using Colebrook-White formula (for pipes) or Manning formula (for open channels).
Typical water velocities (m/s) are shown in the table below:
Table 9. Typical water velocities
flat Little slope hills
Sewer
Small 300 mm > 0,5-1 1
Medium 500 1 1-1,5 1,5-2
Large 1000 1,5 1,5-2 >2
Swale/ditch
Small 2 m width 0,1 0,2 0,5
Medium 5 m width 0,2 0,2-0,5 0,5-1
Overland flow
Small area (<0,5 ha) 0,1 0,2-0,5 0,5-1
Medium area 0,2-0,5 0,5-1 >1
3.4.4. Estimating dimensions for storage features

The necessary storage can be estimated as the total volume of runoff in a specifi catchment minus discharge to the
receiving water over corresponding time period.
3.4.5. Examples
• 10 ha paved area
• Design rainfall: 30 mm in 1 h; 50 mm in 24 h
• Run off factor 90%

16
• Permeability soil 5 m/day
• Max discharge to the river: 10 mm/day
System 1 (swale and pond)
1. Development
2. Swale
3. Pond
4. River
1
3
2 4
Figure 4. SUDS technique sequence
• Swale (transport)
• Time of concentration : 1 hr
• Discharge: 10*0,9*30(*10)=2700 m3/h
• Retention pond
• Assume 24 hr event detemines design
• Inflow 0,9*50=45 mm
• Outflow 10 mm
• To store 35 mm or 3500 m3
(0,7 ha with 0,5 m rise of water level)
System 2 (infiltration swale)
1. Development
2. Infiltration swale
3. Outlet to river (for extreme events)
17
1
3
Figure 5. SUDS technique sequence
• Infiltration swale
• Inflow
• 1 hr: 0,9*30=27 mm or 2700 m3
• 24 hr: 0,*50=45 mm or 4500 m3
• Area infiltration swale: 0,5 ha
• Infiltration in 1 hr: 5000*5/(2*24)= 520
• To store 2700 – 520 m3= 2180 m3
• Water level rises 0,43 m (2180/5000)
• Infiltration in 24 hr: 5000*5/2= 12500
• More than rain: swale is empty
3.5. System dimensioning – complex methods

The allowable occurrence of flooding depends on the damage flooding may cause, but in the urban areas is typically
between 30 and 100 years.
Considering that hydrology of SUDS is more complex than sewer system, given interplay of conveyance and
retention of water, it is necessary to perform dynamic hydrological modelling of the system in question so that
occurrence of flooding can be calculated.
18
4. BEST INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON SUDS
The chapter contains some examples of SUDS implementation examples in Sweden, Denmark, Germany,
Netherlands and the USA. The examples are chosen by the project “(D)rain for life” experts and some of them
(Sweden and Denmark) were visited during the experience exchange trip organised by the project.The cases
presented illustrate the variety of SUDS approaches and techniques.
4.1. Tanner Springs Park

Location
Portland, Oregon (USA)
Background
The Pearl District is centrally located in the city of Portland, Oregon. Over the last 30 years, it has developed from an
aging industrial quarter into a socially and ethnically diverse neighbourhood with an inspiring atmosphere. The area
was originally a wetland of the Tanner Creek, which is now channelled beneath the street surface. Gradually,
surfaces were paved and the tracks were laid for industry. Following the decline of the industry sector, the city of
Portland decided to redevelop the Pearl District for commercial and residential use. However, because of its
industrial roots, and significant network of railroad infrastructure, the district suffered from a lack of green spaces. A
master plan was developed to counter this shortage of green spaces, while contributing to the overall ecological
revitalization of the city. This concept includes 3 different types of parks that create a green corridor from Portland’s
downtown to the Willamette river in the north. Tanner Springs is one of these green spaces, for which the designers
set two guidelines, “Evoke the feel of a wetland, and make the park a destination for contemplation”
Tanner Springs Park is located in the centre of the Pearl District. Surrounded by residential buildings, the park is
characterized by irregularly shaped open water, alluding to the original marshlands that once existed. In several
areas of this park there are small artificial springs trickling down to a sunken man‐made pond. The pond also is the
key element of the storm water management in this area. Adjacent city sidewalks drain into the pond, where water
is captured and can gradually evaporate. The movement of water from surface sources into the park creates an
inviting environment, especially one of exploration for children.
Type of development
Development of a new public park within the system of whole riverside parks system.
19
Figure 6. Schematic plan of the riverside parks
Area
 0.48ha. Pearl district area: 1.21 km².

 Pearl district population: 1,113 inhabitants (2000).
 Density: 920 persons/km², dense urban area – residential use (mixed with some commercial facilities).
 Importance of water: The Pearl District was a former wetland; The Tanner Creek that was channelled
underground at the beginning of the 20th century, formerly flowed openly through this area.
SUDS design
Overall concept/Master plan: City of Portland, Portland Parks & Recreation Department with landscape architecture
firm Peter Walker & Partners. Design and water concept: Atelier Dreiseitl (planning and design), GreenWorks, P.C.
(supervision). Consultants: KPFF Consulting Engineers (civil engineers), CMS Collaborative, Inc. (water feature
consultant), Cooke Scientific Services (wetland ecologist), R&W Engineering (electrical engineer).
Site conditions
Soil conditions – unknown
Land levels - Precise information on terrain specifics is unknown but the area is merely flat.
Hydrological conditions - area is based near Willamete River (Portland`s connection to Pacific ocean). Annual rainfall
do not exceed 940mm and underground geological conditions do not allow water infiltration.
Sustainable urban drainage techniques implemented
The project has been implemented.
20
Tanner Springs Park manages runoff from adjacent sidewalks making an at least small contribution to the
redevelopment of the natural water cycle. Narrow channels and a leaf‐shaped glass roof collect the water and lead it
to the lower pond, where water is captured and pumped back up to a spring, then returned to the pond.
Figure 7. SUDS concept
Along its course, water is absorbed by soil, ensuring flourishing plants in the surrounding marshes. Standing water
also serves to improve the area’s microclimate through evaporation. During extreme rainfall events, excess runoff
overflows into the sewer system. Considering the potential for rainwater management in such a system, more
surface runoff could ideally have been connected (e.g. water from the rooftops of the surrounding area).
Through the use of urban materials such as concrete, metal, and glass the park fits successfully into the surrounding
context of modern mixed use buildings. The designers understood how to blend these modern materials with the
naturally designed marshland. As part of the green corridor linking the Pearl District to the Willamette river in the
north, the park contributes to the amenity and liveability of the whole Pearl District.
21
Figure 8. SUDS implemented in Tanner Springs Park (www.museumofthecity.org)
Tanner Springs Park’s storm water management techniques are designed in consideration of local conditions.
Because rainwater infiltration is not possible in the area, all storm water is collected in the centrally located pond,
which is naturally designed to be a habitat for wildlife and calculated for evaporation. Sidewalks surrounding Tanner
Springs Park slope toward the landscaped area rather than toward the street. This approach is unusual for Portland
and most cities where sidewalks are generally sloped toward the street. To prevent water from stagnating, it is
regularly pumped to a spring in the west of the park, where it then flows through rivulets back into the pond. Water
is cleaned via the planted biotope, which filters water and extracts nutrients. Overall, it is a simple system that works
very well.
Motivation for SUDS
Project has been realised to contribute water accessibility in the city as much as to create an urban space for
residents to relax, sunbathe etc.
Experience
5 years after its realisation the park is in well-maintained state. The park has three different maintenance areas - a
lawn in the west that requires regular mowing and clearing, a planted section along the water that requires clearing
and trimming, and the pond which requires occasional pumping for waste removal. The planners did not develop an
overall maintenance concept but listed the main requirements for the appropriate upkeep of the park as
recommendations. Maintenance is ensured by Portland's Parks & Recreation department. It is assisted by volunteers
from the association Friends of Tanner Springs. For the area with natural, native vegetation that requires special
knowledge for appropriate maintenance, the Parks & Recreation department has hired a skilled landscaping firm.
Storm water management could have been implemented more successfully by gathering the storm water runoff
from a larger area, but the park was constructed when the master plan was already in place, therefore a more
comprehensive storm water management was not practical.
22
Tanner Springs Park was successful in creating a thriving urban space. The residents use the park for relaxing,
sunbathing, playing music, reading, and more. The bridge acts as a meeting space and streams encourage
exploration. At the same time the new marsh, pond, and meadowland form a diverse habitat for some of the original
inhabitants of the area (animals and plants of the marshes).
Tanner Springs Park is a good example of how decentralised storm water management can be realized in a public
park setting, and how measures for decentralised storm water management can lead to an attractive design. Project
planning and implementation was well considered and is an exceptional case study for future projects. However, it
should be noted that just like the marsh pond in Tanner Springs Park, measures should be carefully selected for
public appeal and functionality. An ideal for each site and situation exists, and it is the task of the designers and
stakeholders to find a balance between storm water management and urban design.
4.2. Hohlgrabenäcker
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Background
The main aim for developing this area is to create a building site that is sustainable and fulfils the requirements
established by water‐related legislation in Baden‐Württemberg (Stuttgart is the capital of the state of Baden‐
Württemberg) and by Stuttgart city council while considering local hydrological conditions.
Baden‐Württemberg's water act (article 45 b, para. 3) requires on‐site storm water infiltration or the separate
drainage of storm water for all new sites. Moreover, the municipality of Stuttgart required the reduction of storm
water runoff from the new Hohlgrabenäcker site to a maximum of 30%, because of the limited capacity of existing
sewers in this area. To fulfil these requirements, planners worked on a concept that could manage as much storm
water as possible on‐site.
Type of development
New residential housing development, single-family housing (detached, semi‐detached and row houses), 9 buildings
with apartments) in former agricultural area.
Area
 17.6ha, green roof area: 18,300 m²

 Population/Density: Semi‐dense site with 265 private homes and 9 apartment buildings.
 Importance of water: Legal and municipal requirements have restricted storm water flow from the
development site to the public sewer system to 30%.
SUDS design
Development plan: STEG Stadtentwicklung GmbH, Stuttgart (urban planning). Storm water management concept
and overall design: diem.baker GbR (water engineering).
Landscape concept and design: Planstatt Johann Senner (landscape architecture). Building design and specific storm
water management design on site level (incl. green roofs and cisterns): different architects.
Site conditions
Soil conditions - the upper layer are predominantly cohesive and homogenous, and they are therefore unsuitable for
storm water infiltration.
Land levels (topography) - steep hillsides (sometimes with a gradient of over 10%) were an additional barrier for the
application of surface storm water infiltration techniques.
Hydrological conditions - annual rainfall is ~ 719mm, nearby is the stream of Feuerbach. Groundwater levels is
unknown.
Sustainable urban drainage
23
Stage – built
Figure 9. Single houses equipped with green roofs
Description of SUDS in this project

A combination of different elements for decentralised storm water management was initiated: Green roofs, cisterns
and pervious pavement:
 Green roofs: to minimise runoff, detain water and cooling. Roof layer depth - 12 cm, total green roofs area - 0.18
ha.
 Underground cisterns: collects water from roofs and paved areas, overflows to storm water sewer in case of an
extreme event, water can be reused for irrigation, flushing toilets and washing clothes;
 Public areas – drainage is organized via a new storm water sewer that directly discharges into the receiving
watercourse, the Feuerbach stream. To reduce soil sealing as much as possible, public streets and paths are
restricted to a minimum and pervious pavement has been applied where possible;
 The storm water facilities have been designed to cope with a severe storm water event that is statistically likely
to happen once every 5 years - when there are more intense rains, the secure control system protects the area
from flooding by leading all additional water, which exceeds the capacity of the green roofs and cisterns, directly
to the receiving watercourse.
Because all rainwater is managed as close to the source as possible, the natural hydrological cycle of the former
agricultural area has been preserved. By implementing 18,300 m² of green roofs, installing 56 cisterns, and using
pervious pavements for streets and paths, almost all storm water of the area can be managed on site. Moreover,
paved surfaces are reduced to a minimum. In consequence, only a small amount of storm water needs to be drained
to a separate storm water sewer that directly discharges into a receiving watercourse very close to the housing
development. The rainwater collected in cisterns is used locally for irrigation and other domestic purposes, while
green roofs serve as local rainwater storage and detention measure, also cooling the space through
evapotranspiration and preserving natural habitat.
24
Figure 10. Standard cross-section of pervious pavement on streets and paths
Hohlgrabenäcker has difficult conditions for storm water management, particularly for storm water infiltration.
Therefore, it was a challenge to find the appropriate design for the storm water system in order to achieve the goal
of an overall run‐off rate of only 30% from the whole area. There was intensive planning to find the right
combination of measures. Additionally, the appropriate design of these measures played a critical role in the success
of the overall system (e.g. substrate depth of green roofs, but also the development of a special layer composition
for pervious pavement allowing temporary storage and slow infiltration underneath surfaces).
For all measures, planners calculated the appropriate design and capacity, including a control system to prevent
flooding. However, the final design of green roofs and cisterns is part of the planning that is done by individual
architects. To ensure the appropriate functioning of these systems for storm water management in the entire
district, the designs from individual architects have to be checked by the chief storm water management designer
diem.baker GbR.
All features of the storm water system are integrated in the settlement in such a way that there are no restrictions
on use. Cisterns are located below ground and greenery on roofs utilizes space that is normally not used. It was the
planners' aim to find a system that did not take up much space in public areas to preserve space for real estate.
However, opportunities to use decentralised storm water management techniques to create multifunctional spaces
have not been taken up.
Motivation for SUDS

Baden-Württemberg's water act requires on-site storm water infiltration or separate drainage of storm water for all
new sites. Also this project saves costs of storm water management through the application of green roofs, cisterns
and pervious pavement (instead of enlarging sewer system).
The main aim of implementing storm water management methods was not to improve the quality of life in
Hohlgrabenäcker. Aesthetic benefits came about more by chance. Nevertheless, green roofs help to create a healthy
living environment and contribute to the appearance of the entire housing development to an extent that should not
be underestimated. The hillside situation of the district even encourages widespread view on rooftops and is
25
therefore an ideal place to use the aesthetics of green roofs. Furthermore residents become aware of rainwater as a
resource through drinking water savings and visible water retention in cisterns.
Experience
An economic comparison showed that whole-life costs for the decentralised solution, which includes investment
costs and running costs, are less than the costs for conventional solutions for storm water management in the area.
Maintenance of storm water facilities is shared between the city and private owners, but there is no overall monitor
to ensure professionalism or guarantee functionality.
Hohlgrabenäcker is a pioneer in ecological storm water management for new building developments in Stuttgart. It
is the first project in the city and beyond that manages storm water primarily via the application of green roofs. The
idea of green roofs is not new, but up until now it has mainly been used for protecting natural resources (e.g. to
reduce new developments' negative impact on the environment) rather than for storm water management or urban
drainage. As a result, green roofs have been installed where possible, but their full potential was not realized.
Planners at Hohlgrabenäcker however showed that green roofs can be a significant part of a storm water
management system and are more than an ecological feature for new housing developments. This will have positive
impact on future projects in the City of Stuttgart and beyond.
Hohlgrabenäcker shows that sustainable storm water management can be implemented even under difficult basic
conditions and that costs can be less than those of conventional solutions when water management and urban
planning cooperate, and when options are carefully considered to find the right combination of measures for private
and public properties. To make this approach a successful one, it is important to carefully research possible
measures, combine features, and model rainwater scenarios. It is also necessary to bear costs in mind and develop
cost‐effective strategies when necessary, i.e. choosing space‐saving measures or measures that make spaces more
attractive and usable. In this case, the key factors in the economic advantage of the decentralised solution over the
conventional solution is that decentralised measures do not take up as much space and that the city supports
natural storm water management within the storm water fee system. This exact situation cannot be directly
propagated due to unique nature of local regulations, but what cities can learn from the project is that it can be
worthwhile investing in searching for both the most effective and the most sustainable solution for urban storm
water management.
4.3. Trabrennbahn Farmsen

Location
Hambrug, Germany.
Background
The residential area Trabrennbahn Farmsen is situated in the northeast of Hamburg (Germany) and has a long
history. Formerly a brickyard in the 19th century, the area was transformed into a racetrack for harness from
1911‐1976. During that time, the area became a national attraction (GATOR n. d.). Since 1965, the site has been part
of the property of the Herz family.
With the decline of the tradition of horse racing, the harness racetrack was abandoned in 1976 and was not used for
a long time. At the beginning of the 1990s, the municipality of Hamburg decided to develop the area for residential
use. Due to long standing vacancy, the area was revisited by nature and become a place of high ecological value
(FIBICH & MERTINS 2000). A competition for the redevelopment of the area was announced in 1992. A planning
team consisting of PPL (urban design and architecture) and L+O Dresel‐Gurr‐Herbst (landscape architecture) won this
competition. The final landscape and water concept was designed by Kontor Freiraumplanung.
26
Figure 11. Former racetrack is echoed be the oval layout of the buildings
Type of development
Newly developed residential area in the district of Green Hamburg.
Figure 12. Aerial view and scheme of the development
Area
 15.1ha. Water surface area: 1.7 ha

 Population: 1,158 flat units.
 Density: 2,757 inhabitants/km² (district Farmsen‐Berne).
 Importance of water: Open drainage system follows the track of the former harness racetrack; existing
ponds in the centre of the quarter are a relic of the former brickyard and now used for retention of storm
water; due to the low permeability of the underground storm water infiltration is not possible.
27
SUDS design
Financed by Herz family, GATOR Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH. Concept: PPL Planungsbüro Professor Laage, NPS und
Partner GbR, Hamburg (urban design, architecture), L+O Dresel‐Gurr‐Herbst (landscape architecture). Water and
Landscape Design: KFP ‐ Kontor Freiraumplanung, Hamburg (landscape architecture). Consultants: wfw ‐ Nordconsult
GmbH, Hamburg (traffic concept); Schnittger Architekten, Kiel, NPS und Partner GbR, Hamburg (construction
supervision); Bezirk Wandsbek (urban administration)
Site conditions
Soil conditions - characterized by geest, which is composed by sandy soil above layers of loam and clay with little
infiltration capacity.
Land levels (topography) - flat area.
Hydrological conditions - annual rainfall 770mm. Area situated between watercourses of Wandse, Berner Au and
Osterbek. Ground water level is unknown.
All storm water from the streets and roofs of the buildings is gathered in a system, consisting of grassed swales, two
metres wide, artificially shaped storm water channels, and two retention ponds. Water collection starts at the outer
circle where water from rooftops and streets is gathered in swales. Running between buildings, these grassed swales
head towards open drainage channels that run alongside the pedestrian promenade. These storm water channels
collect all storm water from the swales. Barrages in the channels ensure stable water levels for permanent visual
amenity. When water exceeds the height of those barrages it is then led to central ponds that serve as final water
collection and retention basins in this system. Overflow from the ponds goes into the receiving water body
Hopfengraben to the southwest, and from there into the Osterbek stream.
Taking the ecological criteria into account was a strong priority during the planning of the area. The ecological design
supports water retention and biotopes serve the initial treatment of rainwater from streets and rooftops.
Motivation for SUDS
Project is realised for application of open urban water drainage system as well as to reflect the history of the site and
decentralise storm water management. Contribution to the ecological design also is a key factor. Maintaining the
previously existing natural state of the site is a part from reflection of the history.
Experience
Ten years after its creation the site is in a well-maintained state, upkeep by professional landscape gardeners.
Systems costs are roughly expected to be moderately higher than a conventional storm water management system.
However, when coupled with the recreational and aesthetic amenity of the project, the costs can be considered
feasible.
28
Figure 13. Existing situation
Trabrennbahn Farmsen shows how urban design and water management go hand in hand to create a liveable
sustainable settlement. The highlight of the design is flexibility and variety. Concrete edges transition to soft natural
shapes, each linked to the use and character of the space. This creates an attractive and exciting living environment
for residents. When people walk around, they can experience ever‐changing surroundings ranging from dense‐urban
to open‐quasi‐rural space. Equally important, the quarter excellently manages storm water, adapting to local
conditions such as soil permeability and downhill gradient.
Other cities can learn from Trabrennbahn Farmsen that decentralised storm water management techniques can
come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Furthermore, methods can be adapted to emphasize or even influence
environments. There are a lot of planners working with swales and drains for decentralised storm water
management. Too often the implemented techniques are boring – because the surrounding area and context is not
taken into consideration. Trabrennbahn Farmsen clearly shows that these elements can be used to create an
inspiring and attractive atmosphere with real variety in shape, width, depth and landscaping.
4.4. Drainage plan Borgele

Location
Borgele (the Netherlands)
Type of development
Project takes a place in urban area which is planned to be redeveloped with shopping centre and new residential
housing. Presently the area is connected to a combined (mixed) sewer resulting in likely flooding in extreme weather
events.
Area
2.95ha
SUDS design
Witteveen + Bos (the Netherlands)
29
Site conditions
Soil is fine and sandy within up to 1m thick clay layer at the depth of 2.5m below surface. Permeability is defined as
1.2meters per day (relatively rapid permeability).
Land levels (topography)

Area can be described as flat (5.3-5.9m above the sea level).
Hydrological conditions
River (canal) of De Wetering is located nearby. Ground water level is 1.8m below surface.

Stage of the project as of December 2011: concept developed, design ongoing.

System is to be implemented as separate sewage and storm water system in which approximately 75% of the paved
surface is disconnected from the combined sewer system. Storm water drainage and detention is planned to
function the following way (see figure below):
 Buildings (area1) – for retention (filtration of pollution and infiltration) storm water is to be drained to
swales;
 Parking lots – implementation of infiltration sewerage (perforated pipes under the parking lots will be used
to infiltrate the water; see photo);
 Private (residential) housing – storm water infiltration on the site with the infiltration crates.
30
Swales
Infiltration at private area
Infiltration sewerage (permeable paving and perforated pipes)
Combined (mixed) system
Roofs to be disconnected from combined sewer system
Roadside infiltration
Figure 14. SUDS techniques layout in Borgele site
Return period for the SUDS system: 2 years. For a return period of 100 years parking lots and streets will temporary
flood (10-20 cm) but buildings will stay dry.
Figure 15. Perforated pipes used in the SUDS system
31
Motivation for SUDS
Project is planned to contribute to the living with urban water and to maximise water infiltration in to the soil as well
as disconnect from the combined sewerage system.
Experience
Not yet implemented (as of December 2011).
4.5. Ruwenbos
Location
Enschede, the Netherlands
Type of development
Newly developed residential area.
Area
20ha
SUDS design
TAUW
Site conditions
Fine sandy soil with some loam. Moderate permeability.

Terrain of the area is flat (some artificially made accents).
No large rivers in the area, some ponds and a canal along the south side. Ground water level 0.5-1.0m below surface.
Stage of the project

Built.

First swale system in the Netherlands. Swales were filled with coarse sand. Perforated pipes in swale as backup
system.
32
Return period for the SUDS system (design): 25 years.
Figure 16. The scheme of the SUDS system
Legend:
1) Rain water harvesting for further re-use (watering)
2), 3) Road
4) Swale
5) Coarse sand filling
6) Perforated pipe (above ground water level)
Figure 17 and 18. Old and new system
Figure 19 and 20. The SUDS system in summer and winter
33
Figure 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Overland runoff in the streets
Motivation for SUDS

To prevent the discharge of rain water to waste water treatment plant. Also to contribute to the idea of living with
water and maximise water infiltration into the soil.
Experience
Approximately 15 year of experience. Most important results from evaluation in 2006:
 Maintenance is important: in dry conditions, slopes not more than 1:3;
 Construction costs are lower than traditional systems, maintenance is more expensive;
 Some pollution from runoff from roads. Most pollutions are filtered at the top layer of the swale and result in
higher concentrations in the soil;
 Inhabitants were questioned about their experiences. They are positive about the system
 System takes care of the soil and hydrological conditions (permeability, groundwater level).
4.6. Het Meer

Location
Kampen, the Netherlands
Type of development
Newly developed residential area.
34
Area
25ha
SUDS design
Witteveen + Bos (the Netherlands)
Soil conditions
Top layer - clay, moderately silt, hummus. Middle layer - peat, deepest layer - clay and sand. Moderate to slow
permeability.

Area situated approximately at the mean sea level. Ground water level is ~0.8-0.9m below surface.

Project is built.

Grassed swales, infiltration sewerage and retention pond. Sand filters at the end of swales ensure water quality. The
residential area has insufficient storage capacity. Therefore the nearby planned ice skating will also function as water
retention.
Return period for the sewers in the SUDS system: 2 years. For surface watersystem (Canals, swales): 100 years.
35
Figure 28. The scheme of SUDS in Het Meer
Motivation for SUDS

Swale will filter water and also prevent already existing buildings from flooding.
Experience
Recently built.
4.7. Coohen Nord

Location
Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Type of development
Redevelopment of urban area with shops, offices and housing. High density mixed use.
36
Figure 29. The layout of the development and SUDS
Area
6.1ha.
SUDS design
Witteveen + Bos (the Netherlands).
Soil conditions
Sandy soils.

Flat terrain with small accents allowing surface runoff in certain places (some hummocks). Terrain between 15 and
25m above sea level.
Area placed along the river of Rhine. Mean water level - 8.5m above sea level. Max level – 14.5m above sea level.

Design.

Runoff in open gully (integrated within the road) towards an open water. Infiltration swales just outside the area.
37
Figure 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. SUDS techniques used in the project
Motivation for SUDS

Lack of the space in the area. Existing slope makes surface runoff possible plus soils carry good infiltration
circumstances and the river of Rhine is nearby.
38
Experience
Design stage – no maintenance experience yet.
4.8. Eco-city Augustenborg
Location
Augustenborg, Malmo, Sweden
Background and type of development
Augustenborg is a 20 ha large residential neighbourhood close to Malmo city centre. Area has been developed in the
1950`s as 3-6 storeys apartment blocks, modern at that time. After two decades in 1970`s when the trend started for
the more wealthy people to move out to the suburbs, the area started to degrade, attracting more and more socially
disadvantaged people, as a result in the mid-80’s the area was considered as a degraded area with high crime and
unemployment rate. In mid-1990`s project „Eco-city Augustenborg” was initiated to turn Augustenborg into more
attractive area by applying sustainable design and building methods and active community involvement. One part of
the project has been sustainable rainwater management system.
All storm water from the Augustenborg settlement prior to redevelopment was handled in a combined sewer
system, in which storm water and sanitary sewage water is running off in the same pipe. The combined sewer
system was heavily overloaded, which resulted in frequent basement ﬂoods during periods of intensive rainfall.
Area
20ha
SUDS design
MKB housing company / Malmo service administration / Malmo Water.
Sustainable urban drainage features
The main principle of the SUDS in Augustenborg is that rainwater runoff is handled with as close to the source as
possible, handling the rest of the water in an open system. The SUDS include green roofs, canals, swales, ponds,
permeable pavements flooding.
The entire system can be dissected into several parts:

 Augustenborg botanical green roof garden;
 The central drainage corridor;
 Lonngatan drainage corridor;
The corridors include a cascade of techniques ensuring several stages of treatment. They include source control
features such as green roofs and local infiltration in lawns and permeable pavement, conveyance features for lsow
water transport such as canals and swales and retention features such as ponds and basins.
39
Figure 37. Settlement of Augustenborg and location of SUDS features
Legend:
Augustenborg botanical green roof garden (1);
The central drainage corridor (2), (4), (6), (8), (10), (11);
Lonngatan drainage corridor (13), (14), (15), (16);
Other examples of local disposal of storm water (7), (9), (12) and (17).
The following illustrations show a variety of SUDS features in Augustenborg:
1. Green roofs
Figure 38. Aerial view of green roof garden Figure 39. Extensive green roof
40
Figure 40. Herb garden on a rooftop Figure 41. Intensive green roof with a memorial cascade
2. Canals and swales
Figure 42. Bioswale Figure 43. Surface drain with ‘water drops’that provide additional
aeration
Figure 44. Concrete canal in central drainage corridor, coveying Figure 45. Stone cube canal
stormwater to a pond
Figure 46. Meandering swale with concrete blocks that provide Figure 47. Open drains
additional aeration
41
Figure 48. Meandering infiltration swale Figure 49. Grassy swale
Figure 50. Bioswale with landscaping features in Lonngatan Figure 51. Bioswale in Lonngatan drainage corridor
drainage corridor
Figure 52. Open canal in Lonngatan drainage corridor Figure 53. Open canal in Lonngatan drainage corridor
3. Ponds and basins
Figure 54. Upper part of a double pond in the Central drainage Figure 55. Shallow swale that connects upper and lower pond of
corridor Central drainage corridor, the area in between the ponds can be
temporarily flooded during large rain events to provide additional
storage
42
Figure 56. Lower part of a double pond of Central drainage Figure 57. Amphitheatre in a school backyard that acts as a
corridor (water level 40 cm lower), additional water aeration detention basin during large rain events
provided by a fountain, the water is pumped back into the upper
ponds
Figure 58. Pond located in the Lonngatan drainage corridor, Figure 59. Small pond concluding the Central drainage corridor. The
downstream the swales and canals. The water is pumped back water level tends to be low due to small amount of water reaching
into canal rto provide additional aeration. The overflow is the pond, as a result algal blooms occur
connected with the rain sewer system.
Motivation for SUDS
Flooding risk, aesthetics (amenity of the place), contribution to the sustainable development and urban design.
Experience
Positive, appreciated by community. The unique feature of the project is community involvement at the design and
implementation stage: the inhabitants were consulted on the choice of SUDS features, their best location as well as
most effective way of maintening the SUDS.
4.9. Fjärilsparken Eco-corridor

Location
Malmo, Sweden
Background
The vision of creating an open drainage corridor was developed in collaboration between Malmo Water, the
department of Parks & City Environment and the department of Planning. The basic idea was to form a green
corridor through the urban area, which could be used for park, recreation and drainage purposes – a so called “eco-
corridor”. The idea of establishing an eco-corridor was introduced already in the comprehensive plan for Malmö
from year 2000.
43
Figure 60. Illustration of planned eco-corridors in the comprehensive plan of Malmo
Type of development
The realisation of the project was carried out in the following phrases:
 The western part of corridor through existing development (housing);
 The eastern part of corridor through planned new developments (housing, mixed use).
Area
1.5km long corridor
SUDS design
Malmo Water, the department of Parks & City Environment and the department of Planning.
Site conditions
Soil conditions – soils in the area can be described as sandy
Land levels – flat, some parts artificially raised by landscape architecture.
Hydrological conditions – unknown
Stage of the project – built in 2001.
Description of SUDS in this project - Western part - The water-way through the existing park Fjärilsparken was given
the form of a shallow meandering creek with gentle slopes. Walking paths were laid out along the water-way
including also small wooden bridges, benches, places to meet and a playing ground for children. The area around the
water-way was planted with meadow vegetation. Previous traditional park lawns were transformed into flower
44
meadows. At the downstream end of the Fjärilsparken Eco-Corridor, where the new water-way meets the existing
nature reserve along the coast, a small wetland was laid out.
Figure 61 and 62. Fjärilsparken Eco-Corridor
Eastern part - The eco-corridor was given the form of a giant swale with a width of about 50 metres and a depth of
2–3 metres. This depth was needed to get gravity flow from the upstream end of the corridor. The design was made
so that flows from a 100-years storm could be handled in the system. For normal rainfall events only the bottom of
the swale is utilized for the drainage of storm water. For small rainfalls very little water is actually running off in the
eco-corridor.
Motivation for SUDS
To handle the storm water from the planned new developments further inland it was decided to create an open
drainage corridor from the water meadows at the coast through the existing development and through the new
developments.
Experience
The design and implementation of the Fjärilsparken Eco-Corridor is a good example of how sustainable urban
drainage can be integrated in the physical planning of the city. The idea of an open drainage corridor was introduced
already in the city’s comprehensive plan and the design and implementation was carried out with active involvement
of all technical departments in the city. An important prerequisite for the successful result was that the planning
period was extended over several years. This gave the involved parties possibilities to join forces and integrate their
different expertise in the elaboration of a thoroughly worked out detailed plan for the eco-corridor.
4.10. Vastra Hamnen

Location
Malmo, Sweden.
45
Figure 63. Visualisation of the Vastra Hamnen area
Background
In the late 1990ies it was decided that an international housing exhibition was to be arranged in Malmö in the year
2001. The selected location for the housing exhibition was on the western part of the former wharf area in the
district of Western Harbour. The exhibition area is in the west delimited by the sea. In the eastern part of the area a
saltwater canal was constructed, which is fed with sea water through a pump system. To plan a new development
offers unique possibilities to apply innovative techniques for handling the stormwater runoff. The basic concept that
was chosen for the Bo 01 area was to visualize the drainage by creating an open system with such qualities that it
could give added aesthetic and environmental values to the area. The great challenge was that the whole area was
very densely developed with very limited open green spaces.
Type of development
New housing development.
Area
140ha
SUDS design
Malmo municipality
Site conditions
Soil conditions – unknown
Land levels - area is flat (artificialy raised in the middle of the area)
Hydrological conditions – high groundwater level (sea is nearby)
46
Stage of the project – project is built
Description of SUDS in this project - special collection chambers pumping water back to higher aquapoints, small
open drainage canals (one on each side of the street, designed for rainfall return period of 5 years), permeable
pavements, detention ponds, „green area system”:
 Green roofs;
 Vegetated walls;
 Vegetated surfaces in the private yards;
 Ponds and wetlands in the private yards.
Figure 64, 65 and 66. Green pockets made as rain gardens or wetlands
Figure 67 and 68. Surface drains near the buildings and permeable pavement
47
Figure 69 and 70. Rainwater wetlands
Figure 71 and 72. Seawater canal through the residential development
Figure 73 and 74. SUDS solutions featuring interactive water presentation
48
Motivation for SUDS
Urban renewal of the degredated neighbourhood (area). The great challenge was that the whole area was very
densely developed with very limited open green spaces.
Experience
Positive. Many people point out that the drainage system gives a unique character ro whole settlement. Problems –
litter and debris. In all open drainage systems there is a tendency that sand, litter and debris is accumulated. Most of
this material are brought to the drainage canals by the wind. People seem to agree that the amount of litter and
debris in the street environment has nothing to do with whether the drainage system is open or not. In an open
system the litter and debris is more visible. In the case of a traditional buried pipe system the litter and debris would
instead end up in gutters, hedges and other places.
4.11. Rabalder Parken

Location
Musicon, Roskilde, Denmark.
Type of development
Skateboarding and active recreation park on the site of former concrete factory.
Area
~2ha
Site conditions
Soil conditions – contaminated soil due to former industrial activity
Land levels – hilly
Hydrological conditions – rain water not allowable into soil due to possible groundwater contamination
Sustainable urban drainage solutions
On the site of the former concrete factory, a new park is created featuring skateboarding facilities that are combined
with rainwater storage facility for extreme rain event. The park features 440m long canals/half-pipes made of
concrete and asphalt and 3 basins, one of which is a concrete skateboarding ‘bowl’. The total water storage volume
of the three basins is 23 000 m3. The canals and basins are made impermeable to avoid water infiltration and further
groundwater contamination (soils are polluted on site due to former industrial activity). The park will act as a
regional stormwater facility for the wider area, by connecting rain sewers and swales in the surrounding streets. The
total cost of the facility is 4 millions EUR, part of which is co-financed by the water companies.
49
Figure 75. The layout of the Rabalder Parken including canals and basins
Figure 76. Aerial view of the Rabalder Parken including canals and basins
50
Sustainable urban drainage solutions
Description of SUDS in this project - rain gardens implemented in private yards and in street profiles, overflow to the
local road, infiltration on the local road and green roof on the Stadionhal 1. Designed and dimensioned for 2 year
rain event (for roofs), 5 year rain event (for gardens), 10 year rain event (for ditches) and 1000 year event (for the
football field (Brondbyvester school: the Grey school yard)).
Water company co-financed building of the rain gardens in the private backyards.
Figure 77. Rainwater canal and nearby path leading to the basins
Figure 78 and 79. Skateboarding ‘bowl’
51
Figure 80 and 81. ‘Water steps’ designed as a rest area and a basin
Figure 82 and 83. Paved basin and canal
4.12. Rain gardens in Lindevang, Brondby

Location
Brondby, Denmark.
Type of development
Existing housing and public services (low storeys private houses, schools, sporting halls).
Area
~5ha
SUDS design
By Brondby Kloakforsyning A/S, Spildevandscenter Avedore and Brondby Kommune.

Site conditions
Soil conditions – sandy soils suitable for infiltration
Land levels – flat
Hydrological conditions – groundwater levele suitable for infiltration

52
Stage of the project – established in autumn 2011 till spring 2012, built.
Description of SUDS in this project - rain gardens implemented in private yards and in street profiles, overflow to the
local road, infiltration on the local road and green roof on the Stadionhal 1. Designed and dimensioned for 2 year
rain event (for roofs), 5 year rain event (for gardens), 10 year rain event (for ditches) and 1000 year event (for the
football field (Brondbyvester school: the Grey school yard)).
Water company co-financed building of the rain gardens in the private backyards.
Figure 84. Rain garden in the street
Figure 85 and 86. Rain gardens in private backyards
53
Figure 87. Children playground as SUDS
Motivation for SUDS
Disconnection of downspouts from the combined sewer system.

Experience
Positive. The cost of individual rain gardens may be high compared to the larger scale techniques.
4.13. Vilhelm Thomsens Alee

Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Type of development
Existing residential building
Area
~0.3 ha
SUDS design
Niels Lützen Landskabsarkitekter, h-jh Rådgivende Ingeniører A/S.

Site conditions
Soil conditions – sandy soils suitable for infiltration
Land levels – flat
Hydrological conditions – groundwater level suitable for infiltration
Stage of the project – built in 2012.
54
The residential building located in Vilhelm Thomsens alle experienced regular flooding during extreme rain events.
The housing cooperative in cooperation with Kobenhavs energi and Copenhagen municipality ordered the design
and construction of various SUDS techniques to handle and infiltrate runoff from extreme rain events. The
implemented SUDS techniques include green roofs, infiltration cassettes, rain gardens (bio-swales), permeable
paving. Infiltration cassettes are build into the inner courtyard of the building, as well as into open spaces outside
the building. The system is designed to handle on site 100% of the 10 year runoff.
The largest rain water storage capacity is located in the buried cartridges albeit only during very heavy rain those will
be filled. For an ordinary rain water will only reach rain gardens, from which it will percolate or evaporate.
There are in total 902 cassettes installed wuth the volume of 184.3 m3.
The total cost of the project was 1.7 mil EUR, incl. 0.4 mil EUR grant from Kobenhavns energi.
Figure 88. Scheme showing the location of the SUDS techniques in the Vilhelm Thomsens alee
55
Figure 89 and 90. The inner courtyard, infiltration cassettes buried under the children playground
Figure 91 and 92. Public area outside the residential building, with permeable paving and infiltration casettes under the lawn
Figure 93 and 94. Rain gardens / bio-swales in the open areas
56
5. SPECIFIC SUDS FEATURES
5.1. Swales / ditches / drains
5.1.1. General description
Ditches, swales and drains are used for collection and surface water conveyance, water filtration as well as water
storage, depending on the physical dimensions. Water velocity in ditches, swales and drains is lower than that of the
sewer and is typically between 0.1 and 0.5 m/s and should not exceed 1 m/s to avoid erosion.
Ditches and swales are similar by design. Only depth and shape distinguishes ditches from swales. A ditch is an
excavation of certain (mainly trapezoid) form that is at least 0.5 m deep, shallower ones are called swales, which
typically have trapezoid or oval shape. Drains are typically even smaller water conveyance structures of rectangular
or oval shape and are normally constructed with hard materials: concrete, asphalt, blocks, boulders etc. Drains are
more widespread in dense urban areas where hard surfaces are prevalent.
Ditches / swales / drains are typically designed as straight sections but where space allows can be built with artificial
meanders mimicking a natural water course. Also, plants and rocks can be added to enhance visual attractiveness,
reduce velocity of water and provide more filtration.
Banks of ditches and swales are usually grass-covered and need to be regularly mowed. If ditches are to be planted
with greenery, then it is necessary to study which types of plants grow best, choosing humidity loving species that
are easy to weed out and that treat the ditch water from pollution.
5.1.2. Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages
Low-cost way to reduce rate and volume of runoff More costly in steep areas (need for weir
walls/terraces)
Easy to integrate into green space, including in
already built areas Limits use of trees in green areas
Easy maintenance, possible to combine with Limited use in high density areas
maintenance of other green areas
Effective water filtration and pollutants removal
5.1.3. Technical parameters

Shape and side slope
The average depth of a ditch is usually 0.7 - 2.5 m. Larger ditches are usually main ditches and are already formed as
channels. Ditches are generally trapezoidal in shape, side slope gradients depend on soil type. Generally, the slope is
1: 1.5 - 3.0, depending on the soil type and landscaping and safety concerns. As a rule, lower slope is needed in more
sandy soils as well as where the swale/ditch will be easily accessible for children.
The minimum slopes of ditches/swales are:
 1:1.5 for clay and heavy loam soils

 1:3 for dusty, sandy soils;
 1:2 in other soils.
Swales in accordance with international experience typically have a depth of 0.3-0.4 m and a slope of 1:2 to 1:3.
57
Where space or aesthetic concers limit the use of deeper and wider ditches and the narrower and shallower swales
are constructed, their capacity can be expanded by constructing an underdrain (perforated pipe) underneath them
that can capture overflowing water from swales.
Typical ditch cross sections are trapezoidal in shape, but there are also triangular, parabolic and mutli-level ditches.
Figure 95. Triangular ditch Figure 96. Trapezoid ditch
Erosion of ditch side slopes and bottom happens when there is high rainfall and groundwater flows. In particular it is
prevalent in new ditches, where turf has not yet established on slopes. A variety of side and bottom reinforcements
may be installed in order to protect the slope and bottom of a ditch from erosion.
For the strengthening of ditch slopes natural materials are commonly used - stone chips, special straw blankets,
ready-made turf.
Figure 97. Straw blanket reinforcement
The bottom of a ditch is usually strengthened with rubble or by building a two meter long slab of concrete at the
inlet of the ditch. If ditches/swales are built with higher gradient, the bottom and sides may need to be reinforced.
The table below shows guidance on type of reinforcement needed for different conditions:
Table 10. Ditch side slopes and reinforcement
Type of reinforcement Ditch gradient %

Sand, sandy loam Loam, clay
1. Without strengthening ≤1 ≤2
2. Lawn, turf 1-3 2-3
3. Clay, cobble stones 3-5 3-5
4. Chutes, spillways (rubble, >5 >5
concrete)
58
The side slopes are strengthened 0.1-0.2 m above the water level in the flow estimate.
If ditches are excavated at gradients higher than 5%, the ditches are called chutes. In these conditions the sides and
bottom of chutes needs to be made of rubble, concrete or other shock-resistant material.
Volume / velocity / flow calculation
Calculation of the volume of a ditch/swale is very simple Aapr.=L*ω, where L-ditch length in m and ω - cross-
sectional area of the ditch in m2; it needs to be noted that it is not advisable to calculate the cumulative volume of
the ditch all the way to the top edge of the ditch, but leave free about 10 cm.
As mentioned before, the water velocity in smaller ditches (2 m wide) and swales is between 0.1 m/s (flat areas) and
0.5 m/s (steep areas) and in medium (5 m wide) is accordingly between 0.2 and 1 m/s.
To calculate the velocity more precisely, Manning formula for open channel flow can be used:
(m/s), where
V – flow velocity, m/s
k – a conversion factor for different measuring systems (for metric units 1)
S – slope of the hydraulic grade line in m/m;
n – Gauckler–Manning or roughness coefficient: n – roughness coefficient, n = 0,035–0,040, if the estimated
discharge rate is below 3 m3/s;
(m), where
A – cross sectional area of ditch/swale (m2)

P – wetted perimeter (m)
The discharge rate (m3/s) is then calculated as V * ω.
A handy online calculator accessible at http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/manning could used for Manning
formula calculation.
Culverts and connections
Figure 98. Culvert outlets
In urban areas ditches often cross streets and roads, thus in these places culverts are built. The flow rate of the
ditches and the load from the road surface needs to be taken into account when constructing a culvert. Therefore,
regardless of the material these culverts are going to be built of, the have to be of the right diameter and strength.
Culverts under streets and roads must be at least of 0.8 m depth when measured from the road surface to the top of
59
culvert. If the flow rate is so high that it is necessary to construct a large diameter culvert, but the depth does not
allow it, the large culvert can be replaced by several smaller diameter culverts.
Figure 99. Culvert outlet
In order for the ends of culverts not to cave in and the sides of the ditches above the culverts not to crash, the ends
of culverts should be strengthened. Ways of strengthening are numerous and depend on the depth of the culvert in
the ditch, the diameter of the culvert and also the side slope.
In urban areas where the ditch is intended to enter into a pond, lake or any other open water reservoir, it would be
advisable to create a manhole or some other obstacle - for example, a retention basin where sand would be
deposited and which would be closed, if necessary, to stop the water flow to the basin. The wells are recommended
so that the reservoir into which all waters flow into can be cleaned as well as in an emergency situation such as ditch
water contamination. A good example is a manhole with adjustable valve/weir.
In areas where ditches end and water flows into rain sewers, it is necessary to build a manhole with grates on the
side or on the lid and to ensure that the well allows for at least 0.5 m deep sand and suspended solid deposition.
Manholes are made out of various materials, grates are non- corrosive and fine enough to block branches, leaves,
packaging waste etc.
Figure 100. Culverts under the walking path
In cities the word ditch is often associated with stagnant dirty water, waste, odours and mosquitoes. If ditches are
not cared for, municipal sewage may enter them and the discharge networks, culverts may get clogged or damaged,
and thus it might as well be true.
Any infrastructure and its components must be regularly maintained. Ditches are water collecting and draining
infrastructure.
60
5.1.4. Plants and landscape
Landscape solutions
A well-constructed ditch integrates nicely in landscape, increases biodiversity, and improves the microclimate in the
surrounding area. Ditches are generally constructed along streets and roads, but often they can be seen in parks,
backyards of houses and green areas.
Ditches/swales can be without plants – then they are just a gently sloping grass covered channels, where rainwater
can accumulate, drain to water collection sites or drain deeper into soil. Yet swales can also be decorative, the gently
sloping channels can be covered with decorative plants with decorative flowers and leaves.
In backyards, parks and other green areas these ditches have very flat slopes, they are typically ornamental with a
variety of attractive features, such as rocks.
Figure 101. Concrete blocks in a swale
An obstacle in a ditch which does not clog it is not only attractive, but also contributes to water splashes and thus
enriches water with oxygen.
Figure 102. Concrete blocks / ‘water droplets’ in the drains
Similarly, shallow ditches and swales can be decorated with rocks, thus drawing the attention of parents with
children (safety issue) and reducing the workload of managers as no lawn mowing is needed. Most dangerous places
can be isolated with decorative railing.
61
In courtyard ditches water usually drains from roofs and are easily purified with plants that are planted in ditches
and swales.
Figure 103. Rocks on swale margins
If the volume of water is more than from one courtyard, it would be useful for a block to create a ditch system of
different sizes that is combined with ponds in a park or a square. Such a system may be unconventional - such as
ditches with an impermeable cover, ponds and cascades in playgrounds, a good example is found in Rosklide,
Denmark.
Figure 104. Swale/basin made as a skateboarding half-pipe
Plants / materials
Suitable plants for swales and ditches are those listed in Annex 1 – plants suitable for shallow and marshy areas. The
choice of plants depends on whether swales and ditches are filled with water at all times, or only occasionally, -
either plants that prefer swampy areas or shallow areas.
As swales are mostly next to roads and streets, they are characterized by sand and dust pollution, and the pollution
caused by vehicle emissions, therefore, the plants should be chosen so they purify water from the polluting
substances.
There are plants that can be used as soil, water, groundwater and sediment contamination purifiers. Plants absorb
the pollutants through their root system and accumulate them in large quantities, creating a strong biomass. Plant
natural purification capability ensures that the plants absorb, degrade and stabilize the contaminants - heavy metals,
oil products, chemical elements and compounds
The best aquatic plant that we have that purifies ponds is reeds, because they have a strong root system of many
meters in length, but most valuably, unlike other aquatic plants - they have water roots. In winter under the ice the
reed water roots without any sunlight capture the nutrients in water and accumulate them in rhizomes. Water roots
62
increase the reed water treatment capacity by 10-25 times compared to other aquatic plants of the same height. The
nutrients in water and pond bed are used by the marsh plants, waterside plants and even trees, whose roots reach
the water.
Common bulrush (Typha latifolia) is a plant suitable for planting in polluted waters. The plant is very attractive, has
modest growing condition needs, has a tendency to expand unchecked, but it can be controlled by regular mowing.
Lucerne (Medicago sativa) - a plant with a deep root system. Thus, it captures pollution from the deepest soil layers.
Creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) - fine and decorative plant, visually resembles a simple lawn, but could also
absorb radioactive contamination.
63
5.1.5. Pictures / visual references
Figure 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111. Examples of swales / ditches
64
5.2. Retention ponds
5.2.1. Description
Pond is a natural or artificial water body used or designed for water retention. Technically ponds can be divided in
specific groups related to the type of applied construction methods. As SUDS elements the ponds are implemented
to ensure storm water retention, regulate groundwater level, and provide water purification (treatment) as well as
to manage excess surface runoff from agricultural or urban areas. Ponds can also be used as recreational areas, fish
farms and landscape design elements.
Ponds are usually constructed at the lowest terrain points and can be used for firefighting purposes too.
5.2.2. Advantages and disadvanatges

Advantages Disadvantages
Effective method for water retention; Only detention of water but not decrease in total
runoff volume
Provides water treatment;
Use of large areas
Regulates groundwater level;
With no regular inflow or water aeration, anaerobic
Stimulates biodiversity;
conditions and algal blooms may happen
Landscape element;
Perceived safety risks, if access not limited
Large amount of usable water for technical needs
5.2.3. Technical parameters

5.2.3.1. Ponds dimensions
As it was mentioned in the section on dimensioning of SUDS, the necessary water retention volume of a pond will
depend on such factors as:
- runoff volume of a design rain event, which depends on the return period (probability) and length of a
design rain event. The choice of these parameters, in turn, depends on whether the pond is used as a local,
site or regional measure, in other words, how large is the damage if flooding occurs in the catchment area in
question. For ponds used as a local or site measure, design rain event return period and duration will tend to
be lower (typically 10-20 years and several hours respectively), for regional ponds (catchment area more
than 200 ha) – higher (typically 20 – 50 and in some cases 100 years and even 200 years and one to several
days respectively);
- discharge rate and volume during the duration of a design rain event, which will decrease the necessary
volume – for example if discharge rate is 0.05 m3/s and if the pond is dimensioned for a 24 h rain event, this
will decrease the necessary volume by 4320 m3 ;
- necessary retention time in the pond necessary for water treatment.
One of the most important design parameter for ponds is the depth. Commonly used and most preferred permanent
water depth is between 1.2 and 2.5 m. Accordingly, storage volume will form above this level – between the
permanent water level and pond banks.
Ponds that are designed for water retention and treatment are often divided in two different sections – shallow
section and deep section with a bank or gabion wall in between. The shallow section should be at least 0.5m deep.
65
Along the bank of the pond (also in the deep water section) a shallow coastal zone with wetland plants should be
provided. Shallow zone adds to water filtration and sedimentation capacity, as well as promotes biodiversity and
acts as a safety barrier).
5.2.3.2. Cross sections
Slopes for the ponds are generally constructed within the angle of natural sloping processes (~30*), so it is crucial to
do proper geological investigation. If the pond is planned to be equipped with the geotextile, slopes are being made
a bit steeper. The slope of side should not be less than 3 to 1, but in some cases, with carefully planned access, can
be 2 to 1. In any case, at some stretches of the shorelines, where maintenance transport should access the pond, the
slope should be low enough for the vehicles.
If the pond is also being used for swimming then at least one shore should be flat and accessible for people.
If the pond is constructed for long term (all year long) water retention and if ground water levels are low, pond`s bed
and slopes must be impermeable. For doing so materials such as clay or special impermeable membrane are used.
Figure 112. Impermeable membrane
5.2.3.3. Inlets and outlets

In cities storm water enters retention ponds typically via sewers or opnditches. It is recommended to construct an
inlet manhole right before the pond for primary water treatment and filtration of large particles. The very last
culvert before inlet into the pond should be equipped with bars for physical filtration reasons, not to let debris into
the pond.
Water discharge from a pond can be organised with fixed culvert or an adjustable weir wall – it can be implemented
in a manhole or as a simple overflow.
Figure 113. Adjustable weir regulating water level in a pond
66
5.2.3.4. Water treatment potential
The crucial element to ensure water treatment is oxygen. That is the reason why water circulation is needed to be
provided. If necessary artificial solutions can be applied. For example floating fountain (Q=160m 3, 1.5kW) will be
capable to serve and aerate pond with the surface area of 2500m2. In some locations, where swales or ditches enter
the pond, the water from the pond is pumped upstream to ensure circulation.
When storm water is retained for a longer period of time eventually natural treatment processes take place.
Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds gets absorbed by shoreline and shallow zone plants, suspended elements and
sand precipitates onto the bed. These are the reasons why pond regularly needs to be cleaned and water plants
removed. Grass mowing on the sides must be done every single summer.
If there is a possibility for oil related pollution filters must be applied to take up runoff during the first 15 minutes of
a rain event, because it`s the most polluted.
5.2.4. Plants and landscape

5.2.4.1. Landscape design
Ponds can be generally divided into two large groups. The first type of ponds are being used mainly for economic
purposes – as fish farms, fishing waters, for watering the greenhouses and providing water for animals whereas so
called decorative ponds are recreational elements and are mainly used to ensure high quality of urban public spaces.
Nevertheless both types of ponds can be used as SUDS solutions.
If one does not know that beyond this decorative function pond also serves as a water retention site and storage for
melting ice and snow all that is seen is water mirror and the reflections it makes, as well as the plants. The main and
most valuable scenic value of any given pond is the water itself.
Beautiful landscape with open water and harmonic greenery can be ensured throughout the year and in any time of
the day. In such places walking trails and proper seating for viewing the pond must be implemented.
Storm water accumulation can happen in various ways – during spring time snow and ice melting and/or summer
rain events.
Storm and melting water can and will bring sand, clay and organic soil material that eventually ends up as pond
sediments adding into water many nutrients. Rainwater in summers is warm and doesn`t contain any nutrients
though it`s full of dissolved gases, dust particles, ashes and all the other dirt that gets washed away from all of the
surfaces hit by rain.
Therefore it is recommended to implement filtration systems to avoid water contamination. These filters can be
artificial (special installations like inlet manholes or cascade prior to the pond) as well as completely natural, for
example filter with reed plants meant to filtrate sand, heavy metal compounds and etc.
5.2.4.2. Plants
Shoreline of the pond is one of the most important areas. For ~40m2 big pond (area of the water surface) at least 70-
80 water plants are needed. The hardest is the first year of operation because the whole newly designed ecosystem
is still young and under stressful conditions.
Retention pond greenery can be divided in four different zones:
1. Deep zone;
2. Shallow zone;
3. Swampy zone;
4. Shore
1st appendix contains more detailed list of plants, design goals and conditions.
67
Trees
It is recommended to take caution while planning about tree planting near the pond, due to leaves falling into the
water in autumn that contribute to sedimentation. It is also not good to take trees from the forest and then re-plant
them by the pond. If there is a big need for the trees they should be at least planted in a good distance away from
the water surface and always – on the Eastern side.
Larix decidua – can be planted on the Western shore, though at least 20m from the water surface. Groundwater
must be checked for it should not be too high. Fast growing and beautiful for landscaping.
Picea – can be planted nearby the pond because spruces are growing well in moist conditions though it decreases
the ability to stand against heavy winds;
Picea omorica – fast growing but doesn`t feel good in dry conditions. The main difference from the traditional
spruce is the shape of the crown (much more pyramidal);
Pinus peuce – to be planted in dryer conditions, slow growing but immune against pests;
Thuja – these trees have the highest aesthetical value, grows in all kind of conditions. Allows to be shaped;
Acer – should be planted on the Eastern side. It is recommended to choose bush-like species;
Betula pubescens – grows in moist conditions, not good on the Western side or closely to water. Height is ~25m,
width of the crown 3m, very beautiful when combined with spruces;
Cornus – almost impossible to control the population if planted near the pond because the root system goes into the
water and therefore fares from it while the leaves fall directly in the pond;
Cornus sericea – can be planted on the slopes because branches transforms into the roots pretty easy. Many
decorative species with colourful leaves can be found;
Euonymus europaeus – great and colourful autumn accent;
Physocarpus opulifolius – fast growing and modest in conditions it requires;
Populus – fluffy and fast growing;
Salix – can be planted at a decent distance from the water body because of the high water consumption and
possible pollution risks;
Symphoricarpos – it is recommended to be used for strengthening the slopes
5.2.5. Construction, exploitation and maintenance

During the construction and digging also the maintenance plan should be designed as to ensure regular mowing,
cleaning and water regulation activities.
5.2.6. Security and civic engagement

Although pond is a beautiful and functional piece of landscape design and SUDS it can be dangerous to small children
and elderly people. This is the reason of choosing flat slopes for reducing of falling into it risk. All the weirs should be
gated too.
68
Figure 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120. Examples of ponds
69
5.3. Bioretention
Bioretention is one of SUDS best management practices, which serves for removing pollutants from storm water, by
utilizing soil, herb- and woody plants physical, chemical and biological treatment processes. The runoff is conveyed
as a sheet flow to the bioretention facility, which typically consists of a grass buffer layer and a ponding area,
constructed as: organic layer and plants, with underlying planting soil and sand (gravel) bed layers (see Figure 1).
Passing through the filter strip reduces the velocity of runoff; runoff flow is evenly distributed along the ponding
area.
Figure 121. Raingarden
Bioretention provides sufficient treatment effect for following runoff pollutants: sediment, litter, metals,
bacteria, oil, and organics.
Given inherent small size of bioretention facilities, it is usually a local scale measure, although a larger area
can contain a multiple number of bioretention facilities, each for a smaller sub-catchment. Sizing of a bioretention
facility depends on specific return period objectives. Typically bioretention facilities are built to treat water from
frequent rain events, excess water in extreme events is passed over to other techniques.
5.3.2. Advantages / disadvantages

 Provide a variety of pollutant treatment  Not appropriate for areas with the
mechanisms, such as filtration, groundwater level within 1,8 m below
adsorption into soil particles, biological the ground
uptake (by plants)  Not appropriate for areas, situated on
 Bioretention enhances water quality of the slope over 20%
receiving  If the runoff water consist sediment,
water bodies by treating the storm clogging might be a problem
water  Small scale, suitable as a local technique
 Can be aesthetically advantageous
 Can be well incorporated into the design
of green areas, streets, etc.
 Side effect benefits as providing green,
shadow, noise and wind barriers and
70
contribution to biodiversity on site
5.3.3. Types of bioretention facilities

Several types of bioretention facilities can be distinguished. Particular type should be applied in the design of the
bioretention facility depending on the situation on-site, soil properties and level of runoff pollution.
5.3.3.1. Infiltration/recharge facility
This type of bioretention is optimal for areas with low to moderate level of runoff pollution (residential areas, roads
with low traffic intensity etc).
Bioretention facility contains no underdrain, therefore is recommended for the areas (see figure2.1). Also, the native
(in situ) soils should contain high infiltration rate, this factor should be determined during design through thorough
soil testing, infiltration rate shouldn’t be lower than 1,32 cm/h, optimal soil infiltration rate is ca. 2,5 cm per hour.
The total depth of all infiltration/recharge facility layers should be not less than 0.75-0.8 m. Planting soil layer should
contain soil with ca. 40-60% sand, 20-30% top soil and 20-30% leaf compost. No geotextile layer should be between
planting soil layer and existing soil. The upper level – organic layer should be constructed from the fresh mulch,
proper maintenance of this layer enhance the infiltration capacity of the bioretention facility.
Figure 122. Infiltration/recharge rain garden
The ponding area of the facility can be flooded for extended period, due to the absence of underdrain. This factor
should be considered, when choosing the type of the bioretention facility.
5.3.3.2. Filtration / partial recharge facility

The filtration/partial recharge facility is suitable for areas with nutrient and metal runoff pollution, which should be
treated by SUDS means.
This bioretention facility design contains underdrain (see Figure 3), but there is no impervious liner used to separate
the planting soil layer from the facility and the in situ soil, therefore the facility allows partial recharge of the runoff
to the groundwater. The total depth of facility layers is about 0.75-0.8 m, similar to previous type. The filter fabric
should separate planting soil layer from the gravel layer around the underdrain discharge pipe, the filter layer
doesn’t have to be laid around the gravel layer.
71
Figure 123. Filtration/partial recharge rain garden
Important for this type of bioretention facility is also choosing the quality mulch for the top layer in order to ensure
proper treatment of the anticipated pollution amount.
5.3.3.3. Infiltration/filtration /recharge facility

Bioretention facility type is suitable for areas, where is needed the higher nutrient (e.g. nitrates) pollution, typically
residential areas.
The design of this bioretention facility type incorporates the gravel layer under the raised underdrain pip (see Figure
4). This gravel layer enables aerobic/ anaerobic fluctuation zone, which enables denitrification. This type of
bioretention facility also provides the runoff recharge within the gravel pillow under the underdrain pipe. The gravel
layer serves also as water storage area. In addition, this design enhances the quantity control points in this zone.
Filter fabric is laid between plant soil and the gravel layers; no filter fabric should be used on the facility walls and on
the invert of the pipe.
Figure 124. Infiltration/filtration/recharge rain garden
5.3.3.4. Filtration only facility

This type of facility is recommended with the runoff with high loads of pollution, such as traffic areas, gas stations,
extensive parking lots etc.
This type of bioretention facility differs from the previous facility type by the impervious liner, laid between the
facility walls and the in situ soil, in order to avoid the recharge. Only the filtration process through the different
facility layers enables the treatment function. Such facility design provides the possibility of runoff control.
5.3.4. Sizing and design criteria

Typical design of bioretention facility incorporates grass filter strip, ponding area, which contains on organic layer
72
(mulch), planting soil layer and sand or/and gravel layer with or without underdrain pipe.
 The recommended minimum dimensions of bioretention facility are 4,6x12 meters, although the preferred with
of the facility is ca. 7.5 meters;
 The drainage area for one bioretention facility is 0.1-0.4 hectares, bigger areas require multiple facilities. The
maximum drainage area for particular facility is determined by the sheet flow, generated by 10-year event rain
event;
 The ponding area is depressed in the middle to a maximum depth of 0,15 m;
 The planting soil should have infiltration capacity of min 1,25 cm per hour. The pH range of the planting soil
should be between 5.5 and 6.5. Optimal depth of the planting soil layer is 1.2 m;
 Aeration and drainage of the planting soil level should be ensured by the sand/gravel layer with the depth of ca.
0.5 meters;
 Native tree species, which tolerate wet conditions and pollution should be selected. The rate of planting trees
and shrubs is 2500 plants per hectare. The proportion between shrub and tree plants should be between 2:1 and
3:1;
 After the trees and shrubs are planted, the organic mulch layer should be constructed. The organic layer is
constructed from 5-7.5 cm thick layer of fine hardwood mulch or shredded hardwood chips.
5.3.5. Operation and maintenance requirements

The maintenance of the bioretention sites is similar to the maintenance routine of any green area. The maintenance
process consists following activities:
 Inspection of plants (trees and shrubs) every half a year. Dead plants and plants in bed condition should be
removed and replaced;
 Weeding. The unwanted spontaneous vegetation should be periodically removed;
 Mulching. Mulch should be replaces in places, affected by the erosion, our where mulch layer has lost its
functional and aesthetical qualities;
 Watering during the dry periods;
 Occasional pruning is a part of tree and shrub maintenance plan;
 Litter removal;
 Clogging problems might be solved by removing the mulch layer and raking the planting soil layer. Clogging
problem of the filter fabric can be corrected by puncturing the fabric.
The maintenance costs of the bioretention facility might be comparable to the typical green areas maintenance
costs.
5.3.6. Limitations
 Bioretention is not suitable for the areas with groundwater level within 1.8 m below the ground;
 Areas, situated on slope grater than 20% are not suitable for bioretention building. The maximum sheet flow
velocity is 0,3 m/s for vegetated groundcovers and 0.9m/s for mulch areas, otherwise facility may be affected by
erosion processes;
 Native soils with infiltration capacity below 1.25 cm/h are not suitable for bioretention;
 Constructing the bioretention facility on the area with mature trees may be problematic, since the trees must be
removed on the place of bioretention facility.
73
Figure 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 and 132. Examples of rain gardens
74
5.4. Pervious surfaces
Pervious surfaces (pavements) are an opportunity to enhance functionality of driveways and parking lots by adding
decrease of runoff function not requiring land take. It pays off mainly in dense urban areas, where space for other
SUDS techniques is limited.
5.4.1. Advantages / disadvantages
Advantages (+) Disadvantages (-)
+ Reduces peak flows to watercourses reducing - Many pavement engineers and contractors
the risk of flooding downstream lack expertise with this technology
+ Reduces pollution in runoff - Has a tendency to become clogged if
improperly installed or mainained
+ Can be used in high density developments
- Poses some challenges in cold weather
+ Reduced need for deep excavations for
climates, but is not impossible to use
drainage, which can have significant cost
benefits - Should be avoided where activities generate
highly contaminated runoff
+ Recharge to local aquifer
- Areas of low soil permeability, seasonal high
+ Will significantly reduce the amount of land
groundwater tables, and areas close to
needed
drinking water supply wells should also be
+ Eliminates surface ponding and surface ice avoided
+ Removes need for gully pots and manholes
+ Often very resilient to a lack of maintenance
+ Good community acceptability
+ Lined systems can be used where infiltration is
not desirable, or where soil integrity would be
compromised
5.4.2. Performance parameters

Peak flow reduction: Good
Volume reduction: Good
Water quality treatment: Good
Amenity potential: Poor
Ecology potential: Poor
5.4.3. Types of pervious surfaces

Pervious surfaces can be either porous or permeable. The important distinction between the two is:
 Porous surfacing is a surface that infiltrates water across the entire surface.
75
 Permeable surfacing is formed of material that is itself impervious to water but, by virtue of voids formed through
the surface, allows infiltration through the pattern of voids.
Pervious surfaces provide a surface suitable for pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic, while allowing rainwater to
infiltrate through the surface and into underlying layers. The water can be temporarily stored before infiltration to
the ground, reused, or discharged to a watercourse or other drainage system. Surfaces with an aggregate sub-base
can provide good water quality treatment.
Figure 133. Options in discharging excess water from a pervious surfaces base reservoir
Figure 134. Block Pavers Figure 135. Porous Pavement Figure 136. Plastic Grid Pavers
Block Pavers (Figure1) - These pavers are constructed primarily from concrete. They interlock with one another but
leave open, void space between the pavers to permit water to infiltrate into the underlying gravel reservoir. The
thickness of the gravel subbase, and the type of material used to fill in the void spaces, determines the amount of
infiltration permitted. A typical concrete block pavement installation consists of a soil subgrade, a gravel base, a
layer of bedding sand, and the grid pavers. The void space around the pavers can be filled with either gravel or soil
and grass. Block pavers are recommended for use in parking lots, residential streets, driveways, sidewalks,
pedestrian plazas, and roof ballast. Proper site preparation, installation, and maintenance are key to the block
pavers’ long-term success.
Porous Pavement (Figure2) - Porous asphalt and porous concrete are very similar to their conventional counterparts,
but they are mixed without the fine particles to allow for the passage of stormwater through the surface. After the
water passes through the porous surface, it is temporarily stored in an underlying crushed rock storage reservoir and
slowly released into the underlying soils. A geotextile filter fabric is placed on the floors and sides of the recharge
bed to prevent fine soils from migrating into the bed. The load bearing capacity of porous pavement is less than
76
conventional pavements because of the absence of the fine particles. The use of these materials is recommended for
passenger vehicle parking lots, event parking areas, roadways with light traffic (i.e. smaller residential streets), bike
paths, and pedestrian walkways.
Plastic Grid Pavers (Figure3) - These pavers are constructed primarily from recycled plastic materials. They can be
filled with either gravel or soil and grass, with the former being a better choice for more frequently used areas. Due
to their flexibility plastic grid pavers can be used on sites with uneven terrain, but they do not have as much intrinsic
strength as concrete pavers. They do not require drains, detention or retention ponds, or any other associated
drainage facility, but proper site placement, installation, and maintenance are key to their overall success. For
example, it is important to avoid directly routing large volumes of runoff from adjacent impervious areas onto the
grid pavers, because that could clog them with sediment and deposit salt on the vegetation in the winter. Plastic grid
pavers are recommended for use in parking areas, residential driveways, sidewalks, and bike paths.
Figure 137. Typical installation of permeable paving
5.4.4. Cost
Costs of porous pavement installation depends on the application method chosen. Materials costs are often higher
for porous paving applications but this expense can usually be offset by the need for less land, piping and other
materials that would otherwise be required for traditional stormwater management practices.Pervious concrete
costs approximately 20% more than conventional impervious concrete, because of its high cement content and
specialized quality control. Permeable pavers cost about the same as pervious concrete. When you use these
materials intelligently in a site plan to absorb and treat stormwater, and the municipality gives you credit for
their stormwater functions, then the use of porous paving ordinarily reduces total development cost by reducing or
eliminating the need for additional stormwater facilities.
5.4.5. Maintenance
The overall maintenance goal for porous pavement is to prevent clogging of the void spaces within the surface
material. The surface of porous pavements must not be sealed or repaved with non-porous materials if it is to
continue to function. In case of porous pavement where sand or cinders are spread on the roads for winter traction,
then vacuuming will be necessary at least once per year. Deicing salt does not clog porous pavements. Occasional
sweeping or vacuuming of debris will be required to ensure the void spaces do not clog. Educational signage should
77
be used wherever porous pavement is installed as a teaching tool for the public and as a reminder of maintenance
obligations.
78
5.5. Green roofs
Figure 138. Green roof
Green roofs are often described as falling into one or two categories: intensive and extensive. Intensive green roofs
have deeper, more organic growing medium or soil capable of supporting a wide variety of plants, often including
shrubs and small trees. Extensive green roofs are simpler, lighter and thinner in profile. They usually have a depth of
about 15 cm or less and are usually planted primarily with sedums and other drought-resistant, low growing plants.
If built on a large scale in cities, they show promise for significant energy savings and other environmental benefits
as well as a less tangible improvement in the quality of urban life. Green roofs are designed to intercept and retain
precipitation, reducing the volume of runoff and attenuating peak flows.
5.5.1. Advantages/disadvantages
+ Good removal capability of atmospherically - Opportunities for retrofitting may be limited

deposited urban pollutants by roof and construction structure (load
capacity, strength, pitch etc)
+ Can be applied in high density developments
- Cost (compared to conventional roof)
+ Ecological, aesthetic and amenity benefits
- Not appropriate for steep roofs
+ No additional land take
- Maintenance of roof vegetation
+ Improve air quality and climate in the city
- Any subsequent damage to waterproof
+ Help manage urban heat island impacts
membrane likely to be more critical since
+ Insulates buildings against temperature water is encouraged to remain on the roof
extremes
- Roof construction has te be designed for extra
+ Reduces the expansion and contraction of roof load
membranes
+ Sound/ noise absorption
+ Lower energy costs for householders
+ Habitat for urban wildlife
+ Food production
5.5.2. Performance parameters
79
WHERE COMPONENTS CAN BE USED? PERFORMANCE
Residential: Yes Peak flow reduction: Medium
Commercial/industrial: Yes Volume reduction: Medium
High density: Yes Water quality treatment: Good
Retrofit: Yes Amenity potential: Good
Contaminated sites: Yes Ecology potential: Good
Sites above vulnerable groundwater: Yes
5.5.3. Design considerations
5.5.3.1. Roof slope

The major problem associated with sloped green roofs is slippage. Without additional slope stabilization measures,
it is unwise to design green roof for slopes steeper than 2 : 12 (which equals around 9.5° or 17%). Slipping and
slumping can be combated by the use of horizontal strapping, laths, battens or grids. Using these methods and
others, green roofs can readily be constructed on pitches up to 7:12 (which equals 30° or 58%).
5.5.3.2. Wind
Structures on roof have to withstand high wind uplift because of their exposed positions. A strip of gravel, stones or
pavers around the edge of the roof can prevent such wind damage.
5.5.3.3. Irrigation
If green roofs are carefully designed, with an appropriate plant mix and substrate, and if the plants have been
properly established, there should be no need for irrigation except in the most arid climates. It is possible, through
plant selection, to achieve equally rich effect without the need for continuous water input, even in intensive
situations.
Four main irrigation methods are used on green roofs:
 Surface spray with traditional sprinkler systems
 Drip and tube systems
 Capillary systems
 Standing-water systems
5.5.3.4. Risk of fire
Avoiding flammable materials as part of green roof components and a border of 0.5-1.0 m of stones or gravel must
be maintained around parapet borders, rooftop windows, chimneys, etc. If these elements are used then it is
assumed that the fire risk is no greater than a hard roof with tiles. Furthermore, green roof vegetation composed of
succulent sedums is also burn-resistant.
Figure 139. Structure of extensive green roof
80
Figure 140. Section of a typical green roof
5.5.4. Vegetation
A green roof plant has to bind the medium together with a root system that persists all year round to prevent wind
scour and provide horizontal continuity to the system, improving its function and efficiency. It has to pump water
from the medium to the atmosphere through evaporation, but at the same time it must be able to survive dry
periods. It should be long lived. Most important, it should perform the desired service for the client and the broader
community as well, providing water storage and movement, cooling, food for pollinators, habitat and/or beauty.
5.5.5. Maintenance
 Irrigation is needed during establishment of vegetation for some roofs
 Inspection for bare patches and replacement of plants will be required on a regular basis
 Litter removal may be required (depending on setting and use)
Figure 141, 142 and 143. Examples of a green roof
81
5.6. Constructed wetlands (cw)
Constructed wetlands are technologies that use artificial wetland ecosystem to purify wastewater. The purification is
carried out by physicochemical and biological processes like sedimentation, settling, microbial decomposition. They
are natural systems that tolerate the fluctuation of hydraulic and pollution load, therefore they are very good
solutions for treating storm water. Given the in-built ability of this technique to deal with the wastewater, it is
recommended to use constructed wetlands for the combined treatment of wastewater and stormwater or to use it
for the treatment of highly polluted rainwater. metals??? oil products??
5.6.2. Advantages and disadvantages

+ The systems perform very well also with the - CW-s need large area
fluctuating water flow and pollution load that is
- The purification process is not very well
typical case for storm water and problem for
controlled and takes long time
conventional purification systems
- The systems are sensitive to overloading,
+ In free water systems the purification efficiency especially in cold climate areas
is satisfactory in case of organic matter and
nitrogen - In case of overloading and false maintenance
they may became the source of secondary
+ The subsurface flow systems have in addition pollution
also good phosphorus and heavy organic
compounds removal
+ They can be built in big part by local resources

and have low maintenance costs
+ The systems look natural, can increase the bio-

and landscape diversity and can be used as part
of landscaping of the area
+ CW-s use natural processes and perform as

ecosystems, they have low energy consumption
and they are the most ecological solutions for
water purification
5.6.3. Types of constructed wetlands

The CW-s are grouped to 2 main type of systems:
 Free water surface constructed wetlands are shallow ponds covered by different type of water plants that
support the purification processes (Figure1,2). The main purification is performed by microorganisms bounded to
the leafs and stems of plants forming biofilm, but also by microorganisms in the open water. The tighter is the
plant cover the better is the filtering effect of CW and the more effective is the purification of water. In cold
climate area it has been found that the most effective plants are cattail (Typha latifolia) and reed (Phragmites
australis).
This kind of CW is better applicable for treating less polluted stormwater, e.g. coming from the residential areas.
The systems are about 30 cm deep, in deeper water the growth of waterplants is limited. However, the free
water surface CW-s have also deeper parts to create more anaerobic zones to enhance the denitrification process
82
and total nitrogen removal. Because the systems require rather large area, they are constructed without protecting
liner, therefore they can be designed in the areas with water resistant surfaces i.e. clay. In cold climate the systems
should be designed with option to raise the water table, while in winter the CW can have frozen ice cover. Under the
ice cover the purification processes are still going on but they are slower, therefore in cold climate regions the
volume of water and the area of CW should be bigger than in warmer areas. The best calculation method for the size
of the free water surface CW is to use population equivalent (1 p.e. = 60g BOD7/d) that should be about 30 m2 per
one population equivalent. If the level of organic pollution is unclear some indirect methods can be used like 19-90
mm/d/m2 (the amount of runoff one square of meter ow CW can infiltrate) or retention time at least 15 days. In
case of storm water with low pollution level, the area of the system could be calculated as at least 2% from the
catchment area.
Figure 144. Principal design of the free water surface constructed wetland
Figure 145. Plan and section of the free water surface constructed wetland (Kaldec & Knight, 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers)
 subsurface flow constructed wetlands are about 1 m deep beds, protected from other surfaces by plastic liner,
filled by filter media (course sand, LECA etc) and covered by macrophytes, usually by reed (Phragmites australis)
(Figures3,4). The dense root system of reed creates favourite environment for microorganisms that perform the
purification of water including winter period. The system has better purification efficiency of heavy organic
compounds like oil and better efficiency during winter, therefore these systems are useful for treating runoff
from parking lots, highways, also for cleaning of melting snow collected in the urban areas during the winter.
The infiltration of water can take place horizontally or vertically. In case of purifying storm water, the horizontal
subsurface flow CW could be preferred. The area of systems is designed as 5-10 m2 per population equivalent, 20-
83
100 mm/d/m2 (infiltration rate of the CW), retention time over 5 days. For example, if the infiltration rate of the
CW is 100 mm/d/m2, and the runoff coefficient of the catchment is 0.5, then 1 m2 of CW can serve 4 m2 of
catchment area if it is designed to contain the most extreme events (precipitation 50 mm, runoff 25 mm), and 40
m2 if it designed to treat the first flush of 5 mm only (correspondingly 2.5 mm of runoff).
Figure 146. Principal design of the subsurface flow constructed wetland Figure 147. Plan of the subsurface flow constructed wetland
Figure 148, 149 and 150. Free water surface constructed wetland at the right and left, subsurface flow constructed wetland in the middle
84
5.7. Rainwater harvesting solutions
Rainwater harvesting and re-use solutions pay off in the situations where the possibility to discharge rainwater are
very limited, where rainwater discharges are taxed (or tariff is applied) and where there is a demand for technical
water use (mainly watering). Rain water harvesting is implemented successfully in the situations where there is no
separate stormwater sewer system and the rainwater runoff enters foul sewers, to decrease the loading on the
combined system during extreme rain events.
Rainwater harvesting is already an issue for those landowners who do not have rainwater drainage and do not have
rain sewers, ditches or water bodies near their properties.
It should be kept in mind that given large volumes of runoff, rain harvesting almost never can be a complete solution
for storm water drainage, as the available storage will be filled with water in a matter of minutes but will empty over
externded period of time.
Rainwater is relatively clean and can be used in many ways at private homes, for example, to water gardens during
dry periods or to wash cars. Rainwater can be used to flush toilets and in heating systems.
Storage tanks may be buried underground in the backyard and the water pumped from the tank when it is needed.
Figure 151 and 152. Water harvesting tanks
Water tanks can be installed outdoors under roof downpipes or alongside walls, in this case they need to be emptied
before winter time. A tank can also be installed in the attic of a building, so that rainwater can be used in winter as
well.
85
Figure 153 and 154. Water harvesting tanks
To know what volume needs to be harvested one needs to know where the water will be used.
On average a car wash uses 200 litres of water, a toilet uses up to 10 litres of water per flush, one garden watering
session depending on the water needs of species uses from 5 to 20 litres of water for 1m 2. Generally, the volume of
harvesting tank should be such that that it holds enough water for one week’s watering needs or for one month’s
household needs.
86
6. FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF PROJECT “(D)RAIN FOR LIFE”
6.1. Baldone
6.1.1. Natural conditions
Baldone town is located 33 km South-East from Riga. The population of the whole municipality is around 5700
people while 2400 of them is living in the Baldone town itself. Main features of the Baldone municipality includes
attractive place for living, businesses in agriculture, forestry, tourism and industry as well as historical resort
resources – medicinal muds and mineral water.
Area is elevated ~23-35m above the sea level (case study areas in the city are elevated 20-37m a.s.l.). But there are
also hummocks higher than 80m a.s.l. and the highest are: Riekstukalns (85m a.s.l. popular ski resort) and Morisona
kalns (82m a.s.l.). Thickness of quaternary sediments is ~20m with dominating clay and dusty sediments – more
coarse material (gravel or sand) occurs only in small areas.
Mean level of precipitation is 664mm, which exceeds the level of evapotranspiration by two times. Vegetation
period lasts for 180-190 days.
6.1.2. Planning conditions

Private housing areas in Baldone are divided in four different categories – dense territories, tenuous territories,
forest park territories and rural territories. Tiny part of city`s built up area is formed by apartment housing near Zīļu,
Daugavas, Lauku and Mežvidu streets.
Civic services and business zones in Baldone are concentrated around Rīgas and Iecavas streets. Industrial zones are
the smallest spatial entities of the city. There are only two medium sized industrial areas.
6.1.3. Rain water drainage infrastructure

There are both combined and separated systems for rainwater drainage in Baldone. In some central areas, rain
water are drained into sanitary sewer. Mostly, however, the rain water drainage is arranged either through direct
discharge into river Ķekaviņa or discharge into a network of historical drainage ditches.
87
Figure 155. Surface water drainage network of Baldone town
6.1.4. Study areas

Three study areas have been selected for the feasibility study for SUDS, based on discussions with the municipality
and existing problems with rain water drainage system (see figure below):
 Iecavas street area;

 Rīgas street area;
 Pilskalna, Skolas, Kastaņu streets area.
88
Figure 156. Study areas in Baldone town
The table below summarises issues with storm waters and proposed SUDS solutions in the feasibility study.
Table 11. Feasibility study areas and proposed solutions
Area Issues Suggested solutions
Large rain events flood the street and cause

Swales, ditches, rain gardens,
embankment erosion, in spring melting and freezing
Iecavas street area terraced rain gardens/wetland
waters damages the road surface and creates traffic
near Ķekaviņa river
hazards, polluted street runoff enters Ķekaviņa river
Rain sewers in Riga street,

Central square is flooded in spring, polluted street runoff
Rīgas street area filtration strip (osier garden),
enters Ķekaviņa river
landscaped basin in the square
Pilskalna Private home yards and basement are flooded during Renovation of ditches, rain
/Skolas/Kastaņu large rain events due to runoff from streets and sewers, retention pond, rain
street area inappropriate functioning of drainage system gardens
89
6.1.5. Iecavas Street area
The main problem with Iecava Street is because of intensive rainfalls and melting snow and ice, street gets flooded
and acts like a canal or trench - no storm water sewers or drainage system (ditches for example) is implemented.
Street is also connected with the steep Pārupes Street which also lacks any kind of storm water drainage, therefore
all of the surface runoff storm water flows onto Iecava Street.
Given the situation, the following objectives are set for the urban drainage system in Iecavas street:
• To reduce flooding of Iecavas street and dimensioning the system for at least once in 2 years rain events
and for once in 5 years rain events where situation allows;
• Treatment of water before it enters river Kekavina from sediments and oil products.
The conventional rain sewer system consists of rain sewer along Iecavas street, rain sewers on both sides of Pārupes
street, as well as water treatment (oil catcher and sand sedimentation) near Ķekaviņa river.
The proposed principal solution for SUDS in Iecavas street consists of the following elements. South of river
Kekavina:
• Cascaded swale on the Eastern side of Iecavas street between the top of the hill and Pārupes street to
capture, retain and convey runoff from the hill and part of the Iecavas street to the East of street axis;
the swale ends with manhole
• Swale on the Western side of the street to capture runoff from the part of the Iecavas street to the West
of street axis
• Rain sewers in Pārupes street as street space is limited for swales or other above-ground SUDS
• Manhole (well) in the crossing of Iecavas and Pārupes street where both Iecavas street swales and
Pārupes street sewers are connected
• Sewer connecting the manhole in the crossing of Iecavas and Pārupes street and terraced filtration strip
near river Kekavina
• Terraced filtration strip near river Kekavina on the Western side of Iecavas street.
North of river Kekavina:
• Concrete drains around school building to attenuate flow connected to the rain gardens;
• Rain gardens near the school and near the road;
• Bioswale adjacent to the street;
• Concrete drains at the bridge.
90
Figure 157 and 158. Conventional and sustainable drainage systems
6.1.6. Rīgas street area

Rīgas Street is an arterial street which leads through the centre of Baldone and always has been very busy because it
is used not only by the cars and lorries but also by cyclists and pedestrians. When rainfall events occur, storm water
flows towards lowest points of the terrain, infiltrates into the green zones, but a large part of the runoff enters
Ķekaviņa river untreated and a part of amount flows down the Ciršu Street and occasionally floods the basements.
On the left side (at the intersection with Daugavas Street) there is a square (public green space) with area of some
5500m2. Soil conditions do not allow infiltration so the melting snow forms big paddles and the square becomes
inaccessible.
At the crossroads with Lauku Street surface level is low and paddles by a small trench on the left side are drained
into larger ditch (near Parka Street). The trench cannot accumulate all the amount of storm water so during heavy
rainfalls bus stop intersection gets flooded. Because of non-existent drainage system residential buildings are
impacted too.
The conventional rain sewer system consists of rain sewer along Rīgas street and Lauku Street, ending with
treatment (oil catcher, sand sedimentation) before the outlet to Ķekaviņa River near Pasta Street.
91
Figure 159. Conventional drainage system layout
Figure 160. Sustainable drainage systems layout
Proposed SUDS system is actually a combination of conventional and sustainable techniques consisting of the
following parts:
92
• Rain sewers along Rīgas, Pasta and Lauku streets;
• Infiltration basin in the square made in the form of children playground in an artificial depression, with
the underdrain to Rīgas streets sewers;
• Terraced filtration strip (also called osier garden) at the bank of Ķekaviņa river near the corner of Rīgas
and Pasta streets;
• Reservoir/rain garden with underground storage volume and underdrain at the bus stop near the corner
of Rīgas and Lauku streets;
• Bioswales in the green zones between Rīgas street and Ķekaviņa River.
6.1.7. Pilskalna and Skolas streets area

The area in question is a residential area with narrow streets and no pedestrian sidewalks. In this area many of the
streets have no appropriate storm water drainage at all. The problem is that due to the historical construction issues
the street network is higher than the rest of the surface, so during heavy rainfalls or spring melting inner yards with
attached buildings are flooded.
As older houses are located lower than newer ones and the street network is higher because of the historical
construction approach, non-runoff areas are forming. Also streets had been repaired and repaved so almost all the
ditches have been clogged or removed.
Figure 161. Combined system for Pilskalna and Skolas Streets area
To describe the design of the drainage system, the Rīgas area has been sub-divided into two areas:
• Private houses along Pilskalna and Skolas streets;

• Kindergarten on Pilskalna Street and Daugavas 15 area.
93
In the first sub-area the drainage infrastructure on the streets can be organized either through open swales (ditches)
or sewers. Where remaining, existing ditches should be conserved. At the same time, new ditches should be
constructed where space allows; and where this is not the case – sewers should be installed. In private properties
small scale rain gardens with infiltration wells (manholes) should be implemented.
In streets where the existing situation of terrain, communications and place is appropriate it is advisable to restore
system of ditches or at least implement swales with drainage pipes beneath them. In Pilskalna Street it is
recommended to construct storm water collector with gullies.
In the second sub-area storm water from open or closed basin is planned to be pumped to existing arterial ditch. It is
needed (in this case) to build pumping station with penstock implemented until the well where the pressure is
reduced. Afterwards it should make an outlet into the ditch.
If the arterial ditch is intended to be transformed into conventional sewer, before the outlet into the ditch (near
stadium) another pumping station might be needed. Also reservoir should be constructed.
In the given territory it is proposed to construct two ponds with areas of 3147m2 (volume – 3304.35m3) and
1268.7m2 (volume – 2537m3).
Ponds are planned to be constructed at different depths, making the shallow zones to be accessible for private
owners. Gradually the ponds would get deeper towards the weir. Smaller pond is planned to be 0.5m deeper with
another weir at its deepest point. This weir could blot the smaller pond.
By doing so it is possible to maintain permanent water level in both of the ponds. Locally ponds could be used as
recreation areas with green public spaces around them.
94
6.2. Riga - Skanste
Skanste is a neighbourhood in Riga located nearby it`s historical centre on the right bank of the river Daugava. Full
area of Skanste is 214.8ha though this study covers only one part of it (territory westtwards from Skanste Street) and
has the area of 110 ha, consisting of 94 ha of plot area and 16 ha of street corridor area. The picture below shows
the location of the area within the Riga city centre and the division of the area into sections. The study area is named
“Skanste-West” at the picture.
Figure 162. Location of the Skanste area in Riga centre Figure 163. Sub-division of Skanste area into sub-areas
Terrain in this territory is flat and the surface is only few meters above the sea level (1-2 m.a.s.l.). The highest points
of area just exceed 4 m.a.s.l., while the lowest ones are as low as 0.5 m.a.s.l.
Geological conditions are similar throughout the whole study area and therefore can be described as “negative and
not appropriate for large scale building activities”. It is so due to the high groundwater level (typically 0-0.5 m.a.s.l.)
and quaternary layer which is 38-40m thick and varies in terms of structure and density as wel as sediments it has
been formed by. For example there are layers of coarse and fine sand, mud, peat and clay all combined in different
kind of combinations. The infiltration capacity of the topsoil is very low.
6.2.2. Planning situation

Skanste is the largest unbuilt area so close to the historical centre of Riga and it has been developing rapidly in
recent years as a mixed use development – residential, commercial, sports and recreation, retail, trade and services.
Skanstes street forms the backbone of the area, crossing it from South-West to North-East (see figure below). The
territory to the East of Skanstes street is largely developed, whereas the territory to the West is largely undeveloped,
one of the reasons it was chosen as the study area.
95
Figure 164. Bird-eye view of the Skanste area
Skanste development vision is contemporary and sustainable mixed use territory, centred on people needs. When
fully developed, the area will provide homes for around 25 thousand people and work spaces for around 33
thousand people. The planning vision for the area includes sustainable transport and extensive network of green
areas – parks, streets greenery, etc.
As a response to high land values and unfavourable building conditions and resulting need to employ piles, most
buildings in the neighbourhood are tall – at least 9 stories high. Planned development is likewise high, in places even
higher, with relatively extensive free area, which will be possible to use for SUDS.
6.2.3. Rain water drainage infrastructure

The main element of the rain water drainage system in the area is the pumping station located in the North of the
area at Skanstes street, to which all the rain sewers and remaining drainage ditches in the area are connected. The
rainwater is pumped via pressure mains in Northern direction to the next pumping station at Duntes street, from
which the water is discharged into Sarkandaugava river.
In the developed part of the area, there is a separate system for rain water drainage (rain sewers). In the East of the
area, along Vesetas street, there is a D1500 rain sewer main, to which combined foul and rain water sewerage
system of the Riga centre is connected via several overspills.
In the undeveloped part of the area, the historical drainage ditches exist, which are not maintained and are clogged.
The ditches drain to the mentioned pumping station.
The main problem of the existing system is the limited capacity of the pumping station, especially during the
extreme rain events, when the system receives considerable amount of water through combined system overflows.
To allow further development in the area, the pumping station as well as the one ar Duntes street needs to be
96
reconstructed. An alternative is to create local water accumulation capacity via SUDS.
6.2.4. Proposed urban drainage solutions

The main challenges for the urban drainage system in the study area are high ground water level, low infiltration
capacity of native soils, as well as drainage capacity limited by the capacity of the two pumping stations downstream
– capacity frees up after the end of the rain event. Therefore the main need of the urban drainage system is a need
to delay runoff and also provide water treatment.
Three different proposals have been developed for the urban drainage system of the study area:
 Conventional (sewer) system and a large water body;

 Ditch system with three medium water bodies;
 SUDS in plots, swale system, small water body.
All three systems have been dimensioned for a rain event with the return period of 10 years and duration of two
hours, factoring in precipitation intensity increase cause by the climate change. The precipitation volume of the
design rain event is 43.9 mm.
The three developed options are described in more detail below:
6.2.4.1. Conventional system with a large water body
The first option for rainwater drainage is the conventional system using gravity rainwater sewers (a separated
system). Considering that the capacity of the pumping station is already exceeded, it is recommended to construct a
surface water body (pond for example) to retain stormwater during the rain event and convey it to the pumping
station when it has free capacity.
To provide rainwater drainage from the streets it is recommended to implement gullies and subsurface sewers. It is
also planned to construct rain sewers under the driveways inside the quarters to convey the runoff from the roofs,
roads and rest of the area by using conventional rainwater sewers and open drains.
Conventional system uses four main rainwater sewers: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. All of the sewers will discharge rainwater
into bigger water body for retention within extreme rain events. Afterwards the accumulated water would be
regulated (released) by a weir and discharged into the sewer that is connected to the pumping station. The water
body is located as close as possible to the pumping station and where land allows it, as well as due to existing land
levels. The concept is visualized in the scheme shown below.
97
Figure 165. Conventional solution with water body
Because of the high groundwater level in this area it is needed to construct subsurface (beneath the street level)
drainage networks. They should be implemented at least at the depth of 1.2m and connected via manholes to
ensure their operation throughout the rain events.
Considering the overall terrain level of this area (low and flat), the construction of proper conventional drainage
system could be very expensive because it would require a substantial amount of ground raising (or digging for
98
sewer construction), so it is crucial to calculate rainwater sewer elevations with a considerable degree of precision.
To ensure the effective work of sewers (avoid freezing, negative impacts from the traffic etc.) the soil layer above
the sewers should be at least 0.8m.
The water body accumulates the rainwater from the area of around 110 ha, in case it is used for the area to the West
of Skanste street. The average calculated runoff coefficient for the territory is 0.47.
Storage depth of the pond is assumed to be 1 m, however if the permanent water level is at 0 m.a.sl.l, the storage
depth can be as high as 1.5 m, depending on the amount of land raising used. The water body can also have spare
capacity to be used for the extreme events runoff from the Eastern part of the Skanste area or NHC territory.
Depending on the storage depth and serviced area, the required area of the pond area is between 1.5 and 2.5 ha.
6.2.4.2. Ditch system with three medium water bodies
The first SUDS solution for stormwater drainage is formed by a system of large swales (ditches) and three larger
water bodies along Lapeņu street. The runoff from the plots is routed directly to the ditches and then to the water
bodies. In connection places of different ditches sections (under the streets), it is proposed to install culverts.
The volume and dimension of ditches has been calculated using the following main assumptions:
1. The depth of the ditches is 0.7 m, side slope is 1:1.5.
2. The depth of the water bodies 1 and 2 is 0.7m, water body 3 – 1m.
3. The cross-section of the ditch should be sufficient to convey peak runoff resulting from specific ditch’s sub-
catchment.
4. For peak runoff calculation, near future climate scenario and 10 years return period have been assumed for
rain intensity.
5. Peak runoff for the specific ditch section has been determined using the Rational Method, with time of
concentration on plots assumed to be 15 minutes, time of flowing through ditches calculated using Manning
formula for open channel flow.
6. The system is dimensioned to empty in one day (24 hours), when the weir is lowered at the water body 3
and the system is emptied by the sewer connected to the pumping station.
7. The slope of the ditches has been assumed to be 0.5 m per 1 km (or 0.0005m/m).
The proposed system is visualised in the figure below:
99
Figure 166. SUDS solution 1
In order to provide accumulation capacity in the ditches, the discharge from the specific ditches is set lower than the
runoff rate. It`s done by the use of culverts for connection under the street (for example between sections 1-1 and 1-
4) and weir for direct connections between sections (for example sections 2-1 and 2-3). The discharge rate of the
ditches has been selected as to ensure that the specific section of the ditch is fully filled during the 1 hour rain event
with return period of 10 years but does not overflow.
100
Nominal volume of the ditches and the water bodies is 26175 m3, consisting of 7835 of volume of ditches and 18340
m3 of volume of water bodies. Due to slope of the ditches, the actual storage capacity of ditches is some 15% lower
(6588 m3), total storage capacity 24928 m3. The runoff volume for the 1 hr rain event that takes place once in 10
years is 20214 m3 (near future climate scenario), 2 hr rain event – 23008 m3. Therefore proposed dimensions of the
water body allow for spare volume, making it available for connecting some additional areas.
Figure 167. Connection of the roads runoff via gulleys as well as street drainage to the ditches
6.2.4.3. SUDS in plots, swale system, small water body

The second SUDS options considered for the Skanste area is a combination of local plot SUDS systems that provide
local retention and treatment and a network of swales. In this case the city should oblige land owners to limit runoff
from the plots via planning regulation. In the proposed system the swales which are located on the side of the street
are dimensioned to accumulate and convey street (red line corridor) runoff. In the end of the network of swales, a
water body is proposed in order to provide additional storage in case of larger rain events.
The following main assumptions are made for calculating of swale dimensions:
1. The depth of the swales is 0.4 m, slope of the sides is 1:1.5.
2. The cross-section of the swale should be sufficient to convey peak runoff resulting from specific swale’s sub-
catchment (street corridor).
3. For peak runoff calculation, near future climate scenario and 10 years return period have been assumed for
rain intensity.
4. Peak runoff for the specific swale section has been determined using the Rational Method
5. The maximum flow of swale connections (culverts) has been adjusted not to allow overflow of swale in peak
runoff conditions.
6. The dimensions of the swales have been determined as to allow to accumulate within the specific swale
section the amount of runoff corresponding to one-hour-long rain with the return period of 10 years, near
future climate scenario for the street corridors, plus 10% to allow for volume loss due to gradient.
Assumptions on rain water retention within plots see below.
101
Figure 168. SUDS solution 2
102
7. The total storage volume within the system (swales and water body) allows accumulating runoff
corresponding to two-hour-long rain with the return period of 10 years, near future climate scenario,
considering that the capacity of the pumping station may not be readily available after one-hour rain, and
moreover provides considerable buffering capacity.
8. The slope of the swales has been assumed to be 0.5 m per 1 km (or 0.0005m/m);
9. Considering runoff volume for specific swale sections and discharge rate limited by culverts, emptying time
for the swale sections is between 1 and 3 hours. After this time the water retained on plots can be conveyed
to the swales.
Considering most of the runoff will be kept within the plots for a limited period of time and that peak runoff from
the swale system as limited by culverts/weir is estimated to be 120 l/s which can be conveyed directly to the
pumping station, the water body is not strictly necessary, however could provide additional buffering capacity,
treatment as well as can be used for retention of runoff from other parts of the area (to the East of Skanstes street).
The proposed area for the water body is 1.1 ha, however it can also be much smaller if the land is not available.
The figure below shows connection of street runoff and street drainage to the swale. In practice, land drainage pipes
can be located under the swales, and therefore distance between road surface and bottom of the swale can be
smaller.
Figure 169. Road profile with the Suds solution 2
Option of using SUDS in local plots assumes that all plot runoff is kept within the plots during the rain event. As
noted above, the swale system can be empty in 1-3 hours, which corresponds to the retention time within the plots.
However, given the buffering capacity of the water body, and the available throughput capacity in swales, it is
estimated that after 1-2 hours the runoff from the plots can be gradually directed to the swales.
Five SUDS techniques options have been considered to assess potential space requirements:
 Swales
 Rain gardens
 Filtration trenches filled with aggregate
 Concrete drains
 Water body (pond)
103
Figure 170. An experimental SUDS placement has been done in one proposed plot, which is to be developed by Merks.
The land take of the specific SUDS features is summarised in the next table. Considering that the green roof on top of
the parking garage (building “I” in the visualisation above) is a unique feature not exactly replicable in other cases, it
has not been considered in the calculations.
104
Table 12. Possible area of different SUDS techniques within a test block
SUDS component Area, m2

Infiltration basins 2066
Swales 735
Rain gardens 471
Accumulation drain near the 93
buildings
Sand pits in children playgrounds 791
Total SUDS area 4154
Total plot area 31197
% of plot area 13%
It is evident from the figures that the required space (3 - 10.5% of total plot area) can be made available. Moreover,
adding permeable pavements and green roofs, the SUDS area can be increased. Therefore it can be concluded that it
is technically feasible to place SUDS within the land plots to retain necessary runoff volume.
6.2.5. Developed systems cost comparison

The investment and maintenance costs of the three system potions have been calculated and the summary is
presented in the table below:
Table 13. Cost comparison of different options
Option 1 - Option 3 - plot SUDS +

sewers+WB Option 2- ditches+3 WB swales + WB
Municipality costs
Construction costs 2 997 123 547 579 396 468
Land raising costs 2 845 744 2 845 744 2 845 744
Costs prior to land costs 5 842 867 3 393 323 3 242 212
Land costs 6 225 064 9 806 966 6 605 605
Water bodies 6 225 064 5 376 463 2 677 276
Ditches/swales 4 430 503 3 928 330
Total municipality costs 12 067 931 13 200 289 9 847 817
379 091
Developer costs to 4 647 095
10 226 908
Total system costs 12 067 931 13 200 289 to 14 494 912
Maintenance costs per year 27 971 16 963 13 236
The total investment costs for municipality and land owners, taking into construction and land costs are similar in all
three options, but if the city allocates land it already owns for the ditches/swales or does not have to buy land
through planning solutions, SUDS system with ditches is less expensive. If the city decides to regulate maximum
runoff from the land plots (decentralised solution), then costs for the city are lower but costs for land owners arise.
105
6.2.6. Conclusions
The feasibility study has shown that the SUDS solutions for Skanste area are feasible from technical and economic
perspective. In the reality, most probably the three options will be combined to address the specifics of particular
plots and situations in the study area. The systems needs to be developed in more detailed during technical design
process.
An outstanding issue is sequence of implementation and division of responsibilities for construction and
maintenance of SUDS, as there is a lmitied experience in centralised maintenance of such systems. This issue, too,
should be addressed during further planning of the area development.
106
6.3. Parnu
The case study area spreads about 25 hectares in the North-West Pärnu (Figure1). Research area is surrounded by
the motorway Tallinn-Pärnu, Niine, Lubja, Rouge, Uus Sauga and Laeva streets, the left shore of Sauga River and the
former military airport area. The major part of the project case study area is currently without use. The former
function of the area is a Soviet military airport. The main groundcover of the area is young hardwood forest.
Figure 171. Study area
Top layers of a natural surface are mainly sandy soils. The investigated area is located at the coastal lowland, where
natural ground is relatively flat sloping towards the south-west (Figure2). The ground is the highest in the northern
part (Lõo street) area where the ground level is about 11 meters. Surface is lowest at the industrial zone on the left
shore of Sauga River. The natural topography of the river banks were heavily modified in the past. Ground water
level at the case study area is relatively high through the year, because of the flat terrain and specifics of the soil
layers. According to the field study conducted in March 2005 the ground water level was measured as an average of
0.6 - 0.8 m. During rain period ground water level may rise to the ground at most of the area.
The Master plan for the North-West Pärnu development area was ordered by Pärnu city municipality and developed
by the company OÜ Tinter-Projekt in 2008. The SUDS proposal developed within the the “(D)rain for Life” project is
based on this master plan. According to the Master Plan of 2008, the allowed land use types in North-West Pärnu
contain the road infrastructure, industrial, private, dwelling, public, public building and mix-use areas.
Figure 172. Planned (allowed) land use
The original development plan of the area includes maintaining the stormwater with the pipe system, few ditches
are also included. However, because of the high groundwater level construction of the pipe network might be
challenging. The area of North-West Pärnu is functionally and spatially cut by the road into two smaller areas. The
Master plan proposes a development concept, where the main built area concentrates in the south part of the road.
The spatial centre of the development is a green public space area, where also the ponds are located. The area
between the road and the park corridor is industrial, business area as well as mixed-use area (Business area). The
area situated in the south from the park corridor is dwelling and private housing area (Dwelling area). The area
situated on the West side from the road is planned to develop mainly as a public green area with an extensive sport
function.
108
Figure 173. Development area of North-West Pärnu and “(D)rain for Life” project focus area
Pärnu case study was divided into three sections: industrial area, low density and high density residential area
Rough calculations were done for all the whole area, to estimate if selected SUDS components can handle the
runoff of the design rain event, the return period of which has been selected to be 5 years.
Anticipated runoff in industrial and residential areas was calculated in detail. Considering that local data on
precipitation volume for specific durations and return periods were not available, the runoff calculations have been
done using the maximum flow formula provided by Estonian construction standard EVS 848:2003 used for
dimensioning of rain sewers. The runoff time of concentration has been assumed to be 20 minutes. To estimate the
total runoff volume to be handled by SUDS, the maximum calculated flow for a given return period (5 years) and
time of concentration (20 minutes) was multiplied by design rain duration which had been assumed to be 20
minutes.
Size of the industrial area is around 44 ha. Maximum runoff flow from hard surfaces is around 3,5 m3/s. Such large
hard surface area is inevitable in industrial areas, around 75% of the total area is covered with hard surface
(including roads, roofs and pavement). Green areas contribute to total maximum runoff flow around 0,5 m3/s. Thus
in total the maximum runoff which has to be managed by SUDS is around 4 m3/s and correspondingly the total
design runoff volume 4800 m3.
Size of the high density residential area is around 32 ha. It does not have as much hard surface compared to
industrial area, having total maximums flow from hard surfaces around 2,2 m3/s. Green areas contribute to total
maximum flow around 0,3 m3/s, giving a total maximum flow around 2,5 m3/s in total and correspondingly the total
design runoff volume 3000 m3. During calculations 15% from total plot area was apportioned for SUDS. Depending
on the plot type, 10-30 % of the area was defined as green areas.
Hydrological calculations gave assurance that given case study can be successfully solved with different SUDS
techniques.
109
Figure 174. Three sections of the study area
110
6.3.3. Urban drainage solutions
Dwelling area
Figure 175. SUDS proposed for the residential area
The proposed design contained mostly the parking and transport organisation within the yard. The contribution of
the SUDS alternative to the design was to sustain the functionality of the block, keeping the number of the parking
lots and the footprint of the dwelling, but at the same time proposing the green area for several SUDS elements.
The parking areas are repositioned from the centre of the dwelling to the areas along the roads, by this achieving
two goals: firstly, to create a green play and recreation area within the yard, secondly, to allow the extensive area for
the SUDS elements and allow better infiltration.
The number of parking lots is equal to the original plan. The part of the parking opportunities are moved to the area
under the buildings, the ground floor area of the buildings was partly reduced.
The area in the centre of the block is a playground and recreational area, which simultaneously is serving for the
SUDS purpose as an infiltration basin for the extreme rain events. The surface of the basin is covered with the grass
and has a gravel layer underneath. Each basin is connected with the pipe to the main pond, to drain the water.
The parking areas in front of the buildings are covered with pervious pavement materials and are angled to the
streets.
111
Figure 176. Cross section of the courtyard
Between the parking lot and the street is the swale, which collects both the water from the streets and parking lots.
In this way the water from the areas with car traffic is collected to the swales, clean water from the roofs is collected
in the basin.
Business area
The design of the business development area wasn’t defined precisely. Defined were the plot area and the maximum
building development footprint. The challenge was to keep the maximum footprint of the buildings and the
maximum of the parking space, since it is very often the demand of the developers, at the same time implementing
the SUDS techniques to this very intensively developed area.
Figure 177. SUDS proposed for the industrial area

112
The maximum of the area in this design proposal is dedicated to the SUDS purposes:
 The area between the buildings is occupied by vegetated raingardens, which should collect the stormwater
from the roofs.
 The area of the parking is covered with the pervious pavement, which is angled to the side of the street.
Figure 178 and 179. Section of the SUDS in the industrial area
The raingardens are connected through the overflow with the swale, which is embracing the development block
and collecting both the water from the car traffic areas and the overflow water from the raingardens. The swale is
connected with the main pond by a sewer.
6.4. Võru
6.4.1. Study area
Võru is a town in South-Eastrern Estonia with the population of 12 667 people. The town has been seleceted as a
study site site due to problems caused by the runoff as well as peculiar terrain.
Study area is situated in centre of Võru at the beach of Tamula lake. The case study area covers Tartu street from
beach till crossing of the Jüri street, part of the Vabaduse street from beach and area surrounded by Tartu street,
Vee street, Vabaduse street and the beach.
113
Figure 180. Location of the study area
The area is located near the residential, business and social land properties. In the neighborhood there are 4-storey
dwellings, 2-storey business buildings and 1-2 storey private buildings. Tartu and Vabaduse streets are two main
connections to the Tamula lake beach from the centre. Rainwater catchment area of Tartu and Vabaduse streets is
very large. Due to hilly terrain and large elevation difference between the centre of the town and the lake, high
rainwater flow rate cause flooding in the streets and erosion at the beach during intensive rain.

The research area is sloping naturally towards the Tamula lake (Figure2). The ground is the highest in the central part
of the city, around Jüri street where the elevation is about 80 m.a.s.l. and higher. Surface is lowest at the beach of
Tamula lake where the elevations is about 70 m.a.s.l. Hence both streets are quite steep.
114
Figure 181. Elevations (m.a.s.l) of the Võru and project research area
Top layers of native soil are mainly clay and different sandy soils.
Stable ground water level in the study area is between 1,8 and 3,55 meters below ground level, measured at the
boreholes located at elevations between 69,35 and 72,15 m a.s.l. In the boreholes located higher(elevation between
77,2 and 77,3) m some temporary surface water was found at the depth of 0,5 - 0,55 m.
In the periods of long or intensive rain and after intensive snow melting the ground water level may be high due to
low infiltration rate of the clay layer. Groundwater level follows the surface and is sloped to the direction of Tamula
lake.

Existing land use types around project are in Võru are private land, municipal land, public land and unreformed
public land.
Private land
Municipal land
Public land
Unreformed public land
Figure 182. Existing land use
6.4.4. Existing rain water drainage infrastructure

The concept of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems is a new phenomenon in the city of Võru.
At the moment there is stormwater network only at Tartu street. Drainage network is spread around Võru quite well
but still there is a big problem with rainwater. The existing systems do not perform well due to insufficient capacity,
they need to be reconstructed or an altrernative solution developed.
115
6.4.5. Study area catchment runoff
Võru case study area was first delineated manually according to digital elevation map. Total watershed area is
around 13 hectares. To get a better understanding how water moves in the given plot, watershed was divided into
19 different subbasins according to flow direction – see figure below.
X figure. Different subbasins

Designed runoff for SUDS has been calculated assuming a 5 year return period, and dimensioning was done using
flows, calculated from given return period. In terms of rain duration for flow calculations, 20 minutes duration has
been assumed, for calculating retention volume, one hour rain has been assumed.
Three different flow directions were distinguished based on existing runoff routing and the proposed SUDS system.
Flow to Tartu street, Vabaduse street and to designed retention pond (direct and via Vabaduse street). The
maximum runoff of 440 l/s flows to Tartu street during a once in a five year storm. Vabaduse street has the
maximum flow of 140 l/s. The average total flow for the one hour rain event, used for calculating retention pond
volume, is 385 l/s.
Necessary capacity for the retention pond was 681 m3 (60 minute long rain, with a recurrence of 5 years). However
double that size was used to dimension the retention pond, thus the volume of the retention was around 1350 m3.
116
Calculations confirmed that current problems can be solved with combining different SUDS elements.
6.4.6. Proposed Urban drainage solutions

The SUDS design solution for Tartu and Vabaduse streets contains sequence of elements, which provide the slowing
down of water flow, infiltration, evaporation, purification and step-by-step conveyance to the Tamula lake – see
figure below.
Figure 183. SUDS concept for the Voru town centre
The first step of this sequence is the system of raingardens, which would be constructed on both Vabaduse and
Tartu streets. There are two types of raingardens, each type on one street side. First type is quite large-dimensioned
and contains on two raingarden beds, connected with the overflow.
First bed is proposed to be with the planted tree and perennials and designed to take the water coming from the
concrete channel, which collects the water from the street surface and brings it to the inlet of the raingarden. Once
the first bed of the raingarden is filled with water, it overflows to the second section, which also is vegetated. In
contrast to the first raingarden section, the gravel layers of second sections are connected with perforated pipe
(100 mm), which drains purified water down the street. Gravel layer is separated from the other layers with the
geotextile. The total area number for both raingarden sections is 13,75 m2. Between the raingardens car parking
117
places are located, paved with blocks for better infiltration. Street surface is sloped to the street sides, where the
concrete drains are placed.
Figure 184. SUDS layout in Tartu and Vabaduse streets
The second type of the raingarden is situated on the opposite side of the street. In contrast to the first type it
contains only one section and doesn’t include the car parking solution. Likewise the case of the first type, the water
118
is brought to the inlet of the raingarden via the concrete channel on the side of the street. Design solution of the
second raingarden type also contains vegetation and perforated pipe going through the gravel layers.
The speed bumps are installed before the crossings with the Kreutzwaldi and Vee streets from both movement
directions. This would help to collect the remaining water, which hasn’t entered the raingardens and direct it to the
inlet of the last/first inlet before and after the crossing. These speed bumps are adjustable and are temporary
removed before the frost season, in order to prevent collection of snow and ice in front of the bump.
In case of Vabaduse street the water purified through the layers of raingardens is conveyed to the swale, which is
situated in the lower side of the Vee street. This swale conveys the water to the dry infiltration basin, situated in the
green area between Tartu, Vee, Vabaduse streets and the lake promenade. The remaining rainwater, which didn’t
entered the inlets of the raingardens (e.g. in case of very strong rain event) flows on the sides of the street in the
concrete channels and enters the swale, which is situated parallel to Vabaduse street in its lower part. This swale
also leads to the dry infiltration basin.
Figure 185. Dry infiltration basin
In case of Tartu street the major part of the water also is conveyed to the basin via perforated pipe which later
enters the swale on the lower side of Vee street. The minor part of the water, as well as the remaining water from
the concrete channels on the street side enters open drain with the obstacles (like cobblestones), via overflow
enters the big dimensioned vegetated swale with concrete walls, situated parallel to the promenade. This swale is
partly covered with the wooden deck, for safety reasons. From the swale water overflows via weir wall to the wide
cobblestone stripe, which crosses the beach and leads the water to the lake. This stone stripe is working against the
sand erosion in case of very extreme rain event.
119
7. PROMOTING SUDS THROUGH PLANNING
Municipal regulations and planning documents define the approach how to develop its territory at the local scale,
while the planning regulations of national scale directly defines specific requirements to be included in all the
planning levels (local, regional, national).
These requirements are the very beginning of SUDS implementation. It is crucial to include SUDS approaches in
higher planning levels to facilitate work of local municipality towards development of SUDS systems.
If pro-SUDS approaches are integrated within local planning documents and policies (development program,
construction regulations, spatial plans etc) it also allows to coordinate many different projects from related areas
and spheres. In the planning process this aspect is of great importance because it sets the scene for interrelated and
linked development.
These plans then can be arranged and united with flood prevention plan to make a whole system that works.
National scale
At this scale SUDS development is defined by national legislation which already includes binding laws for SUDS –
melioration law, water management law, spatial development law, construction norms etc. Ideologically SUDS are
defined at this scale, though more detailed development should be done at the local scale.
Regional scale
SUDS requirements must be included in the planning documents of regional scale too. At this scale SUDS
development should be integrated within flood prevention plan as well as with surface water management plan.
Municipal scale
At this scale SUDS must be included in local spatial development plan.
SUDS and local development planning
Local development plans and legislation must be developed in a way which facilitates the process of SUDS
implementation. Strategic flood risk management plan should contain recommendations for the SUDS too.
Recommendations for land use and construction
SUDS must be integrated and included in land use and construction regulations. It is recommended to implement a
strategy that all the areas of new development which exceeds 1ha should include SUDS solutions. Storm water
management must be executed within the given parcel to not to increase load for the existing drainage system, but
there should be a chance to connect to it.
Local spatial plans and newly developed street cross-sections should be integrated with the SUDS.
Ownership
It is recommended first to implement SUDS in areas and territories owned by the state or local municipality. If it is
not possible – in privately owned lands by an agreement with the owner or developer. These considerations must
be included in land use and construction regulations and afterwards also in planning permission.
Tax rates
SUDS must be developed in a way for it to be possible for private users to connect to these systems. This connection
must be executed by the private owner though it is a competence of the local municipality to facilitate this process.
Municipality should define a decent monthly tax rate for it.
If the SUDS has been developed by developer or owner itself the taxation could be removed. All the SUDS solutions
should be managed by a special municipal department or other legal body. Also the property tax could be lowered if
there are developed sustainable systems within the given property.
120
Responsibilities and collaboration
Municipality and related insititutions must become the owner of the streets and roads to successfully implement the
SUDS. If the municipality is not willing to overtake the ownership, both of the sides must agree on joint investment.
After the construction works the whole maintenance process should be done by the most appropriate department.
For this purposes there must be scheduled money in the municipality`s budget. Though there is an option to buy this
service from outer sources it would eventually raise the expenses.
Community involvement
Implementation of SUDS can not happen without massive and regular educational events and community
involvement. It is a municipality`s responsibility to facilitate this process. Local specialists must deliver decent PR,
organize all kind of events and workshops to educate people on why and how to choose and develop SUDS.
Big part of this must be dedicated to promote the use of SUDS in local green territories and public space.
Coordination with other planning areas
While developing a plan to integrate SUDS into regional or local plans, relation to other planning areas should be
considered (see table).
Table 14. SUDS integration with other planning areas
Norms and sustainabality Goal

Spatial development integrated with
Sustainable development SUDS must be sustainable in space and
time
High quality housing with adequate
Dwelling public space where sustainable solutions
and approaches are dominating
Development with respect to all the
Biodiversity
living organisms
Use of sustainable drainage solutions
Development and the flood risk
Monitoring of drainage networks
121

DFL SUDS Handbook Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DFL SUDS Handbook Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HANDBOOK ON SUSTAINABLE URBAN

2.2. Rationale for using SUDS .................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2. Objectives - treatment stages .......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3. Objectives – return period ............................................................................................................................................... 11

3.4. Dimensioning calculations at feasibility stage .................................................................................................................. 13

3.4.1. Local precipitation data .............................................................................................................................................. 13

4.2. Hohlgrabenäcker .............................................................................................................................................................. 23

4.3. Trabrennbahn Farmsen .................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.4. Drainage plan Borgele ...................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.5. Ruwenbos ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32

4.6. Het Meer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34

4.7. Coohen Nord .................................................................................................................................................................... 36

4.8. Eco-city Augustenborg...................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.9. Fjärilsparken Eco-corridor ................................................................................................................................................ 43

4.10. Vastra Hamnen ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.11. Rabalder Parken ............................................................................................................................................................... 49

4.12. Rain gardens in Lindevang, Brondby ................................................................................................................................ 52

4.13. Vilhelm Thomsens Alee .................................................................................................................................................... 54

5.1.1. General description ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

5.2.1. Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

5.3.1. General description ..................................................................................................................................................... 70

5.4.1. Advantages / disadvantages ....................................................................................................................................... 75

5.5.1. Advantages/disadvantages ......................................................................................................................................... 79

5.6.1. General description ..................................................................................................................................................... 82

6.1.1. Natural conditions....................................................................................................................................................... 87

6.2.1. Natural conditions....................................................................................................................................................... 95

6.3.1. Natural conditions..................................................................................................................................................... 107

6.4.1. Study area ................................................................................................................................................................. 113

The SUDS concept can also be visualised in the following way:

Figure 1. Multiple benefits delivered by SUDS

2.2. Rationale for using SUDS

Figure 2. Precipitation cycle in urban and rural areas

The SUDS planning process could be depicted in a diagram:

Figure 3. SUDS planning process

3.2. Objectives - treatment stages

Receiving water of Receiving water of Receiving water of

3.3. Objectives – return period

Figure 3. Dimensioning SUDS and sewer system

Location Design storm frequency (simple Design flooding frequency (complex

3.4.1. Local precipitation data

3.4.2. Sub-catchment runoff

Table 8. Typical runoff coefficients of various types of surfaces

Type of surface Runoff coefficient ψ

Impermeable surfaces 0.9-0.95

Stone blocks 0.45

Compacted gravel 0.3

Grass / lawn 0.1

3.4.3. Estimating runoff and dimensions for conveyance features

Q=q * ψ *F, where

Typical water velocities (m/s) are shown in the table below:

Table 9. Typical water velocities

flat Little slope hills

Small 300 mm > 0,5-1 1

Medium 500 1 1-1,5 1,5-2

Large 1000 1,5 1,5-2 >2

Small 2 m width 0,1 0,2 0,5

Medium 5 m width 0,2 0,2-0,5 0,5-1

Small area (<0,5 ha) 0,1 0,2-0,5 0,5-1

Medium area 0,2-0,5 0,5-1 >1

3.4.4. Estimating dimensions for storage features

• Run off factor 90%

• Max discharge to the river: 10 mm/day

System 1 (swale and pond)

• Discharge: 10*0,9*30(*10)=2700 m3/h

• Discharge: 100,930(*10)=2700 m3/h

• Infiltration in 1 hr: 50005/(224)= 520