SEDIMENT REMOVAL BY GRASS FILTER STRIPS

MOHD HAIRUL BIN KHAMIDUN GS24188

Supervisor: Dr BADRONNISA BINTI YUSUF MASTER PROJECT

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia (MASMA) was only completed in
the design and planning stages but not fully implementation in construction site (Shazana,2009). Lack of monitoring by Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Municipal Board induce the development neglect to follow the requirement in construction site (Ezaruddin, 2006) . Construction site cause erosion and results in sediments being deposited and major pollution parameter from construction sites. Earthwork phase is a higher sediment load discharge than other phase in construction sites (Owen et.al,2000) In Malaysia, environmentally sustainable method still in slow effort. Design criteria that will maximize the effectiveness of vegetated filter strip are still in the development stage and research is required to support this application in Malaysia (MASMA 2000).

OBJECTIVE
Objective of this study are: Determine the effectiveness grass filter strips in removing sediment and total suspended solid

Relationship between the characteristic of the grass filter

strips with the removal the sediment and total suspended solid.

SCOPE OF STUDY
Investigate effectiveness of GFS using simulation
construction site runoff.

Measuring the percentage sediment removal which

depend on characteristics grass, varies flow and slope GFS.

The water samples will be collected at inlet and out GFS.

IMPORTANCE OF STUDY
GSF is a simple and economically to used as water quality
control.

To improve the management site construction runoff

requiring the MASMA

LITERATURE REVIEW
Construction sites stormwater
Sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times The resulting siltation, and the contribution of other pollutants from
greater than those of agricultural lands, and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forest land (US EPA, 2009). construction sites, can cause physical, chemical, and biological harm to waters resources (US EPA, 2009). EPA 2005 and Alice J. M. Champagne, 2005).

Transport fertilizers and pesticides by runoff into nearby lakes and rivers (US That sediment concentration increased during the construction phase

followed by a decrease after buildings and paved roads were finished (Les Lampe, et al, 1996; Brandi Lubliner, 2007). period. For the residential site, sediment loss from two large summer storms was more than 70% of the total for the period.(Dan Line,2006).

Sediment loss from the two storms was more than 60% of the total for the

Other Pollutants

1) Nutrient

2) Solids and Floatables

Nitrogen and phosphorus are the main nutrients of concern when dealing with urban runoff. If turbidity is controlled in stormwater discharged from a construction site, then phosphorus will also be controlled (Brandi Lubliner, 2007) They contribute to the increased turbidity of water, which makes it difficult for sunlight to penetrate to the bottom of a pool of water. The source of toxic chemical are come from adhesive, cleaners, sealants, solvent, oil and grease for vehicle and pesticides (MASMA, 2000).

3) Others Toxic Chemical

GRASS FILTER STRIPS (GFS)

Vegetated surfaces that are designed to treat sheet flow
from adjacent surfaces. Grass filter strips are among the simplest and most costeffective form of stormwater control measures (Ana Deletic and Tim D. Fletcher, 2006). Grass filter strips are often used as a preliminary treatment for an infiltration gallery and detention basin (David Yung, 2000). Grass filter strips are widely used as a environmentally measure for the protection water against sediments and associated pollutants from overland flow in catchments (J. Hussein et.al,2007; Alan D. Ziegler,2006; Humberto,2006; Majed Abu-Zreig et.al,2003; Ana Deletic 2001).

Process of GFS

1) Deposition 2) Infiltration 3) Biological & Chemical Process

Vegetated Filter Strip Design According MASMA

Effectiveness of grass filter strips.

Author (year) Region Type runoff GFS design Effectiveness GFS

K.H Lee et al Central Sediment (1999) Iowa US pumping

1)3m x 1.5m, Slope 20:1 2) 6m x 1.5m, Slope 40:1 Swichgrass (SG) Cool grass (CG)

Sediment - SG 78% - 69% CG 75% - 62% Nutrient - SG 51.2% - 31.7% CG 41.1% - 23.5% Phosphorous - SG 55.2% - 39.5% - CG 49.4% - 35.2% Phosphorous - 76% (600kg N) - 47% (150kg N) COD 40% - 44%

Matt A Sanderson et.al (2001)

Texas US

Dairy Manure16.4m x 5.2m, Slope 1% Swichgrass (SG)

P. Fiener and FAM K. Auerswald Munich (2003)

Agriculture

On-site collection data Sediment 77% - 97% Coshocton-type wheel runoff Runoff flow 90% sampler Area 23ha, ave.slope 3.6%

Author (year)

Region

Type runoff

GFS design

Effectiveness GFS

Humberto et.al (2006)

Colombio Mexico

Simulated Rainfall (66mm/h)

16m x 1.5m, (0.7m GFS) slope 4.9% Swichgrass

Sediment 25%-10% Nutrient 62%-43% Nitrate 34%-21%

Bahram Guelph Gharabaghiet. Turfgrass al Institute Ontario (2006) US

Sediment pumping

1)1.22m 2)1.22m 3)1.22m 4)1.22m

x 2.44m x 4.88m X 8.6m x18.15m

Sediment 50% - 98% 95% aggregates > 40 m trapped in first 5m

Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and Reed Canarygrass

J.Hussein et.al Griffith Univ Sediment pumping (2007) Australia (subcritical flow) (<4.76-mm sieved soils)

Griffith University tiltingflume simulated rainfall facility. (0.3m x 0.3m GFS) Slope 5% Vetiveria zizaniodes

Particle size in outflow primarily consisted of particles < 0.02mm. Sediment concentration of the outflow < 6% of inflow concentration

METHODOLOGY

Schematics of experimental setup (plan view).

Schematics of experimental set-up (cross-section view)

ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS Physical Parameter

pH, Temperature, Turbidity and Conductivity

Sediment Analysis
Weighing sample using the evaporation method

TSS Analysis
Photometric Method

THANKS YOU