Next Article in Journal
Applying the Water-Energy Nexus for Water Supply—A Diagnostic Review on Energy Use for Water Provision in Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Descriptive Analysis of the Performance of a Vegetated Swale through Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring: A Case Study from Coventry, UK
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Rectifier Nozzles on the Flow Distribution Characteristics of Parallel Pipes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Protecting Coastlines from Flooding in a Changing Climate: A Preliminary Experimental Study to Investigate a Sustainable Approach
Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Modelling the Role of SuDS Management Trains in Minimising Flood Risk, Using MicroDrainage

1
Centre for Agroecology, Water & Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
2
School of Energy, Construction & Environment, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(9), 2559; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092559
Received: 6 August 2020 / Revised: 3 September 2020 / Accepted: 4 September 2020 / Published: 13 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Urban Water Resources)
This novel research models the impact that commonly used sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have on runoff, and compare this to their land take. As land take is consistently cited as a key barrier to the wider implementation of SuDS, it is essential to understand the possible runoff reduction in relation to the area they take up. SuDS management trains consisting of different combinations of detention basins, green roofs, porous pavement and swales were designed in MicroDrainage. In this study, this is modelled against the 1% Annual Exceedance Potential storm (over 30, 60, 90, 120, 360 and 720 min, under different infiltration scenarios), to determine the possible runoff reduction of each device. Detention basins were consistently the most effective regarding maximum runoff reduction for the land they take (0.419 L/s/m2), with porous pavement the second most effective, achieving 0.145 L/s/m2. As both green roofs (20.34%) and porous pavement (6.76%) account for land that would traditionally be impermeable, there is no net-loss of land compared to a traditional drainage approach. Consequently, although the modelled SuDS management train accounts for 34.86% of the total site, just 7.76% of the land is lost to SuDS, whilst managing flooding for all modelled rainfall and infiltration scenarios. View Full-Text
Keywords: detention basins; green roofs; MicroDrainage; porous pavement; runoff reduction; swales detention basins; green roofs; MicroDrainage; porous pavement; runoff reduction; swales
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lashford, C.; Charlesworth, S.; Warwick, F.; Blackett, M. Modelling the Role of SuDS Management Trains in Minimising Flood Risk, Using MicroDrainage. Water 2020, 12, 2559. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092559

AMA Style

Lashford C, Charlesworth S, Warwick F, Blackett M. Modelling the Role of SuDS Management Trains in Minimising Flood Risk, Using MicroDrainage. Water. 2020; 12(9):2559. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092559

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lashford, Craig; Charlesworth, Susanne; Warwick, Frank; Blackett, Matthew. 2020. "Modelling the Role of SuDS Management Trains in Minimising Flood Risk, Using MicroDrainage" Water 12, no. 9: 2559. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092559

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop