WinSLAMM v 9.4 Catchbasins/ Hydrodynamic Devices Tab 5-D

1. WinSLAMM v 9.4 Catchbasins/ Hydrodynamic Devices Tab 5-D John Voorhees, PE, PH PV & Associates LLC Using WinSLAMM to Meet TMDL, LID, and MS4 Stormwater Requirements University of Wisconsin Engineering Professional Development Pyle Center, Madison, WI April 26-27, 2011

2. Research Results Entering Catchbasin Data into the Model Model Output Variable Sensitivity We will cover . . .

3. Catchbasins . . . • Are Inlets or Manholes • Must Contain a Sump • Are not very useful if streets are also swept • Are applied as drainage controls

4. Parallel Collection System Manholes Inlets with Sumps Series Collection System Device Performance • Device performance a function of flow and area • Model most suited to determining device performance in parallel • Can evaluate devices in series by running separate models with increasing flows

5. Research Results • A New Jersey study (Pitt, et al, 1994) found average removal rates of 32% for suspended solids using catchbasins with a suitable sump. • Pitt & Shawley (1982) found cleaning catchbasin twice per year reduced total residue yields between 10% and 25%. • Pitt & Field (2004) found sediment in catchbasins were the largest particles washed from streets.

6. Four Components to Modeling Catchbasins • Device Density • Device Geometry • Flow and Particle Size Data • Device Cleaning Information

7. Catchbasins

8. Access the Catchbasin or Drainage Control Menu to view the Catchbasin Device data To Access Catchbasin Device Data

9. Catchbasin Density

10. Geometry Information Use average values for the drainage basin you are modeling

11. Inflow Bypass Data Hydrodynamic Devices Only

12. Inflow Bypass Data Two Options – Either User-defined Maximum Flow, or . . . Hydrodynamic Devices Only

13. Inflow Bypass Data Defined Flow Diversion Geometry Hydrodynamic Devices Only Lamella Plates or Tube Settlers are also an option (See Hydrodynamic Device discussion)

14. Flow and Particle Size Data

15. Catchbasin Cleaning Information

16. Catchbasin Performance Algorithms Transition from Stokes (laminar) to Newton (turbulent) Settling Rates • Settling modeled as a detention basin assuming: • Vertical sides • No storage • Particulate removal based upon particle size • Flow rate calculated using Complex Triangular Hydrograph

17. Catchbasin Output Catchbasin Cleaning Model Results

18. Drainage System Particulate Solids Yield Before Drainage System Total After Drainage System Total

19. Catchbasin Performance by Event Additional Output Other Output Options • Stage-outflow data • Performance by time step • Stage-inflow data

20. Hydrodynamic Devices

21. Research Results • Clark (2006) evaluated the performance of inclined plate settlers for treating stormwater solids • Greb et al (1998) evaluated the performance of a hydrodynamic device in a City of Madison maintenance yard.

22. To Access Hydrodynamic Device Data Double-Click on this cell to view the Hydrodynamic Device data

23. General Hydrodynamic Device Information

24. Defined Flow Diversion Geometry Single Chamber Device Characteristics with Maximum Flow to In-Line Sump

25. Defined Flow Diversion Geometry Single Chamber Device Characteristics with Inflow Geometry Bypass Data

26. Testing Modeling Results for Proprietary Dynamic Separators. Vortechs Stormceptor DownStream Defender

27. Hydrodynamic Proprietary Device Information

28. Hydrodynamic Device Cleaning Information

29. Hydrodynamic Device with Lamella Plates or Settling Tubes (v 9.4)

30. What are Lamella Plates? • Key Variables • Fraction of device area with plates or tubes • Average tube diameter or distance between plates • Number of plates or tubes in a vertical line Increases the effective surface area of the device by the number of times a vertical line crosses a plate or tube