Difference between revisions of "Clogging"

From LID SWM Planning and Design Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Grates==
 
==Grates==
 
+
[[Clogged drain.jpg|thumb|Drain clearly clogged by 9/32 = 28 %]]
  
 
==Geotextiles/filter fabric==
 
==Geotextiles/filter fabric==

Revision as of 16:08, 19 October 2018

Grates[edit]

thumb|Drain clearly clogged by 9/32 = 28 %

Geotextiles/filter fabric[edit]

  • Laboratory research has demonstrated that the performance and clogging of maturing filter fabric can be predicted mathematically, based upon the media/filter material particle size distribution [1].
  • Elsewhere the mechanisms behind the clogging have been studied and characterised using CT-scanning technology [2].

Due to concerns about clogging, many types of facility may be constructed with limited or no filter fabric within:

  • The use of filter fabric is referred to as a practice in 'older bioretention designs' In the upstate forever LID guide[3]. They go on to suggest that a choker course by used instead to separate the filter media and reservoir aggregate. Filter fabric may be used in side walls and should be placed directly over and within 2 feet of the perforated pipe drains when used in an underdrain.
  • In Finland the use of a choker course has been advocated for in place of filter fabric as replacing a clogged fabric layer would disturb established planting[4].


[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Filter media[edit]

Salty water has been shown to cause degradation of the filter media, and subsequent loss of the initial text and flow conditions [10]


  1. Palmeira, E. M. and Trejos Galvis, H. L. (2016). Opening sizes and filtration behaviour of non-woven geotextiles under confined and partial clogging conditions. Geosynthetics International. [1]
  2. Miszkowska, A., S. Lenart, and E. Koda. 2017. Changes of Permeability of Nonwoven Geotextiles due to Clogging and Cyclic Water Flow in Laboratory Conditions. Water 9(660). doi:10.3390/w9090660.
  3. Upstate Forever. 2005. “Bioretention - LID Fact Sheet.” Greenville, South Carolina. https://www.upstateforever.org/files/files/CAW_LIDFact_Bioretention.pdf.
  4. Tahvonen, O. 2018. Adapting Bioretention Construction Details to Local Practices in Finland. Sustainability 10(276). doi: doi:10.3390/su10020276.
  5. McLemore, A.J., J.R. Vogel, and S. Taghvaeian. 2017. “Bioretention Cell Design Guidance for Oklahoma.” http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-10743/BAE-1536web.pdf..
  6. Water by Design. 2014. Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines (Version 1.1). http://hlw.org.au/u/lib/mob/20150715140823_de4e60ebc5526e263/wbd_2014_bioretentiontdg_mq_online.pdf.
  7. Willard, L.L., T. Wynn-Thompson, L. H. Krometis, T. P. \ Badgley, and B. D. Neher. 2017. “Does It Pay to Be Mature? Evaluation of Bioretention Cell Performance Seven Years Postconstruction.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 143 (9).
  8. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. . “Bioretention Areas.” 1999. http://prj.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/bioretentionareas.aspx.
  9. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. “Bioretention Areas & Rain Gardens.” 2014. http://prj.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/bioretentionareasandraingardens.aspx.
  10. Kakuturu, S.P., and S.E. Clark. 2015. Clogging Mechanism of Stormwater Filter Media by NaCl as a Deicing Salt. doi: 10.1089/ees.2014.0337. [2]